They’d only advance the political goal of speeding up the resumption of peace talks on more of Russia’s terms at major economic, financial, and reputational costs, not to mention risking World War III by miscalculation, since conventional means suffice for responding to all existing military threats.
Nothing would delight NATO more than if Russia were to resort to the use of nuclear weapons.
Russian impotence would be on full display, any sympathy Russia has in the Global South would evaporate and people would stop talking about Israeli atrocities in Palestine. There would be enormous pressure on India and China to abandon Russia, and the US and Israel would take this as a green light to use nuclear weapons on Iran.
Agreed, and well said, it should be avoided unless Russia becomes super desperate and calculates that the costs are worth the gains, which will remain unlikely except in the most extreme scenarios.
Any future Afghanistan and Iraq will be a lot costlier thanks to drones. That changed dynamics completely. I think it is the main miscalculation on the Russian part too, nobody had predicted the magnitude and influence of drones. Now everybody knows.
Just imagine the USA occupation of Afghanistan where taliban instead of home made explosive devices had drones. Unsustainable. This is why I don’t think they have the conventional power any more (not that it does not exist, just that drones require orders of magnitude more personnel, technology, and any occupation would take orders of magnitude higher losses.
Surely there were miscalculations on all sides. I’m convinced that the west was left in shock when they realized Russia is not going to fall apart from within. That was their big miscalculation.
What is going on now, IMO is finding ways for killing more Russians and inflicting as much of material damage as possible before inevitable end of the war.
To nato, dead Russians are also a success.
And a digression: an analyst (bmanalysis) made a point which made sense to me. At the beginning of smo there was a realistic chance of Ukraine peace and then fast slide under Russian influence (there is still a chance for that in the future). To nato, Ukrainians are potential Russian soldiers, so to them dead Ukrainians are almost as good as dead Russians. NATO at this point wants to reap the situation and kill as many people to reduce future adversaries potential.
I think the Weat clearly miscalculated. And they've painted themselves into a corner that they cannot get out of, but through a general war.
The difference is that Western resources and soft power allow them to make mistakes with no consequences. Too many people still think that the West are the Good Guys, in spite of abundant evidence to the contrary.
Russia doesn't have this luxury. Ot fair? Nope. But that's the way it is. Which also makes Russian soft pedaling especially foolish.
I agree, but a lot of this speculation is coming from "Non-Russian Pro-Russians" (NRPRs) in the Alt-Media Community (AMC) and even members of the Russian government itself like Medvedev, who's mostly just an ultra-nationalist bullhorn but still a high-level official.
Yes, I personally suspect that part of what's fueling this is that some faction here thinks that loudly talking about this will "deter" the West, while some NRPRs have reacted to their dog whistles to independently promote this (IMO false) perception.
What I've learned these 2,5 years is that a lot of what we see, hear, and read is either a direct or indirect message from one group of elites to another.
We average folks are easily influenced by their respective narratives and oftentimes can't make full sense of them.
Other times we suspect that more is going on behind the scenes, but "fellow travelers'" amplification of these messages can muddle the discussion.
That's what I think is happening here after reflecting on everything from February 2022 till today.
Remember how many times we heard that it would be WWIII if the West even indirectly intervened in Ukraine?
What about when Crimea was bombed for the first time? The second? The umpteenth time now? How about the Crimean Bridge?
The Kremlin? Russia's strategic airfields? Its early warning systems? The assassination of influential journalists and other figures?
How about turning Belgorod into a literal war zone? What about the scenario of Ukraine invading pre-2014 Russian land like Kursk, which now happened?
Time and again, every prior warning about WWIII pushed by officials, allied media, and "fellow travelers" didn't pan out.
That's not to say that the risk doesn't exist -- it does, and I've written about it a lot -- but I'm becoming a lot more cynical nowadays in light of recent events.
Remember, Russia to this day won't even consider bombing even a single bridge across the Dnieper.
Another commentator earlier today ridiculously implied that's because pontoons are preferable to bridges and rails for crossing rivers (LOL!).
But the truth is that perceived political goals (irrespective of how relevant they are) seem to predominate over military ones even this far down the line.
Russia could always theoretically jump up the escalation ladder, but there are still a lot of steps to climb if it wants to do so gradually as expected.
2. Russia can't actually target, let alone track, all these shipments
If you have strong defensive lines it's cheaper to let the enemy come to you rather than hit them from a distance. It's a cost benefit equation - expensive missiles vs. cheap artillery and anti-tank ordinance which can be mass produced. A side benefit is hands-on experience destroying enemy targets at close range.
One thing that escapes most people's attention is that Russia is gaining enormous battlefield experience in the most complex peer level warfare since WWII. No other nation has that experience. What this means is that the next generation of Russian military leadership, from NCOs up to the General Staff, will be battle tested personnel with a genuine understanding of what it takes to wage war on this scale.
This is the unintended consequence of picking a fight with a nation that perceives that fight as an existential threat. To quote Admiral Yamamoto, which I'd say applies equally in this context:
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."
"1. Why won't Russia even attempt to destroy a single bridge across the Dnieper?"
You don't destroy what you intend to use. Retreating armies destroy bridges. Advancing armies attempt to preserve them.
Russia's aim thus far has not been to capture territory so much as to degrade Ukraine's military, which is achievable by a strong defensive position, provided your enemy is foolish enough to attack them, which thus far has been the case.
Thanks, McDodd. I still maintain despite what that other commentator claimed that it's more difficult to rely on pontoons for river crossings than on bridges and rails.
Right now there's an absolutely unimpeded flow of troops and equipment across the river and has been for the entire duration of this conflict.
Since Russia might not be able to track and target NATO equipment in Western Ukraine, blowing up the bridges would at least slow their deployment to the front.
I'm beginning to suspect that another "gentlemen's deal" might be the reason why Russia hasn't even tried.
We can only speculate what the terms are, but the US might have threatened Russia with something serious if that's the case.
Perhaps they said they'd authorize a conventional intervention into Western Ukraine, which while partitioning it, could spike the risk of WWIII which Putin wants to avoid?
I don't know, I'm just spitballing here because we know that it would help Russia and harm Ukraine if these bridges were destroyed (again, unlike what the other guy claimed).
So it would follow that the US might threaten something greater that would harm Russia and help Ukraine even more, such as a conventional intervention by NATO.
I’ve always been of the opinion that they WANT that flow. It’s a much broader attritional war in that they’re perfectly happy to kill all the mercenaries and empty every NATO armory. Neither can be replaced.
Everyone is also underestimating or outright ignoring the developmental aspect of this war. It’s a real world laboratory wherein Russia is refining every aspect of their military, fine tuning their industrial complex, and in due course steadily nullifying every weapon the West has.
By the time NATO would get around to committing themselves they wouldn’t have any cards to play.
I hadn't thought of the bridges like that, making it impossible to track troops and supplies.
Too many armchair generals, though; all joking aside, I wouldn't like to comment on the relative efficiency or inefficiency of any particular action. I don't know.
I do, however, trust Putin and the Russians to get it right.
I think you're wise to recognise spitballing, when ya gotta...
And I reckon you're most probably right about the gentlemen's agreement.
So frustrating to force oneself to reconcile to statesmen, like Putin, particularly in a world where there are so few of them, needing to relate to [find your own word here for Biden, Sullivan, UK PMs et alia, please] as 'gentlemen', when the world is so full of such [?].
Russia, led by Putin, has been one of the savviest interdictors of Western hegemony. Syria's Assad followed suit and has kept together his country despite the hyenas of U.S., Turkey, and Israel tearing his country apart. Assad is now being welcomed throughout the Middle East. They both behaved with a restraint unknown in the capitols of the U.S., UK, and Europe.
I see no reason why Russia need nuke anything. I do believe a submarine-launched hypersonic missile (flying under radar) could take out Washington, D.C. Lord, the silence would be a blessing.
Putin has a sort of siege problem. If he just sits there, those outside the castle gates will just wear him down with loads of terrorism, sniping, missile, drone (etc) attacks and abuse. The bully never goes away unless he receives a bloody noe. Although Putin's restraint is commendable not responding makes him look weak - and that can lead to internal instability. To have these enemies outside the city gate is the real problem. Peace talks dont work because they wouldn't last with such enemies, just look at Minsk. So what's the solution?
Rusia no usaría armas nucleares táctica en este momento. El punto de cambio inquietante en este momento sería que usase sus misiles hipersónicos contra los países que pudieran proporcionar misiles de largo alcance a Ucrania. Ese escenario sería igualmente inquietante pues si UK recibiera una respuesta de este tipo en su propio territorio no tengo ni idea de cuál podría ser su respuesta, ya que Rusia estaría demás atacándoles dentro de la legalidad. De todas maneras UK dejo de fabricar misiles Storm Shadow hace tiempo y parece muy plausible que le quedan poquísimas unidades, si es que le quedan. De hecho, llevamos bastante tiempo viendo que ya tampoco los usan en Ucrania. Si eso es así, todo este teatro que se está montando ahora sería solo un farol por por parte de UK. UK no tiene prácticamente ejercito, ni tan siquiera tanques y su armada esta en un estado lamentable. Por otro lado, Alemania no parece que vaya a usar sus misiles Taurus contra Rusia y Francia ya ha dejado de hablar del tema con sus Scalps. EEUU parece que tampoco va a entregar ATACAM (de hecho, dicen que, sus almacenes andan también bastante bajos). Todo esto suena a rabietas y ganas de mantener la cara ante sus audiencias en el mundo occidental, así como su presión mediática a todos los niveles. Sabemos que incluso sus producciones de municiones andan bastante bajas con respecto a lo que se necesitaría para emprender un enfrentamiento "en serio" con Rusia. Los ejércitos europeos además no cuentan ni con el número de efectivos necesarios, ni las infraestructuras, ni la coordinación necesarias. Europa está cayendo a marchas forzadas en un abismo económico sin ninguna forma de arreglo que no sea desmontando todo el "estado único" y centralizado que están intentando montar y sin contar con la población. No hay creatividad en los campos más importantes. Malos tiempos para Europa y muy muy difícil de corregir.
The fact we are discussing whether or not Russia will nuke a country they are sending gas to is testament to how stupid this war is and incomprehensible Moscows goals are. Is there a way to nuke Ukraine without interrupting gas deliveries, without damaging dniper bridges, without damaging railroad hubs, and without critically damaging the electric infrastructure? If yes then maybe nukes are on the table. I guess reputational damage makes it unlikely but the Kremlin is sometimes quite unpredictable. Who would have thought a few years ago that Moscow would tolerate NATO giving missiles for long range missile strikes into Russia proper to Russias enemies? Hell even in the 90s NATO support to Chechnyan terrorist was covert. A country that passively allows other countries to arm it's enemies during war time is by definition not a great superpower. Even more so when sending these hostile countries raw materials. So Russia obviously doesn't care about its superpower reputation. So who knows? Maybe they also don't care about their humanitarian reputation.
Resorting to the use of nuclear weapons by any party is a point of no return: murder-suicide.
IMHO we are a long ways from that; ‘though depending on how reckless Ukraine / West gets, there a few possible scenarios where Russia would be justified to respond with nukes.
Stop 🛑 all that ridiculous talk about using nuclear ☢️ weapons in Ukraine That should not under any circumstances be even considered It will back fire in Russia and they will lose all sympathy and support from other BRICS countries and it would proof the West narrative that Putin are an evil psychopath dictator. Russian have other conventional weapons they can use. Also to bomb and destroy Kiev if it should be necessary I agree that NATO de facto are at war with Russia and have been that for a long time. So it’s legitimate that Russia attack NATO bases in other EU countries But it’s crazy to escalate the war and kill more innocent people Remove the non elected warmongering corrupt criminal psychopath Zelensky and start peace ☮️ negotiations now
1) Biden's already a done deal; would Trump (or Harris or any of the others lined up for the job) be any better?
2) The UK was dealt with on Yankee Doodle Day (Did you miss the election? There was one, as if it could make any difference.);
3) Macron just ignored his wake up call, and is busily convincing himself that's OK;
4) the Germans are working on it in a stereotypically precise manner.
If none of the above are of any real significance (And please do rest assured they are not!) how on earth could you imagine anything a clown with a penchant for cocaine, who won attention by playing a piano with his penis, is going to make any difference?
Nothing would delight NATO more than if Russia were to resort to the use of nuclear weapons.
Russian impotence would be on full display, any sympathy Russia has in the Global South would evaporate and people would stop talking about Israeli atrocities in Palestine. There would be enormous pressure on India and China to abandon Russia, and the US and Israel would take this as a green light to use nuclear weapons on Iran.
Fair? No, but fair has nothing to do with it.
Agreed, and well said, it should be avoided unless Russia becomes super desperate and calculates that the costs are worth the gains, which will remain unlikely except in the most extreme scenarios.
I strongly believe that USA has already made a decision of nuking Iran, they are just waiting for an opportunity.
USA using nuke is necessary for it as it can no longer project conventional power and it must instil fear to hold on to its supremacy.
I am not sure about the conventional power trope, much as I may wish otherwise.
Any future Afghanistan and Iraq will be a lot costlier thanks to drones. That changed dynamics completely. I think it is the main miscalculation on the Russian part too, nobody had predicted the magnitude and influence of drones. Now everybody knows.
Just imagine the USA occupation of Afghanistan where taliban instead of home made explosive devices had drones. Unsustainable. This is why I don’t think they have the conventional power any more (not that it does not exist, just that drones require orders of magnitude more personnel, technology, and any occupation would take orders of magnitude higher losses.
Russia has made miscalculation after miscalculation, much as I may wish otherwise.
Surely there were miscalculations on all sides. I’m convinced that the west was left in shock when they realized Russia is not going to fall apart from within. That was their big miscalculation.
What is going on now, IMO is finding ways for killing more Russians and inflicting as much of material damage as possible before inevitable end of the war.
To nato, dead Russians are also a success.
And a digression: an analyst (bmanalysis) made a point which made sense to me. At the beginning of smo there was a realistic chance of Ukraine peace and then fast slide under Russian influence (there is still a chance for that in the future). To nato, Ukrainians are potential Russian soldiers, so to them dead Ukrainians are almost as good as dead Russians. NATO at this point wants to reap the situation and kill as many people to reduce future adversaries potential.
I think the Weat clearly miscalculated. And they've painted themselves into a corner that they cannot get out of, but through a general war.
The difference is that Western resources and soft power allow them to make mistakes with no consequences. Too many people still think that the West are the Good Guys, in spite of abundant evidence to the contrary.
Russia doesn't have this luxury. Ot fair? Nope. But that's the way it is. Which also makes Russian soft pedaling especially foolish.
After the failed “counteroffensive” any speculation in the west about Russia using nukes has been and will continue to be pure projection.
I agree, but a lot of this speculation is coming from "Non-Russian Pro-Russians" (NRPRs) in the Alt-Media Community (AMC) and even members of the Russian government itself like Medvedev, who's mostly just an ultra-nationalist bullhorn but still a high-level official.
Psyops. 😉 Doesn’t hurt to put it out there.
Yes, I personally suspect that part of what's fueling this is that some faction here thinks that loudly talking about this will "deter" the West, while some NRPRs have reacted to their dog whistles to independently promote this (IMO false) perception.
What I've learned these 2,5 years is that a lot of what we see, hear, and read is either a direct or indirect message from one group of elites to another.
We average folks are easily influenced by their respective narratives and oftentimes can't make full sense of them.
Other times we suspect that more is going on behind the scenes, but "fellow travelers'" amplification of these messages can muddle the discussion.
That's what I think is happening here after reflecting on everything from February 2022 till today.
Remember how many times we heard that it would be WWIII if the West even indirectly intervened in Ukraine?
What about when Crimea was bombed for the first time? The second? The umpteenth time now? How about the Crimean Bridge?
The Kremlin? Russia's strategic airfields? Its early warning systems? The assassination of influential journalists and other figures?
How about turning Belgorod into a literal war zone? What about the scenario of Ukraine invading pre-2014 Russian land like Kursk, which now happened?
Time and again, every prior warning about WWIII pushed by officials, allied media, and "fellow travelers" didn't pan out.
That's not to say that the risk doesn't exist -- it does, and I've written about it a lot -- but I'm becoming a lot more cynical nowadays in light of recent events.
Remember, Russia to this day won't even consider bombing even a single bridge across the Dnieper.
Another commentator earlier today ridiculously implied that's because pontoons are preferable to bridges and rails for crossing rivers (LOL!).
But the truth is that perceived political goals (irrespective of how relevant they are) seem to predominate over military ones even this far down the line.
Russia could always theoretically jump up the escalation ladder, but there are still a lot of steps to climb if it wants to do so gradually as expected.
We need to ask ourselves several questions:
1. Why won't Russia even attempt to destroy a single bridge across the Dnieper?
2. Why do troops and equipment continue rushing to the front lines from Western Ukraine?
3. What did Russia really want to achieve by attempting in vain to revive the grain deal earlier this spring?
In my view:
1. Political goals continue to take precedence over military ones
2. Russia can't actually target, let alone track, all these shipments
3. "Goodwill gestures" are seen by the Russian elite as a means towards convincing the Western elite to get Ukraine to resume peace talks.
1. ✓
2. ✓
3. ✓
You make for a good read.
2. Russia can't actually target, let alone track, all these shipments
If you have strong defensive lines it's cheaper to let the enemy come to you rather than hit them from a distance. It's a cost benefit equation - expensive missiles vs. cheap artillery and anti-tank ordinance which can be mass produced. A side benefit is hands-on experience destroying enemy targets at close range.
One thing that escapes most people's attention is that Russia is gaining enormous battlefield experience in the most complex peer level warfare since WWII. No other nation has that experience. What this means is that the next generation of Russian military leadership, from NCOs up to the General Staff, will be battle tested personnel with a genuine understanding of what it takes to wage war on this scale.
This is the unintended consequence of picking a fight with a nation that perceives that fight as an existential threat. To quote Admiral Yamamoto, which I'd say applies equally in this context:
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."
"1. Why won't Russia even attempt to destroy a single bridge across the Dnieper?"
You don't destroy what you intend to use. Retreating armies destroy bridges. Advancing armies attempt to preserve them.
Russia's aim thus far has not been to capture territory so much as to degrade Ukraine's military, which is achievable by a strong defensive position, provided your enemy is foolish enough to attack them, which thus far has been the case.
1. Political goals continue to take precedence over military ones
"War is the continuation of politics by other means." --Karl Von Clausewitz
On the other hand, it doesn't do too much/any harm?
Thanks, McDodd. I still maintain despite what that other commentator claimed that it's more difficult to rely on pontoons for river crossings than on bridges and rails.
Right now there's an absolutely unimpeded flow of troops and equipment across the river and has been for the entire duration of this conflict.
Since Russia might not be able to track and target NATO equipment in Western Ukraine, blowing up the bridges would at least slow their deployment to the front.
I'm beginning to suspect that another "gentlemen's deal" might be the reason why Russia hasn't even tried.
We can only speculate what the terms are, but the US might have threatened Russia with something serious if that's the case.
Perhaps they said they'd authorize a conventional intervention into Western Ukraine, which while partitioning it, could spike the risk of WWIII which Putin wants to avoid?
I don't know, I'm just spitballing here because we know that it would help Russia and harm Ukraine if these bridges were destroyed (again, unlike what the other guy claimed).
So it would follow that the US might threaten something greater that would harm Russia and help Ukraine even more, such as a conventional intervention by NATO.
I’ve always been of the opinion that they WANT that flow. It’s a much broader attritional war in that they’re perfectly happy to kill all the mercenaries and empty every NATO armory. Neither can be replaced.
Everyone is also underestimating or outright ignoring the developmental aspect of this war. It’s a real world laboratory wherein Russia is refining every aspect of their military, fine tuning their industrial complex, and in due course steadily nullifying every weapon the West has.
By the time NATO would get around to committing themselves they wouldn’t have any cards to play.
Yeah, makes good sense.
I hadn't thought of the bridges like that, making it impossible to track troops and supplies.
Too many armchair generals, though; all joking aside, I wouldn't like to comment on the relative efficiency or inefficiency of any particular action. I don't know.
I do, however, trust Putin and the Russians to get it right.
I think you're wise to recognise spitballing, when ya gotta...
And I reckon you're most probably right about the gentlemen's agreement.
So frustrating to force oneself to reconcile to statesmen, like Putin, particularly in a world where there are so few of them, needing to relate to [find your own word here for Biden, Sullivan, UK PMs et alia, please] as 'gentlemen', when the world is so full of such [?].
Russia, led by Putin, has been one of the savviest interdictors of Western hegemony. Syria's Assad followed suit and has kept together his country despite the hyenas of U.S., Turkey, and Israel tearing his country apart. Assad is now being welcomed throughout the Middle East. They both behaved with a restraint unknown in the capitols of the U.S., UK, and Europe.
I see no reason why Russia need nuke anything. I do believe a submarine-launched hypersonic missile (flying under radar) could take out Washington, D.C. Lord, the silence would be a blessing.
Putin has a sort of siege problem. If he just sits there, those outside the castle gates will just wear him down with loads of terrorism, sniping, missile, drone (etc) attacks and abuse. The bully never goes away unless he receives a bloody noe. Although Putin's restraint is commendable not responding makes him look weak - and that can lead to internal instability. To have these enemies outside the city gate is the real problem. Peace talks dont work because they wouldn't last with such enemies, just look at Minsk. So what's the solution?
1: wait for the children to grow up;
2: wait for more grown-up children to get fed up being pushed around by immature bullies and get rid of them;
3: just wait to see how it pans out and act as, when and if appropriate.
You know, like adults do.
Rusia no usaría armas nucleares táctica en este momento. El punto de cambio inquietante en este momento sería que usase sus misiles hipersónicos contra los países que pudieran proporcionar misiles de largo alcance a Ucrania. Ese escenario sería igualmente inquietante pues si UK recibiera una respuesta de este tipo en su propio territorio no tengo ni idea de cuál podría ser su respuesta, ya que Rusia estaría demás atacándoles dentro de la legalidad. De todas maneras UK dejo de fabricar misiles Storm Shadow hace tiempo y parece muy plausible que le quedan poquísimas unidades, si es que le quedan. De hecho, llevamos bastante tiempo viendo que ya tampoco los usan en Ucrania. Si eso es así, todo este teatro que se está montando ahora sería solo un farol por por parte de UK. UK no tiene prácticamente ejercito, ni tan siquiera tanques y su armada esta en un estado lamentable. Por otro lado, Alemania no parece que vaya a usar sus misiles Taurus contra Rusia y Francia ya ha dejado de hablar del tema con sus Scalps. EEUU parece que tampoco va a entregar ATACAM (de hecho, dicen que, sus almacenes andan también bastante bajos). Todo esto suena a rabietas y ganas de mantener la cara ante sus audiencias en el mundo occidental, así como su presión mediática a todos los niveles. Sabemos que incluso sus producciones de municiones andan bastante bajas con respecto a lo que se necesitaría para emprender un enfrentamiento "en serio" con Rusia. Los ejércitos europeos además no cuentan ni con el número de efectivos necesarios, ni las infraestructuras, ni la coordinación necesarias. Europa está cayendo a marchas forzadas en un abismo económico sin ninguna forma de arreglo que no sea desmontando todo el "estado único" y centralizado que están intentando montar y sin contar con la población. No hay creatividad en los campos más importantes. Malos tiempos para Europa y muy muy difícil de corregir.
The fact we are discussing whether or not Russia will nuke a country they are sending gas to is testament to how stupid this war is and incomprehensible Moscows goals are. Is there a way to nuke Ukraine without interrupting gas deliveries, without damaging dniper bridges, without damaging railroad hubs, and without critically damaging the electric infrastructure? If yes then maybe nukes are on the table. I guess reputational damage makes it unlikely but the Kremlin is sometimes quite unpredictable. Who would have thought a few years ago that Moscow would tolerate NATO giving missiles for long range missile strikes into Russia proper to Russias enemies? Hell even in the 90s NATO support to Chechnyan terrorist was covert. A country that passively allows other countries to arm it's enemies during war time is by definition not a great superpower. Even more so when sending these hostile countries raw materials. So Russia obviously doesn't care about its superpower reputation. So who knows? Maybe they also don't care about their humanitarian reputation.
Resorting to the use of nuclear weapons by any party is a point of no return: murder-suicide.
IMHO we are a long ways from that; ‘though depending on how reckless Ukraine / West gets, there a few possible scenarios where Russia would be justified to respond with nukes.
Im sorry you had to write this one!
Well, after reading all the comments, I need to retract that comment. Obvsly more going on with this talk than i thought.
"What Would Really Be Achieved..."
Just one thing: victory for the Americans.
Stop 🛑 all that ridiculous talk about using nuclear ☢️ weapons in Ukraine That should not under any circumstances be even considered It will back fire in Russia and they will lose all sympathy and support from other BRICS countries and it would proof the West narrative that Putin are an evil psychopath dictator. Russian have other conventional weapons they can use. Also to bomb and destroy Kiev if it should be necessary I agree that NATO de facto are at war with Russia and have been that for a long time. So it’s legitimate that Russia attack NATO bases in other EU countries But it’s crazy to escalate the war and kill more innocent people Remove the non elected warmongering corrupt criminal psychopath Zelensky and start peace ☮️ negotiations now
Which one:
1) Biden's already a done deal; would Trump (or Harris or any of the others lined up for the job) be any better?
2) The UK was dealt with on Yankee Doodle Day (Did you miss the election? There was one, as if it could make any difference.);
3) Macron just ignored his wake up call, and is busily convincing himself that's OK;
4) the Germans are working on it in a stereotypically precise manner.
If none of the above are of any real significance (And please do rest assured they are not!) how on earth could you imagine anything a clown with a penchant for cocaine, who won attention by playing a piano with his penis, is going to make any difference?