This seems precisely backwards: Russia has a powerful political administration, which plans wars exactly as much as its military is capable of winning them (or at least they can adjust the plans when things don't turn out perfectly, as in the initial round of the Ukraine invasion). Whereas the US has much more powerful and well-trained military, but they consistently make plans for wars that cannot be won (or at least if they start out winning they adjust the plans to lose instead, as in the initial successful invasion of Afghanistan).

Have you seen the speech of Mr. Putin at the economic forum?

https://www.republicworld.com/world-...ticleshow.html

The full video is available on the web.

Actually, the post you wrote goes into this direction. Russia is actually economically very independant and very powerful. He mentioned as well, that US promotes ideas of the "US supremacy".

Believe it or not, "the West™" accounts for slightly less than one-third of the population of this grand orbiting rock. There are many other economic systems, including currency-exchanges and online trading systems to support them, which have nothing to do with "the West.™" And it so happens that both Russia and China are very heavily involved in all of them. "The West™" of course refuses to acknowledge their existence, or their importance. Even though their total economic volume is several times larger.

It is also ironic that the United States, easily the most belligerent and self-confident of all the nations of "the West,™" is well on its way to becoming one of the weakest. During World Wars I and II, the USA could sit on its side of the pond, mostly protected by it, and "out-manufacture anyone and everyone." But it gave away almost all of that domestic manufacturing capability to a nation which one day might well be its military enemy ... thus handing them a perhaps-insurmountable military advantage. If "all those thousands of container ships in the Pacific Ocean" were ever turned back by their Chinese owners, or if they became someone's juicy military target, then the USA would have no recourse and could not construct one in time. The USA has allowed herself to willingly become an actor in Bruce Springsteen's "Glory Days." Today she is in no position to fight or to participate in a world war.

During the Battle of Midway, Japan learned that the Battleship was no longer the queen of the waves. Thanks to the hypersonic missile, the USA would quickly discover that the Aircraft Carrier Battle Group isn't either.

Therefore, we would do well to remember a line from War Games: "The only way to win ... is not to play."

So, Putin speaking about himself on an event hosted by himself in his own quasi-totalitarian country, reported by a right-wing biased media outlet from one of the very few countries in this world that are not against Russia, is your idea of a credible source.

Got it.

To point to racism?
Racism is the issue.

Do you know any Germans from eastern Germany? Have you had any conversations with them about that time period?
My students are mostly Germans, they speak about it pretty often.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...s_2022.svg.png

Yes.

That's about sanctions.
I was talking about this:
https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/...mal/26946.jpeg

the map is non accurate.

:/ Vague references, no citing of the actual sources of data. (None on the parent page either.)

Wikipedia has Government and intergovernmental reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine which contains a variety of map charts, along with sourced reactions.

The first map has stripes which seems to combine statements from those in power and of UN representatives (e.g. see Afghanistan or Myanmar), but I'm still not sure it conveys positions as well as it could: compare the varied stances of Mongolia, Uzbekistan, India, South Africa, Bolivia - all listed as "neutral", but they're saying different things.

Anyhow, it at least provides something a bit more tangible to use for any arguments over accuracy...

You do know some of the countries on that map were forced to condemn it?
Remember how NATO says nations have the right of choice?
They do, if it suits NATO.
If it doesn't suit them, they will be forced to do as NATO threatens.

For example, my country is blue on that map only because we were threatened.

Public opinion is that we should stay neutral, though.
Because being neutral is the only way to be against the WW3. We don't want to be dragged into the war.

As for the Germans...

Fair enough, but the second map on the wikipedia page (UN General Assembly Resolution) looks very much like the one I provided.
Most importantly, these images of statistics are about the thing I actually talked about and not about something else (sanctions).

Now, let's talk about the rest of my post:
Can you back any of that with relevant sources?
Esp. the first part, about NATO.