(YouTube comment, 14/9/2023, edited 3/1/2025)
This is already World War III and is bears many similarities to World War II.
The Aryans then are the Slavs now, oppressing minorities in their own territories and claiming ever more Lebensraum. Germany was flanked by Italy and Japan, which will be China and Iran this time around. The war will be lost because there is no popular support when the lies are exposed, as the regimes aren't democratic. And that's the main point, for Nazi-Germany, Russia, and China alike: they are superpowers at a tipping point: economic growth is stalling and their demographies are changing. If the leaders want to stay in charge, they need expansion, and they justifiy it by the growth in the recent past. This may appear as a sense of invincibility, but for those leaders, it is their last shot, and therefore they must go all in.
Meanwhile, the "allies" - basically the US and the UK - are concerned that global trade will slow down as dictatorial regimes are unpredictable and bad for the economy as a whole. They can and want to protect freedom and democracy, so they support Ukraine indefinitely. However, eventually costs will need to be covered, so there are two options: speed up the fight and bring Russia to its knees right away, or move slowly and make it a war of attrition. They have chosen the latter, which implies higher total costs, which Ukraine will need to pay back. This is only possible when the Donbas is taken back, because of its natural resources, and when the black sea is a safe trade route again: basically when every inch of Ukraine's territory is liberated. This is also why Ukraine as a country makes geopolitical sense, it should have remained a buffer state, but the idea of a free and prosperous neighbour was threatening to the Kremlin regime. Instead, they belittle Ukraine, resorting to the tsarist label Malorossiya (“Little Russia”), when at first meant the Russian heartland, but is now understood as little brother, denying sovereign statehood.
But why didn't the allies go for the quick knock-out in the second round, after Ukraine miraculously stopped the foolish first offensive? Garry Kasparov had always suggested that only humiliation can stop Russia, and anyone familiar with Russian culture will know bullying is normalized and morally acceptable. There may be fears of nuclear escalation, but for the most part, Putin has left such threats to his propagandists in the shows of Solovjev, Mardan, and Skabajeva, and to the Telegram channel of his drunk puppet Medvedev. Eventually, a nuclear war is all but excluded, but whatever injustices Russia commits will always have an official stamp of procedural justice - even if they have to construct the evidence.
In my view, both the American retreat from Afghanistan and the reluctant buildup of NATO forces around Ukraine are because there are - in the eyes of the US - larger stakes at play in the island ring around China, with Taiwan being the main pressure point. This is also why China is a bystander for now: both Russia and the west are getting tired from fighting over Ukraine, and have reached a point of no return which may or may not end with a nuclear war, but whatever happens, it clears the way to annex Taiwan. This will obviously imply a collapse of the world economy, which is not smart if you will be president for another 20 years, but makes more sense when fascism begins to bother the population and before the opposition has taken shape. External enemies oppress internal dissent. This may be the near future, and it can not be nice.
The slow approach may give the west a chance against China, could prevent a nuclear escalation, and in case of a collapse of Russia, it would actually reinforce NATO to such an extent that China gives up its plans. It's a good gamble and to the extent that Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping are still rational leaders that do the math before crossing lines, it may work. However, gambling also leads to irrationality and then it will be a disaster.
