Post reply

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: January 23, 2026, 09:28:04 pm »

With Greenland apparently not in play after all, we are back to our only hope:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ6Gnq0ksMA

Woke comments:

Quote
In addition to Outer Manchuria, you also have Outer Mongolia a.k.a. Mongolia

Quote
A mate of mine suggested this half a year ago, with another reason added: water. China needs huge amounts of fresh water for their data plants, and Siberia and Manchuria have it.

Quote
Considering the fact that all these territories were ceded to Russia under the same unequal treaties signed with other Western powers, such as the U.K. and France, and considering the fact that the People's Republic of China demanded the return of tiny Hong Kong and Macau (really minuscule compared to the aforementioned territorities) from the U.K. and Portugal, one cannot but detect a sense of irony and double standard here. When pointing out this reality to some Chinese nationalists who would use all sorts of mental acrobatics to defend their motherland's hypocrisy, you can literally FEEL their cognitive dissonance.

Quote
We haven't seen China's army in combat but I'm pretty sure they're stronger than Russia. Plus Russia is massive so they gotta divert troops from Ukraine all the way to Siberia

Quote
NATO isn't going to initiate an attack on China - it's a defensive alliance primarily built to counter Russia. NATO certainly isn't coming to Russia's defense if China attacks them.

Quote
Definitely a better idea than Taiwan.

Quote
as long as Japan gets Sakhalin and the kurils. I support this.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: January 08, 2026, 05:18:54 pm »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELtZnnIC6IE

Let's hope both sides keep their word: Trump about invading Greenland militarily, and the EU about stopping him militarily. But I am not optimistic yet, as we all know about the TACO tendency, and there is also a chance that the EU leaders are bluffing to achieve TACO, and will back down themselves if Trump does not.

The US military becoming preoccupied with such a war would actually reduce the likelihood of the US invading elsewhere (Colombia, Mexico, etc.) and therefore should be supported by those worried about US aggression. Many leftists seem to forget this (or they might be False Leftists who subconsciously care more about "white" lives).
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: December 28, 2025, 07:44:08 pm »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57us0xQ-pUQ

Quote
Chinese invasion of Mongolia is likely to 
2:18
push Chinese-Russian relations into outward  hostility

This is what China should want, as in so doing it would gain many new allies among countries currently hostile to Russia.

Quote
and simultaneously double China's 
2:23
border with Russia

This is thinking about it backwards. Instead, we should think that it would double Russia's border with China. Who should be more worried about a longer border: Russia or China?

Quote
at a time when China would much rather focus its military attention into the East and South China

2:32
seas.

This is precisely the mistake that Dugin wants China to make: https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/war/msg29540/#msg29540

Quote
And with no Russian troops there, Mongolia  is effectively a buffer state between China and 
2:37
Russia.

Again, this is thinking about it backwards. Instead, we should think that, with no Chinese troops there, Mongolia is effectively a buffer state between Russia and China. It is Russia that benefits more from such a buffer state (which is precisely why Russia set it up in the first place: https://trueleft.createaforum.com/colonial-era/russia-the-last-colonial-empire/msg15079/#msg15079 ) So why not remove this benefit from Russia?

Quote
there are still
3:36
very few reasons for China to invade Mongolia. It  wouldn't gain access to any mineral wealth that 
3:41
doesn't already dominate through trade

What about the mineral wealth in Russia that it could far more easily acquire later by invading Mongolia now?

Quote
it would have to rule over 3 million people who definitely don't want to be ruled by China.

Which is far fewer than the equivalent number in Taiwan. Therefore we should minimally agree that China invading Mongolia instead of Taiwan would be an immense improvement. (To say nothing about the racial gulf between Taiwanese and Mongolians such that eliminating the latter's bloodlines would only improve racial quality whereas far more care is required in dealing with the former's bloodlines.)

Related:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/ancient-world/re-turanian-diffusion/msg31420/#msg31420

Turanist comments:

Quote
Disagree. Shallow research. Mongolia have own long history and culture, language that define as unique to any other country. We been here as nomads, hunters for 5000 years with China and Russia. All this times we invade china and russia some point also lost recognition some point. But we never lost our uniq identity as Mongols. You will suprise that Mongols have independent happy rich country that 3 million people with enuogh recouce to survive next 5000 years. Hope you learn better undestanding of geography and world. Stop being stupid and ignorant. Disrespectful to Mongolian people.

Quote
Take it back? You better be careful when you talk about Mongols. We invented Russia and China. That is why we can manage our selfs😂😂😂 you will never understand

This is why it would be a good thing for your bloodlines to be eliminated.
Posted by: PotatoChip
« on: November 23, 2025, 02:55:21 pm »

Is World War III Already Starting? A Geostrategic Breakdown | Prof. Jiang Xueqin
Quote
This is an exclusive highlight from Professor Jiang Xueqin’s public lecture on global geo-strategy.
In this segment, he breaks down the rising tensions between Israel, Iran, and the United States, and uses game-theory to explain how major powers make strategic decisions in moments of global crisis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsFgN4yByus

Comment:

Quote
climate catastrophe might be the wild card that changes all this though.

Climate change would most likely accelerate this outcome, and the global south would probably still pay the heaviest price.

Perhaps it's time to take all the information from this forum and start putting it time capsules?  ???
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: November 09, 2025, 06:24:37 am »

False Leftist stupidity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYt9letzkJ8

China's best move is to offer a folkist deal to India whereby India, without needing to risk any Indian troops, receives a significant fraction of however much of Siberia's resources China manages to acquire. If India then were to sabotage China's invasion of Siberia, it would be sabotaging its own only chance (since India has no way to invade Siberia from its own territory) to access these resources. It should not be difficult for India to conclude that it gains far less from sabotaging China than by simply waiting to receive the free resources.

Woke comments:

Quote
I think you VASTLY overestimate the threat posed by India to China in the event of a Sino-Russian War.

Quote
I don't see how India would invade China. For India to do an invasion of China, they'd to go through the Himalaya's and just don't see that happening. There is territorial disputes in the area, but both China and India knows the cost of going to war with one another would be devastating to both.

Quote
Both nations have strict no first use policies regarding their nukes and operating military aircraft over the Himalayas has the same difficulties to overcome as civilian airliners. Thise can be overcome, but only in small scale operations. Any war between India and China will be of limited scale and result in no significant exchange of territory, only loss of life.

Quote
China invading Russia to get their own oil in Siberia....... Timing? Now? Russia can not win on 1 front, so most certainly Russia can not win on 2 fronts. Wait untill Ukraine is victorious? Russian men of fighting age will have been exterminated by then, but Russia is putting everything in building a military industrial complex at this moment , and that capacity would ba available when they stop fighting Ukraine. Seems to me this would be the ideal time for China if they want to take the Siberian oil.

Quote
The Nazis called it "liebensraum".... What will the chinese call it??

Quote
China will benefit if it takes areas like Lake Baikal and leaves Taiwan alone.

Quote
Taiwan which has preserved the culture while continuing to develop.

Quote
Taiwans main value to China, is a technological and economic powerhouse, that will never pose any serious threat. Instead, the cultural bonds, if carefully nurtured, would make an excellent ally in practice.

Quote
fingers crossed for a Mandate of Heaven to overthrow Xi
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: November 07, 2025, 01:53:50 am »

Balla also looks like what we would expect:

Posted by: Zhang Caizhi
« on: November 06, 2025, 06:44:16 pm »

Quote
The countries boycotting Durban IV were: Albania, Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Estonia, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Moldova, Netherlands, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, UK, US and Uruguay. The European Union also did not participate or speak at the commemoration.

Hmm, Albania?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albania%E2%80%93Israel_relations

Quote
In 2008, direct commercial flights began between the two countries.[19] The countries also agreed to eliminate the need for tourist visas between them.[20]

In 2020, Albania became the first Muslim-majority country to formally adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism and promise to fight anti-Jewish prejudice.[4] The measure to adopt the definition was proposed by Socialist Party MP Taulant Balla, and accepted unanimously by the Parliament of Albania.[4][31]
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: November 05, 2025, 04:00:43 pm »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11vRSCvwFWE

Estonia should take back its territory ASAP:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian%E2%80%93Russian_territorial_dispute

Quote
Estonian–Russian territorial dispute have clouded Estonia–Russia relations. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Estonia had hoped for the return of more than 2,000 square kilometers (770 sq mi) of territory annexed by Russia after World War II in 1945.

Which is not to say that Estonia is in any way on our side:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia%E2%80%93Israel_relations

Quote
Estonian nationals and Israeli nationals can visit each other without visa.
...
Estonia adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism[4] and Estonia is one of the countries to boycott Durban IV Conference in 2021.[5]
...
The Estonian police arrested five who distribute antisemitic and pro-Hamas leaflets in Tallinn on 7 November.[7] In 2024 Estonia suspended funding to UNRWA due to Hamas links accusations.[8]

The best outcome is as many deaths as possible on both sides.

(Further information about Durban IV:

https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/38-countries-boycott-antisemitic-durban-iv-conference

Quote
A total of 38 countries openly boycotted the 20th anniversary of the World Conference Against Racism in Durban on Wednesday citing concerns of antisemitism and anti-Israel bias.

The countries boycotting Durban IV were: Albania, Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Estonia, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Moldova, Netherlands, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, UK, US and Uruguay. The European Union also did not participate or speak at the commemoration.
...
Iran, Syria and the Palestinian Authority used the Durban platform as an opportunity to vilify Israel, alleging that Israel is a racist, colonial and apartheid state.
)
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: July 18, 2025, 08:06:18 pm »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVgnWyiu-24

So what is NATO waiting for?
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: April 20, 2025, 05:22:58 pm »

While I agree with the sentiment, we still need to worry about Russian counterstrikes. Russia's large land area gives it a considerable advantage in nuclear war against territorially smaller countries:



On account of the above, I recommend joint conventional invasions of Russia first. Russia has repeatedly threatened use of nukes in reaction to everything happening that it dislikes, but has never actually followed through on its threats, therefore we should not be too worried about a nuclear response to conventional invasions. The aim of the conventional invasions should be to capture enough Russian WMD facilities to minimize Russia's advantage.
Posted by: FUCKEMALL!!!
« on: April 20, 2025, 03:35:49 am »

LET'S NUKE RUSSIA!!!!!!! NUKE RUSSIA NOW!!! **** IT!!! NUKE PUTIN AND RUSSIA ASAP!!!!! NUKE RUSSIA NOW!!!!
Posted by: RussianAsset?
« on: March 17, 2025, 09:23:17 pm »

Defeating Putin Might Be the ONLY WAY to Stop WW3!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3L8iX1n6ek
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: March 11, 2025, 10:11:31 pm »

I disagree. Unless the Indian government offers the same security guarantee to all migrants from all countries to all countries, it would be applying an ingroup-outgroup double-standard. It should be the local government that offers any such security guarantees to immigrants. It is the one with the pragmatic incentive to do so, after all, since it wants to keep them around paying taxes, and indeed attract more immigrants (and hence their tax money) if possible based on the positive reviews of existing immigrants.
Posted by: rp
« on: March 11, 2025, 09:00:29 pm »

I see. Thank you for clearing that up. But I will say that emigrants need a security guarantee from the Indisn government, as they are subjected to racist attacks.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: March 11, 2025, 08:39:36 pm »

India lacks pre-colonial-era historical ties to Australia. India is not the only former victim of British colonialism, so by your reasoning every former victim of British colonialism would have a similarly valid claim to Australia. In that case who should rule Australia?

You seem to be confusing economic justice (which is to be sought by migration by former victims of Western colonialism to the territories of former colonial powers) with statal ownership of territory. I would not mind Australia being demographically 100% populated by people of Indian ancestry, but that population should not be paying taxes to India, but should be paying taxes to whomever rules Australia in the future (preferably Nusantara). People of Indian ancestry in future Australia will be equivalent to people of Indian ancestry in present-day Singapore.