The main point that’s being conveyed through these updated terms is that Russia will not allow Ukraine to be used as NATO’s proxy for inflicting the bloc’s hoped-for strategic defeat upon it.
Here is the conundrum: If Russia really is the massive geopolitical threat it is made out to be by our leaders (I'm a Dutchman living in the UK), shouldn't we be undeterred by Russia's nuclear weapons? After all, if that would be true, we would have nothing to lose and everything to preserve (and thus to win). Both the UK and the Netherlands are part of the NATO nuclear weapons sharing programmes and the UK has nuclear weapons of its own as well. Yet, most denizens of Western societies are however subtly well aware we have a lot to lose from attacking Russia in any way (directly or indirectly). I am not going to personally benefit at all if Royal Dutch Shell gets access to the Ukraine's wealth of natural resources, but I may have to deal with all the potential downsides of its attempts to get it.
"...the UK has nuclear weapons of its own as well."
To an extent that's true, but DO bear in mind it DOES NOT hold the launch codes to the missiles in its submarines. They are held by the Americans and are not accessible to the British. Effectively, there are no British nuclear submarines. (Or, more accurately, those that there are cannot fire nuclear missiles without the Americans' approval.) There may be other battleground nuclear weapons available to the British armed services but I would be surprised to discover the Americans have been any less careful and more lax about their control of them than they have been regarding the submarines.
I believe I should add, although Britain does NOT have access to (launch codes for) the missiles on its submarines, it DOES build, man and maintain the vessels, all at British taxpayers' expense.
"...those that there are cannot fire nuclear missiles without the Americans' approval."
Likewise, I should add, I believe, those missiles may be fired by the Americans independently, without British approval.
It would be wise for Russia not to get sidetracked and remain focused on defeating the Nazi AFU forces. Ukraine can be of no threat upon its surrender.
Russia needs to force a surrender in response to increased hostility by Zelensky.
The only way Russia is going to be able to neutralize Ukraine is to take control of it.
The whole concept of Ukraine turned out to be a bad idea. Russia should take it over and make the changes needed so that Ukraine will be its new western buffer zone.
If Russia wants regime change in Ukraine, it's going to have to take it and neutralize the existential threat it faces. Step it up, Russia.
"The whole concept of Ukraine turned out to be a bad idea."
No, it was fine until the Americans successfully orchestrated their coup ('Twenty years and five billion bucks!') in 2014. Even then, they didn't rescind constitutional neutrality until 2019.
"when he won’t even authorize the destruction of a single major bridge over the Dnieper"
I believe this issue would deserve one post much longer than that where you took on the issue.
Specially that hypothesis 4): "The USA threatened to step in conventionally if the bridges were disrupted".
This would mean Russia sees itself as weaker and will, in general, bring its actions as far as the USA permits. I don't know how it differs from a substantial conventional defeat, if country Y can successfully force country X to, yes, fight a war but not in the way they would really win.
Yes. NATO has already crossed one red line after another, with no proportionate response.
Perhaps the problem (for Russia) is that the West had considerable influence (ahem) in appointing Yeltsin and then Putin to power in the first place? Or perhaps it's that Putin and his oligarchs grow wealthy by selling Russia's natural resources, and then invest their wealth in the Western economy?
There is that but it's not insurmountable when the population is behind a war effort. Until the Americans' attempts at colour revolution in Russia itself are successful, they will lose. Unfortunately, Putin won't live forever BUT he IS aware of that and taking all possible steps to ameliorate his demise. Many of them are already bearing fruit: political power in Russia is far more widely spread than it ever has been before.
Here is the conundrum: If Russia really is the massive geopolitical threat it is made out to be by our leaders (I'm a Dutchman living in the UK), shouldn't we be undeterred by Russia's nuclear weapons? After all, if that would be true, we would have nothing to lose and everything to preserve (and thus to win). Both the UK and the Netherlands are part of the NATO nuclear weapons sharing programmes and the UK has nuclear weapons of its own as well. Yet, most denizens of Western societies are however subtly well aware we have a lot to lose from attacking Russia in any way (directly or indirectly). I am not going to personally benefit at all if Royal Dutch Shell gets access to the Ukraine's wealth of natural resources, but I may have to deal with all the potential downsides of its attempts to get it.
"...the UK has nuclear weapons of its own as well."
To an extent that's true, but DO bear in mind it DOES NOT hold the launch codes to the missiles in its submarines. They are held by the Americans and are not accessible to the British. Effectively, there are no British nuclear submarines. (Or, more accurately, those that there are cannot fire nuclear missiles without the Americans' approval.) There may be other battleground nuclear weapons available to the British armed services but I would be surprised to discover the Americans have been any less careful and more lax about their control of them than they have been regarding the submarines.
I believe I should add, although Britain does NOT have access to (launch codes for) the missiles on its submarines, it DOES build, man and maintain the vessels, all at British taxpayers' expense.
"...those that there are cannot fire nuclear missiles without the Americans' approval."
Likewise, I should add, I believe, those missiles may be fired by the Americans independently, without British approval.
It would be wise for Russia not to get sidetracked and remain focused on defeating the Nazi AFU forces. Ukraine can be of no threat upon its surrender.
Russia needs to force a surrender in response to increased hostility by Zelensky.
The only way Russia is going to be able to neutralize Ukraine is to take control of it.
The whole concept of Ukraine turned out to be a bad idea. Russia should take it over and make the changes needed so that Ukraine will be its new western buffer zone.
If Russia wants regime change in Ukraine, it's going to have to take it and neutralize the existential threat it faces. Step it up, Russia.
"The whole concept of Ukraine turned out to be a bad idea."
No, it was fine until the Americans successfully orchestrated their coup ('Twenty years and five billion bucks!') in 2014. Even then, they didn't rescind constitutional neutrality until 2019.
"when he won’t even authorize the destruction of a single major bridge over the Dnieper"
I believe this issue would deserve one post much longer than that where you took on the issue.
Specially that hypothesis 4): "The USA threatened to step in conventionally if the bridges were disrupted".
This would mean Russia sees itself as weaker and will, in general, bring its actions as far as the USA permits. I don't know how it differs from a substantial conventional defeat, if country Y can successfully force country X to, yes, fight a war but not in the way they would really win.
Too late. The West already has called Russia's bluff. Expect Taurus missiles next, probably before the inauguration.
Russia continues to dither and pussyfoot, and these are the inevitable consequences when your enemies are sociopaths.
Yes. NATO has already crossed one red line after another, with no proportionate response.
Perhaps the problem (for Russia) is that the West had considerable influence (ahem) in appointing Yeltsin and then Putin to power in the first place? Or perhaps it's that Putin and his oligarchs grow wealthy by selling Russia's natural resources, and then invest their wealth in the Western economy?
I doubt it. Russia does not seek to destroy the West but to join it.
The West seeks nothing less than the destruction of Russia.
"...his oligarchs grow wealthy..."
There is that but it's not insurmountable when the population is behind a war effort. Until the Americans' attempts at colour revolution in Russia itself are successful, they will lose. Unfortunately, Putin won't live forever BUT he IS aware of that and taking all possible steps to ameliorate his demise. Many of them are already bearing fruit: political power in Russia is far more widely spread than it ever has been before.
The only message the USA and its slave army called NATO understand is strength and Russia needs to hit back 10 times for each one done to them,