If someone's desperate, wouldn't they throw the kitchen sink at it and not care about escalation control?
How do you square the circle of NATO being desperate yet still cautiously escalating with Russia?
I've accounted for that by introducing the influence of Western factions into my analysis and acknowledging escalation-management.
But you haven't done that. Instead, you're repudiating everything that I've written above in totality and I just can't understand how you arrived at such opposite conclusions.
I rarely interact with "5D chess master plan" conspiracy theorists since it's an exercise in futility to try to convert them and can also be very emotionally exhausting.
But since you're evidently one and I've already invested thus much time into learning about your views, at least answer my targeted questions.
To repeat:
1. If NATO is so desperate for war, why not just launch a first strike against Russia now without warning and get it over with?
2. Why is NATO waiting a full 2,5 years since the SMO began to consider letting Ukraine use long-range weapons?
3. Why are pontoons preferred to bridges and rail for crossing rivers as you imply is the reason why Russia didn't bomb them?
If I may, I'll ask some more questions since you didn't coherently answer them earlier:
4. Absent the need for a draft, in what way outside of the election cycle (which isn't always truly free and fair and whose winners sometimes go against their promises after being elected) does Western sentiment shape policy towards this proxy war?
5. You now insist that whatever major thing Russia might do won't lead to a nuclear war with NATO, so why do you expect a prolonged hot one that would extend long enough for NATO to need to draft troops? Why won't either side escalate to using nukes?
If someone's desperate, wouldn't they throw the kitchen sink at it and not care about escalation control?
How do you square the circle of NATO being desperate yet still cautiously escalating with Russia?
I've accounted for that by introducing the influence of Western factions into my analysis and acknowledging escalation-management.
But you haven't done that. Instead, you're repudiating everything that I've written above in totality and I just can't understand how you arrived at such opposite conclusions.
I rarely interact with "5D chess master plan" conspiracy theorists since it's an exercise in futility to try to convert them and can also be very emotionally exhausting.
But since you're evidently one and I've already invested thus much time into learning about your views, at least answer my targeted questions.
To repeat:
1. If NATO is so desperate for war, why not just launch a first strike against Russia now without warning and get it over with?
2. Why is NATO waiting a full 2,5 years since the SMO began to consider letting Ukraine use long-range weapons?
3. Why are pontoons preferred to bridges and rail for crossing rivers as you imply is the reason why Russia didn't bomb them?
If I may, I'll ask some more questions since you didn't coherently answer them earlier:
4. Absent the need for a draft, in what way outside of the election cycle (which isn't always truly free and fair and whose winners sometimes go against their promises after being elected) does Western sentiment shape policy towards this proxy war?
5. You now insist that whatever major thing Russia might do won't lead to a nuclear war with NATO, so why do you expect a prolonged hot one that would extend long enough for NATO to need to draft troops? Why won't either side escalate to using nukes?