Its real purpose is to get the US to reconsider its impending escalations against Russia by reminding it of the strategic costs that this could entail.
Agreed, I sometimes disagree with the wisdom behind some of Russia's policies, especially in dealing with Trump. I feel like policymakers genuinely don't understand him and his team. Their approach towards others doesn't work towards him. It's usually counterproductive.
Absolutely, groupthink predominates due to echo chambers, which are in turn the result of everyone just telling everyone else whatever they think they want to hear. They also, I suspect, have begun to believe their own "propaganda".
There aren't many viable feedback loops here, and genuinely independent feedback (irrespective of whether it's from any of the aforesaid loops) is usually discarded if the observations contradict official policy or narratives.
A lot of what we're seeing play out between the US and Russia is therefore, in my opinion, just as psychological as it is geopolitical and strategic. In fact, the psychological element greatly determines the other two, once again in my view.
It was their view that Trump would give Russia everything it wants because his team was seen as inexperienced and anxious to end the conflict.
They also intimated that folks thought that the EU will pull out of the conflict and/or there'll be a breakthrough that leads to maximum victory.
None of that happened as we know, and in response to my counterpoints, they repeatedly joked around that I "sound like the State Department".
I wanted to impress upon them that nothing can be taken for granted and that arrogance of the sort that I was arguably hearing was a huge mistake.
All of this was to no avail; the meeting ended cordially, but I realized that there was a fundamental disconnect between myself and that person.
Accordingly, I concluded that the disconnect is also between my analyses and the views of those calling the shots to which my friend seemed privy.
I've therefore felt horrible watching everything unfold since then, setback after setback, knowing that it was all (at least hypothetically) avoidable.
Had there been any interest at all in taking contrarian analyses like mine seriously, then perhaps Russia would have dealt with Trump 2.0 better.
Instead, we see broken feedback loops reaffirming failed policies through incessant cheering thereof, with top policymakers none the wiser.
The whole thing is incredibly sad, but I can say with full confidence that my conscience is clear after sincerely trying my best to help in my own way.
Trump thinks everyone is a chump . Some feel his Masonic spirit and pathway is a golden opportunity.
He will push and never stop. Putin needs a measured response with a message to EU, NATO, USA , Masonic leaders in Papacy, US EVANGELICAL LEADERS, Atlanticist, city of London, BIS?
The Russian missle may or may not be capable of what Putin claims. It has been a mostly failed missle to this point and maybe they have the kinks worked out but to claim this missle test was a de-escalator is misguided. Trump just ordered nuclear missle tests for the US. It’s first since 1992. The US isn’t giving Ukraine Tomahawk missles. Trump was sour on the suggestion from the beginning and after his meeting with Xi yesterday expect more pressure from China to end the conflict too. Everyone needs to get used to it that right now the US is running the world. Trump very much wants to do business with Russia and I’d hedge a guess Putin would very much like that as well. Russia’s economy has shifted to a war time economy and when this conflict ends the size of the deal made with the US is going to see how quickly Russia can switch over its economy to peace time. Missle tests are nothing but a pissing contest as everyone knows all counties posses missles that can evade radar and batteries that shoot them down before impact. It’s nothing novel.
I agree with you that Trump misperceived the test very negatively and as an act of unprovoked aggression, but I still believe that Putin's intention was de-escalatory. The problem as I see it is that they have incompatible perceptions on this and actually on quite a lot of issues as we can discern from their talks over the past half year or so.
I also agree with you that the US is altogether more powerful than Russia is, and this imbues Trump with the confidence to take initiatives or respond more forcefully to perceived (keyword) slights, whereas Russia sincerely doesn't seem to recognize this power asymmetry and that might account for why it continues acting the way that it does.
Earlier in response to someone else I recounted my experience from the beginning of the year speaking at length (it was around a 5-6-hour long meeting actually!) with a friend who I consider to be pretty well-informed of how people at the time view things and my consequent disappointment with everything.
I'm of course not suggesting that Russia capitulate to the US' maximalist demands or that Putin humiliate himself through overly obsequious rhetoric towards Trump like the Pakistani PM has, just that policymakers should be open to the possibility (keyword) that maybe they don't fully -- let alone accurately -- understand Trump and his latest team.
Until that realization dawns on them and they react accordingly, I believe that we're going to see more of the same in that the mismatched perceptions between Trump-Putin and the US-Russia more broadly will contribute to more escalations. I wish there was a way to offset this scenario but I tried my best and it didn't work out unfortunately.
In all honesty Trump is a peacemaker. He hates war and the death of people on both sides. I think we both can agree that has Trump win instead of Biden this conflict would never have happened. The globalists in Europe want this war to continue no matter the costs because it keeps Russia as the boogeyman and Europe’s citizens focus away from the fact that the rest of Europe is collapsing. Britain is near complete failure and war is the only way that can sell more debt. Without this conflict the blinders come off and people are going to more than angry which will lead to elections that bring national populists to power which puts the EU on very shaky ground. The rise of Bitcoin and digital currencies are showing people there are alternatives to central banks. I forsee the EU breaking up once this conflict ends. It’s the EU’s last gasp which will bode well for Russia. Trump has conveyed this to Putin. Trump also has control of NATO and Ukraine will not be a member no matter what all these European countries say. Putin needs to know Trump won’t screw him iver. This isn’t Biden.
You’re an idiot. Venezuela is shipping drugs into the US. He is stopping that. Also, this is Biden’s issue. He is supplying NATO with arms and what they do with them is their choice. Get a brain. He has met with Putin and still speaks with him and Zelensky. Wants peace.
Trump may want a deal, but—in my view—he lacks the intelligence to see it through, given that he chose to believe Zelensky and Co. without doing a fact-finding mission. On four or more occasions the U.S. and Russia were about to reach a settlement. Each time Ukraine and its European handlers staged provocations, eliciting a Russian response that caused Trump to blame Putin (forgetting his previous battles with Zelensky and Co.). Trump’s short memory, possibly exacerbated by poisoning, is likely to blame here. Otherwise he has no excuse for blaming the Russians.
Trump’s ‘logic’ seems to be that Russia, after coming so close to a ceasefire, would jettison talks by staging incidents that somehow help Trump’s enemies. Trump knows that the Ukrainians and their European patrons have worked against him, so his decision to overlook history by blaming Putin for breakdowns does not make sense. Also, if he really wanted to ‘MAGA’, he should have put EU leaders in the same category as ISIS from day one and imposed crippling sanctions on European banking systems. *That* would have done more to forward a lasting peace.
Russia has tried managing Trump through flattery and accommodation. It hasn’t worked. I’m sure they appreciate the dangers of taking a tough line with a thin-skinned egotist. But they will have to rely on him being restrained by wiser heads - they haven’t been left with any choice.
I’ve stated a few times before that the fuckery with Russia will not stop until Russia finally does something that freezes the blood in the west’s veins.
Burevestnik announcement came a few days after several announcements and commentaries with reference to Tomahawks. Putin was directly asked what would happen if Tomahawks would be used, and left no doubt about it: a “staggering” response would follow. He did not specify in what shape and form that would be, and a few days later came the Burevestnik announcement. Personally, I do not think Putin meant that Burevestnik could be used in Ukraine, but that Russia became one notch more dangerous in case the “staggering” response prepared for Ukraine would lead to nuclear posturing from her allies. Furthermore, soon followed the Poseidon announcement, which added a few more notches to the previous message. Indeed, these messages seem to be destined to cool off the minds of the Western planners of an escalation. The propaganda job of preparing the EU public opinion has been in full swing for the last few days. Exhaustion of the Russian army, economic difficulties, even some public disturbances have been recycled back in the public domain.
I understand this is not available publicly now but I would love to see the basic concept of how the Burevestnik works. Miniature nuclear power generators go back to at least the 1940s. By 2018 a twelve year old ‘kid’ Jackson Oswalt was able to achieve nuclear fusion in the privacy of his own home followed by a visit by the FBI. The main issue with miniaturization is solving the radiation shield problem. However, in case of a flying object that moves with over 600mph, designed to self-destruct as an end goal shielding can be neglected.
RUSSIA has the (B) missile . America can not do anything about it except become friends with Russia. The (B) missile capability NEEDS to be put on the desk of EVERY member of Congress. Time to look at reality. If USA wants a war, try Venezuela
Because if thats the case, then Russia doesnt need any new missiles as its current stock is more then enough to destroy the whole world. Whats the point ?
As is quite often the case, the independent analysts and commentators like Andrew have many good ideas. But these good ideas tend not to work because they are designed by reasonable people for a realistic world, when the world does not operate as such (at least for now). Or, these good ideas tend to be thrown away as either against established ideology, or a stereotypical view about one's opponents, or a belief that more trickery or treachery can produce better results. As Andrew said, the "echo chamber" effects can be observed not only on the American side, but also on the Russian side. I don't have anything close to a good answer to deal with all the complexities. I just want to say that when dealing with unreasonable opponents (due to any reason), then logical thinking is certainly the backbone of policy construction, but the handling of unreasonable people using inhumane methods must be part of the preparation as well. Yes, that makes every conflict even more costly, but still better than being surprised by an unreasonable and illogical opponent.
As I understand it, this is a tactical nuclear weapon, and like the US tactical weapons, it seems to me these are inherently destabilizing. This is not a controversial view in the US, and this may have been the basis of Trump's reaction to it.
Personally, I do not blame Russian leaders for their initial very optimistic take on Trump. All of us were hopeful, and his electoral base has been broken by events in Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and now Venezuela. Trump has become a laughing stock among his own voters in claiming to be a "peace president." So, all of us got it wrong.
And what I think we learned in this, is that Trump is not in control. He can influence, but I think we've learned there is a greedy cabal of entities, including the MIC, intel agencies, bankers, Congress people, and Dept of War generals who all benefit from war and they hold sway. The sausage is made years in advance within policy institutes like Rand and veering from the result of their grand negotiations takes Herculean effort. Veering too far without approval can seemingly end in assassination, as seems to have been the case with Pres Kennedy. The policy holds regardless of party or person "in power." Learning this truth has been shocking to many Americans, and many still refuse to believe what has now become obvious.
I think another thing which has become obvious to Americans is that this blob of influence decided at some point that it's better for them to prefer, let's call it, "lesser skilled leaders." So now the choice between bad and worse that Americans vote on every 4 yrs is never any true, thoughtful, measured, capable leader. We're stuck with, stupid Bushes, feckless Clintons, brain dead Bidens and inarticulate, erratic Trumps.
The situation is entirely depressing and no obvious fixes are in sight. Imo, Russians should be very grateful to have their leadership team, even if they got fooled by Trump once. I'm sure they'll absorb the lessons of this ordeal.
The machinery of destruction is ready for action, can be set in motion at the slightest
the slightest occasion, just waiting for some obsessed or deranged person to press the
or deranged person presses the “button”, or that a defective computer chip unleashes the
fireworks are unleashed. Surprisingly, however, people give this little thought about it.
Millions of people know that their existence existence is subject to a constant, immediate
threat, but they accept this without contradiction. Only when the angry protest of people everywhere the world forces those in power to change their ways, the nuclear catastrophecan
Not sure why the semantics is so important, the missile is an escalation to sow fear, a mildly manored and as much as outright direct, still subtle in its message.
Westies msm was quick to label it the flying Cherhobyl which to me was exactly what Ruskies could've wanted - westie people to begin to fear that prolonged poking of the bear may not be the smartest thing. Plus domestic market and implanting of invincibility amongst the Ruskie minds.
Fear comes from having a missile which can loiter for months and/or is unstoppable. No need to use it.
Westies people need to fear what would come from attacking the nuclear superpower. It works against their 'elites' selling them the direct participation in renazification of UA - getting Scott free (like it did during the assault on Yugoslavia and Serbia).
Unless said missile has a nuke onboard and Russia specifically lays out the scenario where it will DEFINETLY be used, nothing changes. Russia already has all the deterrent weapons it needs, however, it seems to lack the will to use them.
If that was the case, it was foolish to try anything subtle with a moron like Trump. It didn't work:https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-directs-pentagon-immediately-start-014051305.html?.tsrc=1340&ncid=crm_-1285232-20251030-501--A&bt_user_id=PLeOB0psdCoT037e5p%2F4xOEqeouEFVh6JfdJej2GPjCWTRWdTkHwqJK8KCykVYmm3668oP8musqe7u5cNBw2yuvv3DbjpcBHgMppqoq6KLx%2B1Jp6ka4sgngPYA8Mpy8%2B&bt_ts=1761791038870
Agreed, I sometimes disagree with the wisdom behind some of Russia's policies, especially in dealing with Trump. I feel like policymakers genuinely don't understand him and his team. Their approach towards others doesn't work towards him. It's usually counterproductive.
The Russian leadership wants desperately to believe. Fools.
Absolutely, groupthink predominates due to echo chambers, which are in turn the result of everyone just telling everyone else whatever they think they want to hear. They also, I suspect, have begun to believe their own "propaganda".
There aren't many viable feedback loops here, and genuinely independent feedback (irrespective of whether it's from any of the aforesaid loops) is usually discarded if the observations contradict official policy or narratives.
A lot of what we're seeing play out between the US and Russia is therefore, in my opinion, just as psychological as it is geopolitical and strategic. In fact, the psychological element greatly determines the other two, once again in my view.
I had a detailed discussion with someone at the start of the year who I consider to be very well-informed of how policymakers view everything.
They respectfully but very insistently disagreed with my proposals at the time for a grand compromise between Russia and the US:
https://korybko.substack.com/p/creative-energy-diplomacy-can-lay
https://korybko.substack.com/p/the-merits-of-a-demilitarized-trans
It was their view that Trump would give Russia everything it wants because his team was seen as inexperienced and anxious to end the conflict.
They also intimated that folks thought that the EU will pull out of the conflict and/or there'll be a breakthrough that leads to maximum victory.
None of that happened as we know, and in response to my counterpoints, they repeatedly joked around that I "sound like the State Department".
I wanted to impress upon them that nothing can be taken for granted and that arrogance of the sort that I was arguably hearing was a huge mistake.
All of this was to no avail; the meeting ended cordially, but I realized that there was a fundamental disconnect between myself and that person.
Accordingly, I concluded that the disconnect is also between my analyses and the views of those calling the shots to which my friend seemed privy.
I've therefore felt horrible watching everything unfold since then, setback after setback, knowing that it was all (at least hypothetically) avoidable.
Had there been any interest at all in taking contrarian analyses like mine seriously, then perhaps Russia would have dealt with Trump 2.0 better.
Instead, we see broken feedback loops reaffirming failed policies through incessant cheering thereof, with top policymakers none the wiser.
The whole thing is incredibly sad, but I can say with full confidence that my conscience is clear after sincerely trying my best to help in my own way.
We have the same in France
Russia still knows the price of suffering. UE has forgotten it and USA never knew it.
But Russia remember.
US neocons bet on the fact that when Russians will be sure that negotiate is useless they will kneel.
Others think that Russia, at that moment, will strike.
Bets are open. Fate of human kind to win.
Trump thinks everyone is a chump . Some feel his Masonic spirit and pathway is a golden opportunity.
He will push and never stop. Putin needs a measured response with a message to EU, NATO, USA , Masonic leaders in Papacy, US EVANGELICAL LEADERS, Atlanticist, city of London, BIS?
The Russian missle may or may not be capable of what Putin claims. It has been a mostly failed missle to this point and maybe they have the kinks worked out but to claim this missle test was a de-escalator is misguided. Trump just ordered nuclear missle tests for the US. It’s first since 1992. The US isn’t giving Ukraine Tomahawk missles. Trump was sour on the suggestion from the beginning and after his meeting with Xi yesterday expect more pressure from China to end the conflict too. Everyone needs to get used to it that right now the US is running the world. Trump very much wants to do business with Russia and I’d hedge a guess Putin would very much like that as well. Russia’s economy has shifted to a war time economy and when this conflict ends the size of the deal made with the US is going to see how quickly Russia can switch over its economy to peace time. Missle tests are nothing but a pissing contest as everyone knows all counties posses missles that can evade radar and batteries that shoot them down before impact. It’s nothing novel.
I agree with you that Trump misperceived the test very negatively and as an act of unprovoked aggression, but I still believe that Putin's intention was de-escalatory. The problem as I see it is that they have incompatible perceptions on this and actually on quite a lot of issues as we can discern from their talks over the past half year or so.
I also agree with you that the US is altogether more powerful than Russia is, and this imbues Trump with the confidence to take initiatives or respond more forcefully to perceived (keyword) slights, whereas Russia sincerely doesn't seem to recognize this power asymmetry and that might account for why it continues acting the way that it does.
Earlier in response to someone else I recounted my experience from the beginning of the year speaking at length (it was around a 5-6-hour long meeting actually!) with a friend who I consider to be pretty well-informed of how people at the time view things and my consequent disappointment with everything.
I'm of course not suggesting that Russia capitulate to the US' maximalist demands or that Putin humiliate himself through overly obsequious rhetoric towards Trump like the Pakistani PM has, just that policymakers should be open to the possibility (keyword) that maybe they don't fully -- let alone accurately -- understand Trump and his latest team.
Until that realization dawns on them and they react accordingly, I believe that we're going to see more of the same in that the mismatched perceptions between Trump-Putin and the US-Russia more broadly will contribute to more escalations. I wish there was a way to offset this scenario but I tried my best and it didn't work out unfortunately.
In all honesty Trump is a peacemaker. He hates war and the death of people on both sides. I think we both can agree that has Trump win instead of Biden this conflict would never have happened. The globalists in Europe want this war to continue no matter the costs because it keeps Russia as the boogeyman and Europe’s citizens focus away from the fact that the rest of Europe is collapsing. Britain is near complete failure and war is the only way that can sell more debt. Without this conflict the blinders come off and people are going to more than angry which will lead to elections that bring national populists to power which puts the EU on very shaky ground. The rise of Bitcoin and digital currencies are showing people there are alternatives to central banks. I forsee the EU breaking up once this conflict ends. It’s the EU’s last gasp which will bode well for Russia. Trump has conveyed this to Putin. Trump also has control of NATO and Ukraine will not be a member no matter what all these European countries say. Putin needs to know Trump won’t screw him iver. This isn’t Biden.
A peacemaker who wages war against Venezuela and Russia. How naiv does one have to be?
Ooooops, did you forget to mention the hardware he sent to Israhell to kill tens of thousands of kids and women?
You’re an idiot. Venezuela is shipping drugs into the US. He is stopping that. Also, this is Biden’s issue. He is supplying NATO with arms and what they do with them is their choice. Get a brain. He has met with Putin and still speaks with him and Zelensky. Wants peace.
lol yeah right... and Kennedy shot himself...how delusional can someone be?
Yes, I was there, I have seen it :))
How many peace deals has Trump done now? Last count was 8. That’s called peace maker. Go back to your hole on Bluesky.
" Venezuela is shipping drugs into the US. "
Was Chavez also ?
Trump may want a deal, but—in my view—he lacks the intelligence to see it through, given that he chose to believe Zelensky and Co. without doing a fact-finding mission. On four or more occasions the U.S. and Russia were about to reach a settlement. Each time Ukraine and its European handlers staged provocations, eliciting a Russian response that caused Trump to blame Putin (forgetting his previous battles with Zelensky and Co.). Trump’s short memory, possibly exacerbated by poisoning, is likely to blame here. Otherwise he has no excuse for blaming the Russians.
Trump’s ‘logic’ seems to be that Russia, after coming so close to a ceasefire, would jettison talks by staging incidents that somehow help Trump’s enemies. Trump knows that the Ukrainians and their European patrons have worked against him, so his decision to overlook history by blaming Putin for breakdowns does not make sense. Also, if he really wanted to ‘MAGA’, he should have put EU leaders in the same category as ISIS from day one and imposed crippling sanctions on European banking systems. *That* would have done more to forward a lasting peace.
“Everyone needs to get used to it that right now the US is running the world.”
Then why is the EU acting as though *it* were in control of the U.S.?
Russia has tried managing Trump through flattery and accommodation. It hasn’t worked. I’m sure they appreciate the dangers of taking a tough line with a thin-skinned egotist. But they will have to rely on him being restrained by wiser heads - they haven’t been left with any choice.
I’ve stated a few times before that the fuckery with Russia will not stop until Russia finally does something that freezes the blood in the west’s veins.
Burevestnik announcement came a few days after several announcements and commentaries with reference to Tomahawks. Putin was directly asked what would happen if Tomahawks would be used, and left no doubt about it: a “staggering” response would follow. He did not specify in what shape and form that would be, and a few days later came the Burevestnik announcement. Personally, I do not think Putin meant that Burevestnik could be used in Ukraine, but that Russia became one notch more dangerous in case the “staggering” response prepared for Ukraine would lead to nuclear posturing from her allies. Furthermore, soon followed the Poseidon announcement, which added a few more notches to the previous message. Indeed, these messages seem to be destined to cool off the minds of the Western planners of an escalation. The propaganda job of preparing the EU public opinion has been in full swing for the last few days. Exhaustion of the Russian army, economic difficulties, even some public disturbances have been recycled back in the public domain.
I understand this is not available publicly now but I would love to see the basic concept of how the Burevestnik works. Miniature nuclear power generators go back to at least the 1940s. By 2018 a twelve year old ‘kid’ Jackson Oswalt was able to achieve nuclear fusion in the privacy of his own home followed by a visit by the FBI. The main issue with miniaturization is solving the radiation shield problem. However, in case of a flying object that moves with over 600mph, designed to self-destruct as an end goal shielding can be neglected.
https://youtu.be/Wh5TUlzBwLw
RUSSIA has the (B) missile . America can not do anything about it except become friends with Russia. The (B) missile capability NEEDS to be put on the desk of EVERY member of Congress. Time to look at reality. If USA wants a war, try Venezuela
The missile is irrelevant. Unless you load it with nukes, its just a standard missile with unlimited range.
When you launce it you put nukes into it. WHAT ELSE ???
Because if thats the case, then Russia doesnt need any new missiles as its current stock is more then enough to destroy the whole world. Whats the point ?
P LEASE !!!
Very well thought out and erudite answer, you must be proud. Kudos to you good sir ! Kudos !
As is quite often the case, the independent analysts and commentators like Andrew have many good ideas. But these good ideas tend not to work because they are designed by reasonable people for a realistic world, when the world does not operate as such (at least for now). Or, these good ideas tend to be thrown away as either against established ideology, or a stereotypical view about one's opponents, or a belief that more trickery or treachery can produce better results. As Andrew said, the "echo chamber" effects can be observed not only on the American side, but also on the Russian side. I don't have anything close to a good answer to deal with all the complexities. I just want to say that when dealing with unreasonable opponents (due to any reason), then logical thinking is certainly the backbone of policy construction, but the handling of unreasonable people using inhumane methods must be part of the preparation as well. Yes, that makes every conflict even more costly, but still better than being surprised by an unreasonable and illogical opponent.
As I understand it, this is a tactical nuclear weapon, and like the US tactical weapons, it seems to me these are inherently destabilizing. This is not a controversial view in the US, and this may have been the basis of Trump's reaction to it.
Personally, I do not blame Russian leaders for their initial very optimistic take on Trump. All of us were hopeful, and his electoral base has been broken by events in Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and now Venezuela. Trump has become a laughing stock among his own voters in claiming to be a "peace president." So, all of us got it wrong.
And what I think we learned in this, is that Trump is not in control. He can influence, but I think we've learned there is a greedy cabal of entities, including the MIC, intel agencies, bankers, Congress people, and Dept of War generals who all benefit from war and they hold sway. The sausage is made years in advance within policy institutes like Rand and veering from the result of their grand negotiations takes Herculean effort. Veering too far without approval can seemingly end in assassination, as seems to have been the case with Pres Kennedy. The policy holds regardless of party or person "in power." Learning this truth has been shocking to many Americans, and many still refuse to believe what has now become obvious.
I think another thing which has become obvious to Americans is that this blob of influence decided at some point that it's better for them to prefer, let's call it, "lesser skilled leaders." So now the choice between bad and worse that Americans vote on every 4 yrs is never any true, thoughtful, measured, capable leader. We're stuck with, stupid Bushes, feckless Clintons, brain dead Bidens and inarticulate, erratic Trumps.
The situation is entirely depressing and no obvious fixes are in sight. Imo, Russians should be very grateful to have their leadership team, even if they got fooled by Trump once. I'm sure they'll absorb the lessons of this ordeal.
Hopefully it will remain just sabre-rattling...
The machinery of destruction is ready for action, can be set in motion at the slightest
the slightest occasion, just waiting for some obsessed or deranged person to press the
or deranged person presses the “button”, or that a defective computer chip unleashes the
fireworks are unleashed. Surprisingly, however, people give this little thought about it.
Millions of people know that their existence existence is subject to a constant, immediate
threat, but they accept this without contradiction. Only when the angry protest of people everywhere the world forces those in power to change their ways, the nuclear catastrophecan
be averted.
Not sure why the semantics is so important, the missile is an escalation to sow fear, a mildly manored and as much as outright direct, still subtle in its message.
Westies msm was quick to label it the flying Cherhobyl which to me was exactly what Ruskies could've wanted - westie people to begin to fear that prolonged poking of the bear may not be the smartest thing. Plus domestic market and implanting of invincibility amongst the Ruskie minds.
Any use of that missile will be turned into a "nuke" attack by the West, since it has a nuclear engine.
Fear comes from having a missile which can loiter for months and/or is unstoppable. No need to use it.
Westies people need to fear what would come from attacking the nuclear superpower. It works against their 'elites' selling them the direct participation in renazification of UA - getting Scott free (like it did during the assault on Yugoslavia and Serbia).
Unless said missile has a nuke onboard and Russia specifically lays out the scenario where it will DEFINETLY be used, nothing changes. Russia already has all the deterrent weapons it needs, however, it seems to lack the will to use them.
diplomacy is when a cuntry do not just wield its proverbial cock and swings it at everyone in its way (i.e. US of A).
I talk of fear amongst commoners, plebs, sheeple in the West, not politicians and rulers. Different game
No, that's not a matter of fear, that's a matter of denigration.
inference to Chernobyl was of the final outcome.