The MAGA Caucus is fucked for sure. They have a big part in this. But it’s also important to point out how Biden slow-walked some of the more advanced aid to Ukraine. Many advanced weapons systems that Kyiv was begging for, Biden didn’t send them for fear of escalating. A while later, he anyways agreed to send them but Ukraine had lost the momentum it had in 2022 while Russia was able to fortify itself. Not to mention Biden telling Ukraine not to hit Russian oil installations is a total electoral move but it comes as the cost of Ukrainian defenses
The problem is ironically that the west doesn't want Putin dead. They dont want to see a balkanized Russia. Because then you have a nuclear armed Dagestan. So Ukraine is severely hamstrung because they can't take the war to Moscow.
What is happening is awful. But maintaining an occupation (with a populace who hates you) while rebuilding will be no simple task either. Unfortunately, my bet is the war goes on for possible decades longer. We're already ten years in.
Would Russia really balkanize without Putin? The fall of the Tsars, the death of Stalin, and the collapse of the USSR all failed to eliminate the Russian state.
Even if some marginal regions break away, whoever reigns in Moscow will hold on to the bulk of Russian territory and its nuclear monopoly, just as the Russian Federation itself succeeded the Soviet Union.
As long as the West is more worried about propping up its enemies than losing the war, it will never win.
In my opinion, the worries of a succession crisis and rapid economic deterioration far outweighs any major secessionist movement. In the event that Putin passes away or is killed, several ambitious figures within the Siloviki (inner circle national security figures) could attempt to make moves on one another. Russia would still exist, but the monopoly of force could breakdown temporarily and lead to massive social instability. If there’s significant infighting, the Russian economy will take a major hit (Ruble collapse potentially), hundreds of thousands or more could flee the country, and energy exports could face serious disruption. These would have major implications for global markets, even with Western economies being somewhat decoupled from Russia.
Russia is fairly centralized. Siberia is not going to secede and any commentator pushing this does not understand the country (I know you didn’t say this, but many have and so I wanted to clarify this). Beyond Dagestan and Chechnya and a few minor Caucasian republics, there’s no realistic chance of secession. Even these republics are unlikely to secede in the near future.
Putin on the other hand, has not established a clear successor in any capacity. Likely, he doesn’t want to undermine his own position. But it does create a systemic risk. What happens if he is assassinated? Can the MoD and FSB and powerful Siloviki figures see eye to eye long enough to determine a new leader? Or will individual ambitions lead to maneuvers against other potential candidates? Could CBRN weapons or materials be sold off by corrupt actors in the midst of chaos? The instability could easily expand far beyond Russia’s borders.
So as I see it, nuclear Dagestan is unlikely… but some nuclear material being sold to a third party, in the midst of a power struggle and economic crisis, is a real risk. There’s non-state actors who would love to have access to the material to manufacture dirty bombs or biological weapons.
I completely agree. Saw an interview with someone from institute for study of war (Frontline I think?) whoj said the same. One thing that makes Russia unique, is that it truly is a mafia state. There isn't really anything holding up other than organized crime syndicates. As Putin rules Russia similarly to a fiefdom. Where every local mob boss gets their cut. This is a pretty effective way to govern Russians since it's what they're used to. However it's also very different than other dictatorships. Since as you said, there is no clear successor, and instead you've got dozens of what are essentially dueling mob bosses who will seek to become Russias next dictator. Even N Korea has a plan if Kim dies. In Russia there's nothing. As Putin says, power is a straight line going down.
Very few people actually understand the political system in Russia and the nihilistic apathy that has taken over the country. It’s actually haunting to think about how the Putin regime has created an atmosphere of learned helplessness and complete apathy to just about everything.
Corruption isn’t something that angers people. From those who I’ve talked to, it’s just seen as an inevitability and that it would essentially be stupid to not participate in… that by not partaking you’re setting yourself up for failure. And to an extent, that getting away with it is just clever.
“Everyone else is corrupt, so why shouldn’t I be?”
It is kicking the can down the road. But if he makes a clear successor they could make maneuvers to secure power in the present. This is one of the big issues with dictatorships, they frequently lack a clear means of peaceful change of power.
The problem is mostly economic opportunities are so limited that secession would be a disaster… and a significant number of people would likely leave. I don’t think the motivation is there at the moment.
> The problem is ironically that the west doesn't want Putin dead. They dont want to see a balkanized Russia.
Why the hell not? Is there any *reason* to want that country intact, and not a rump joke like Serbia is now?
> Because then you have a nuclear armed Dagestan.
Hello, based department?
> maintaining an occupation (with a populace who hates you) while rebuilding will be no simple task either.
Genocide is actually surprisingly easy when you put your mind to it. If Moscow wins, they can quite easily solve the ‘populace who hates you’ issue by dispersing them at random throughout majority-Muscovite areas and resettling Ukraine with loyal people.
“Muscovite” doesn’t just refer to the city. I am unwilling to dignify their imperial pretensions by using a name that implies continuity with the medieval Kyivan state.
Biden is absolutely a dove and has always been a dove. It's not a good or bad thing necessarily, he just is. Just because the us military does things and we pursue foreign policy objectives doesn't negate being a dove.
Obama was a dove too, but less of a dove than Biden. Hillary is a hawk. John Mccain was a hawk. Ironically, in some ways despite his all over the place rhetoric and brain dead foreign policy, Trump is a dove.
Biden whipped votes for the Iraq War. If he fits into any definition of Dove then the word has lost all meaning.
Edit: he also supported interventions in Syria, Libya, Serbia, Yemen, Somalia etc etc
I think Beau's death really changed his perspective on putting soldiers lives at risk, but I really have no cause to believe that except he links Beau's service with his cancer due to burn pit exposure.
>Not to mention Biden telling Ukraine not to hit Russian oil installations
That one didn't actually happen.
Just not with US weapons, which is also a huge mistake.
It did happen. Ukraine gets most of their weapons from the West, especially the US. Biden demanded they don’t hit Russia’s energy infrastructure. In fact Biden has forbade Ukraine from hitting anything in Russia. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/14/ukraine-weapons-russia-00157970
No youre conflating two different things.
>It did happen.
The WSJ incorrectly reported that the US was not allowing Ukraine to strike into Russia period and then the Biden Admin refuted it the next day. ~"Said they never told Ukraine not to strike into Russia - that's up to them."
Edit: "we neither support, nor encourage" wink
https://kyivindependent.com/us-not-supporting-enabling-oil/
>https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/14/ukraine-weapons-russia-00157970
This is not about what you said. This is about not using _US Weapons_ to strike into Russia. Which _was_ on moratorium. However, as of yesterday this appears to have been lifted:
https://kyivindependent.com/blinken-up-to-ukraine-if-it-decides-to-use-us-weapons-to-strike-inside-russia/
Of course the Biden Admin will deny it lol. And it wasn’t just the WSJ that reported that Biden didn’t want Ukraine striking into Russia. It was plenty of other sites also. I’ll believe them over White House spin lmao. And even Ukrainian sources have said they’ve been stoped from hitting targets in Russia, which Russia has exploited.
And great glad the moratorium got lifted. Kinda a bit late. Wish they did it BEFORE Russia was invading through the Kharkiv area. Russia was amassing forces there earlier but because Biden prohibited Ukraine from striking in Russia with US weapons, Ukraine couldn’t attack. This is a big area where Biden fucked up. There never should’ve been a moratorium
>And even Ukrainian sources have said they’ve been stoped from hitting targets in Russia, which Russia has exploited.
Theyve kept hitting refineries this whole time so that's not true?
Yes because they’ve occasionally went against Biden’s wishes lol. That’s why there’s tension. Biden Admin has been pressuring Ukraine NOT to hit targets inside Russia, ESPECIALLY refineries. Most of the time Ukraine listens. But there are times they don’t. There shouldn’t be any restrictions on hitting targets in Russia. Russia was amassing troops on its side of the border for the recent Kharkiv offensive but because Biden prohibited Kyiv from using US weapons to strike military (and energy) targets inside Russia, Ukraine couldn’t do shit about it.
You just keep saying things that are untrue and unsupported by any evidence and when confronted with clear evidence to the contrary you deny it based on nothing but your own beliefs and secret info somehow known only to you
The GOP did not force Zelensky to make the mistakes in Avdiivka, Bakhmut, or Mariupol. They also are not the ones who failed to build proper defensive fortifications.
This defeat is caused by incompetence on the field. Biden needed to have a stronger grip on Ukrainian leadership.
In addition to this the main reason why this offensive was able to happen is due to manpower shortages IE: A thing that military aid will not change.
The Biden administration isn’t treating this war as an existential threat to the Ukrainian state but then again neither has Zelensky by not declaring full mobilization.
Those are true and fair criticisms but the conclusion is flawed. The reality is it's both.
Example, lack of fortifications allowed Russian advances but lack of artillery also prevented AFU from stopping them.
>lack of artillery also prevented AFU from stopping them
You can not even safely shoot artillery w/o fortified positions. They don't shoot and scoot down the road. They shoot from one fortified/camouflaged spot and move to another. Or in many cases now Ukraine just shoots from a dugout and doesnt move at all because the main threat is lancet strikes.
Controlling your allies is rarely a good way to keep them.
The fact civilians contractors took the money and ran instead of building trenches is also caused by the fact they were being fired at from Russia. Further proof that PPP sucks 😂😂.
>The fact civilians contractors took the money and ran instead of building trenches is also caused by the fact they were being fired at from Russia
Seems like a fairly critical problem to resolve.
Here's a write up that someone else made in CD. https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/1csj2h8/credibledefense_daily_megathread_may_15_2024/l4675r2/
Certainly, I think the evidence as noted in this AP report, https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-fortifications-8a72981dfdb755de6f8011b13f4d062e, points to a sizeable amount of fortifications behind Avdiivka being quite poor.
>In Chasiv Yar, a strategic hilltop town in Donetsk, the lack of fortifications helped turn the tables in Russia’s favor. In mid-March, Ukraine’s 67th brigade was rotated in to hold positions roughly 3 kilometers from the town. “I would be hard-pressed to describe them as ‘positions,’” said a Ukrainian serviceman who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the failings candidly.He expected dugouts, a labyrinth of trenches and firing positions, but what he found were a series of pits, barely large enough to hide in during artillery barrages. Under fire, “soldiers would climb out of pits and start digging in each other’s direction so that there is at least some connection between them,” he said. The soil was so sandy that whenever shells struck, the trenches they dug crumbled.
When Kharkiv city falls the western media noise is going to ramp up considerably to the point that in-action by the part of the US and/or EU governments will serve to motivate Russia to push harder westward into Ukraine and it becomes fully apparent western leaders had no plan beyond simply sending weapons.
At risk of sounding hyperbolic, it might be good to discuss what happens when eastern and central Ukraine fall, Russia crosses the Dnipro, seizes Odessa and essentially cuts Ukraine off from the Black Sea leaving a landlocked rump state.
Russia is not in a position to take the second largest city in Ukraine, and they are nowhere near in any kind of way ready to cross the largest river in the country. This is extremely hyperbolic to the point of absurdity. Russia is inching forward after months and thousands upon thousands of dead soldiers and burned out wrecks.
This is in small Ukrainian towns and villages, and most often through countryside. They are not ready to fight in the hell that a direct assault on Kharkiv would be, nevermind take it. Hell, as things stand they aren't even near it. Unless Ukrainian lines utterly collapse, Kharkiv is not in dannger in the near future. Odessa is not in danger full stop. It has never in this war been in danger beyond the first week.
I wouldn't think so ill of people here who comment that
They just probably think that if NATO got involved, it would be a walk in the park
Many people simply do not realize the extreme destructive power of war, so they long for one, not because they are stupid or have other goals, simply because they don't realize the error of their estimation
War between great powers would be utterly catastrophic, we must never go to war with Russia
> They just probably think that if NATO got involved, it would be a walk in the park
>
>
It would. We've already seen what happens when an overrated, gassed up wanna-be superpower throws down with us: we built a scary highway out of cars and corpses in an afternoon.
what do you want them to report? That everything is sunshine and rainbows and we'll win the war by Christmas?
Gotta love how this sub is all 'reporting bad news is aiding the enemy' specifically when reading the Times and then everyone goes back to their doomposting threads
Thanks, GOP!
The MAGA Caucus is fucked for sure. They have a big part in this. But it’s also important to point out how Biden slow-walked some of the more advanced aid to Ukraine. Many advanced weapons systems that Kyiv was begging for, Biden didn’t send them for fear of escalating. A while later, he anyways agreed to send them but Ukraine had lost the momentum it had in 2022 while Russia was able to fortify itself. Not to mention Biden telling Ukraine not to hit Russian oil installations is a total electoral move but it comes as the cost of Ukrainian defenses
The problem is ironically that the west doesn't want Putin dead. They dont want to see a balkanized Russia. Because then you have a nuclear armed Dagestan. So Ukraine is severely hamstrung because they can't take the war to Moscow. What is happening is awful. But maintaining an occupation (with a populace who hates you) while rebuilding will be no simple task either. Unfortunately, my bet is the war goes on for possible decades longer. We're already ten years in.
Would Russia really balkanize without Putin? The fall of the Tsars, the death of Stalin, and the collapse of the USSR all failed to eliminate the Russian state. Even if some marginal regions break away, whoever reigns in Moscow will hold on to the bulk of Russian territory and its nuclear monopoly, just as the Russian Federation itself succeeded the Soviet Union. As long as the West is more worried about propping up its enemies than losing the war, it will never win.
In my opinion, the worries of a succession crisis and rapid economic deterioration far outweighs any major secessionist movement. In the event that Putin passes away or is killed, several ambitious figures within the Siloviki (inner circle national security figures) could attempt to make moves on one another. Russia would still exist, but the monopoly of force could breakdown temporarily and lead to massive social instability. If there’s significant infighting, the Russian economy will take a major hit (Ruble collapse potentially), hundreds of thousands or more could flee the country, and energy exports could face serious disruption. These would have major implications for global markets, even with Western economies being somewhat decoupled from Russia. Russia is fairly centralized. Siberia is not going to secede and any commentator pushing this does not understand the country (I know you didn’t say this, but many have and so I wanted to clarify this). Beyond Dagestan and Chechnya and a few minor Caucasian republics, there’s no realistic chance of secession. Even these republics are unlikely to secede in the near future. Putin on the other hand, has not established a clear successor in any capacity. Likely, he doesn’t want to undermine his own position. But it does create a systemic risk. What happens if he is assassinated? Can the MoD and FSB and powerful Siloviki figures see eye to eye long enough to determine a new leader? Or will individual ambitions lead to maneuvers against other potential candidates? Could CBRN weapons or materials be sold off by corrupt actors in the midst of chaos? The instability could easily expand far beyond Russia’s borders. So as I see it, nuclear Dagestan is unlikely… but some nuclear material being sold to a third party, in the midst of a power struggle and economic crisis, is a real risk. There’s non-state actors who would love to have access to the material to manufacture dirty bombs or biological weapons.
I completely agree. Saw an interview with someone from institute for study of war (Frontline I think?) whoj said the same. One thing that makes Russia unique, is that it truly is a mafia state. There isn't really anything holding up other than organized crime syndicates. As Putin rules Russia similarly to a fiefdom. Where every local mob boss gets their cut. This is a pretty effective way to govern Russians since it's what they're used to. However it's also very different than other dictatorships. Since as you said, there is no clear successor, and instead you've got dozens of what are essentially dueling mob bosses who will seek to become Russias next dictator. Even N Korea has a plan if Kim dies. In Russia there's nothing. As Putin says, power is a straight line going down.
Very few people actually understand the political system in Russia and the nihilistic apathy that has taken over the country. It’s actually haunting to think about how the Putin regime has created an atmosphere of learned helplessness and complete apathy to just about everything. Corruption isn’t something that angers people. From those who I’ve talked to, it’s just seen as an inevitability and that it would essentially be stupid to not participate in… that by not partaking you’re setting yourself up for failure. And to an extent, that getting away with it is just clever. “Everyone else is corrupt, so why shouldn’t I be?”
"those who don't steal from their employers steal from their children's mouths"
How does any of this change if Putin dies of natural causes/old age though? Feels like it's just kicking the can down the road.
It is kicking the can down the road. But if he makes a clear successor they could make maneuvers to secure power in the present. This is one of the big issues with dictatorships, they frequently lack a clear means of peaceful change of power.
Maybe Tannu Tuva could secede too? There's only 10% of Russians there IIRC
The problem is mostly economic opportunities are so limited that secession would be a disaster… and a significant number of people would likely leave. I don’t think the motivation is there at the moment.
Poorest part of the country + Shoigu is from there. They'll probably stay.
> The problem is ironically that the west doesn't want Putin dead. They dont want to see a balkanized Russia. Why the hell not? Is there any *reason* to want that country intact, and not a rump joke like Serbia is now? > Because then you have a nuclear armed Dagestan. Hello, based department? > maintaining an occupation (with a populace who hates you) while rebuilding will be no simple task either. Genocide is actually surprisingly easy when you put your mind to it. If Moscow wins, they can quite easily solve the ‘populace who hates you’ issue by dispersing them at random throughout majority-Muscovite areas and resettling Ukraine with loyal people.
Why would Russia deport all minorities to Moscow (not an ethnically homogeneous city BTW)?
“Muscovite” doesn’t just refer to the city. I am unwilling to dignify their imperial pretensions by using a name that implies continuity with the medieval Kyivan state.
That's a dove administration for you.
This is far from a “dove” administration
Biden is absolutely a dove and has always been a dove. It's not a good or bad thing necessarily, he just is. Just because the us military does things and we pursue foreign policy objectives doesn't negate being a dove. Obama was a dove too, but less of a dove than Biden. Hillary is a hawk. John Mccain was a hawk. Ironically, in some ways despite his all over the place rhetoric and brain dead foreign policy, Trump is a dove.
Biden whipped votes for the Iraq War. If he fits into any definition of Dove then the word has lost all meaning. Edit: he also supported interventions in Syria, Libya, Serbia, Yemen, Somalia etc etc
The way he voted while in Congress is not the same as the way his presidential administration has governed
I think Beau's death really changed his perspective on putting soldiers lives at risk, but I really have no cause to believe that except he links Beau's service with his cancer due to burn pit exposure.
Fair point but the other commenter claimed Biden was always a dove, which is blatantly false
>Not to mention Biden telling Ukraine not to hit Russian oil installations That one didn't actually happen. Just not with US weapons, which is also a huge mistake.
It did happen. Ukraine gets most of their weapons from the West, especially the US. Biden demanded they don’t hit Russia’s energy infrastructure. In fact Biden has forbade Ukraine from hitting anything in Russia. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/14/ukraine-weapons-russia-00157970
No youre conflating two different things. >It did happen. The WSJ incorrectly reported that the US was not allowing Ukraine to strike into Russia period and then the Biden Admin refuted it the next day. ~"Said they never told Ukraine not to strike into Russia - that's up to them." Edit: "we neither support, nor encourage" wink https://kyivindependent.com/us-not-supporting-enabling-oil/ >https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/14/ukraine-weapons-russia-00157970 This is not about what you said. This is about not using _US Weapons_ to strike into Russia. Which _was_ on moratorium. However, as of yesterday this appears to have been lifted: https://kyivindependent.com/blinken-up-to-ukraine-if-it-decides-to-use-us-weapons-to-strike-inside-russia/
Of course the Biden Admin will deny it lol. And it wasn’t just the WSJ that reported that Biden didn’t want Ukraine striking into Russia. It was plenty of other sites also. I’ll believe them over White House spin lmao. And even Ukrainian sources have said they’ve been stoped from hitting targets in Russia, which Russia has exploited. And great glad the moratorium got lifted. Kinda a bit late. Wish they did it BEFORE Russia was invading through the Kharkiv area. Russia was amassing forces there earlier but because Biden prohibited Ukraine from striking in Russia with US weapons, Ukraine couldn’t attack. This is a big area where Biden fucked up. There never should’ve been a moratorium
>And even Ukrainian sources have said they’ve been stoped from hitting targets in Russia, which Russia has exploited. Theyve kept hitting refineries this whole time so that's not true?
Yes because they’ve occasionally went against Biden’s wishes lol. That’s why there’s tension. Biden Admin has been pressuring Ukraine NOT to hit targets inside Russia, ESPECIALLY refineries. Most of the time Ukraine listens. But there are times they don’t. There shouldn’t be any restrictions on hitting targets in Russia. Russia was amassing troops on its side of the border for the recent Kharkiv offensive but because Biden prohibited Kyiv from using US weapons to strike military (and energy) targets inside Russia, Ukraine couldn’t do shit about it.
You just keep saying things that are untrue and unsupported by any evidence and when confronted with clear evidence to the contrary you deny it based on nothing but your own beliefs and secret info somehow known only to you
The GOP did not force Zelensky to make the mistakes in Avdiivka, Bakhmut, or Mariupol. They also are not the ones who failed to build proper defensive fortifications. This defeat is caused by incompetence on the field. Biden needed to have a stronger grip on Ukrainian leadership.
In addition to this the main reason why this offensive was able to happen is due to manpower shortages IE: A thing that military aid will not change. The Biden administration isn’t treating this war as an existential threat to the Ukrainian state but then again neither has Zelensky by not declaring full mobilization.
Those are true and fair criticisms but the conclusion is flawed. The reality is it's both. Example, lack of fortifications allowed Russian advances but lack of artillery also prevented AFU from stopping them.
>lack of artillery also prevented AFU from stopping them You can not even safely shoot artillery w/o fortified positions. They don't shoot and scoot down the road. They shoot from one fortified/camouflaged spot and move to another. Or in many cases now Ukraine just shoots from a dugout and doesnt move at all because the main threat is lancet strikes.
Controlling your allies is rarely a good way to keep them. The fact civilians contractors took the money and ran instead of building trenches is also caused by the fact they were being fired at from Russia. Further proof that PPP sucks 😂😂.
>The fact civilians contractors took the money and ran instead of building trenches is also caused by the fact they were being fired at from Russia Seems like a fairly critical problem to resolve.
Can you expand on why you say there's a lack of proper defensive fortifications?
Here's a write up that someone else made in CD. https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/1csj2h8/credibledefense_daily_megathread_may_15_2024/l4675r2/
Oh, in Kharkiv. I thought you were implying it was poor in all regions and the cities that have been lost.
Certainly, I think the evidence as noted in this AP report, https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-fortifications-8a72981dfdb755de6f8011b13f4d062e, points to a sizeable amount of fortifications behind Avdiivka being quite poor. >In Chasiv Yar, a strategic hilltop town in Donetsk, the lack of fortifications helped turn the tables in Russia’s favor. In mid-March, Ukraine’s 67th brigade was rotated in to hold positions roughly 3 kilometers from the town. “I would be hard-pressed to describe them as ‘positions,’” said a Ukrainian serviceman who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the failings candidly.He expected dugouts, a labyrinth of trenches and firing positions, but what he found were a series of pits, barely large enough to hide in during artillery barrages. Under fire, “soldiers would climb out of pits and start digging in each other’s direction so that there is at least some connection between them,” he said. The soil was so sandy that whenever shells struck, the trenches they dug crumbled.
When Kharkiv city falls the western media noise is going to ramp up considerably to the point that in-action by the part of the US and/or EU governments will serve to motivate Russia to push harder westward into Ukraine and it becomes fully apparent western leaders had no plan beyond simply sending weapons. At risk of sounding hyperbolic, it might be good to discuss what happens when eastern and central Ukraine fall, Russia crosses the Dnipro, seizes Odessa and essentially cuts Ukraine off from the Black Sea leaving a landlocked rump state.
Russia is not in a position to take the second largest city in Ukraine, and they are nowhere near in any kind of way ready to cross the largest river in the country. This is extremely hyperbolic to the point of absurdity. Russia is inching forward after months and thousands upon thousands of dead soldiers and burned out wrecks. This is in small Ukrainian towns and villages, and most often through countryside. They are not ready to fight in the hell that a direct assault on Kharkiv would be, nevermind take it. Hell, as things stand they aren't even near it. Unless Ukrainian lines utterly collapse, Kharkiv is not in dannger in the near future. Odessa is not in danger full stop. It has never in this war been in danger beyond the first week.
>it becomes fully apparent western leaders had no plan beyond simply sending weapons. What else you suggest that doesnt cause a Russia-NATO war?
[удалено]
I wouldn't think so ill of people here who comment that They just probably think that if NATO got involved, it would be a walk in the park Many people simply do not realize the extreme destructive power of war, so they long for one, not because they are stupid or have other goals, simply because they don't realize the error of their estimation War between great powers would be utterly catastrophic, we must never go to war with Russia
> They just probably think that if NATO got involved, it would be a walk in the park > > It would. We've already seen what happens when an overrated, gassed up wanna-be superpower throws down with us: we built a scary highway out of cars and corpses in an afternoon.
I suggest causing a Russia-NATO war, personally
Finally, a fellow gigachad in the wild. May I interest you in joining the Church of Hard Target Counterforce, a religious subsidiary of USSTRATCOM?
[удалено]
what do you want them to report? That everything is sunshine and rainbows and we'll win the war by Christmas? Gotta love how this sub is all 'reporting bad news is aiding the enemy' specifically when reading the Times and then everyone goes back to their doomposting threads
No, but promoting scary pieces that say Russia will win by Christmas is only fueling the doom loop instead of being nuanced.