Address by the President of the Russian Federation
en.kremlin.ru
en.kremlin.ru
If. But that's a psychological point in Putin's mind, not a reality in the real world. We're at the point where the pathologies of one man are driving this war.
Another fact I find amazing is the maidan revolution being televised for weeks across the globe on all major news channels, with prominent EU leaders traveling to Kyiv and holding speeches to the crowds. One of those was Angela Merkel and hundreds of millions must have seen it. Today this fact is considered Russian propaganda and apparently never happened. Anyone watched the news 6 years ago and isn't afraid of being downvoted on an internet forum? Remember Merkel's "Right to be forgotten" act? Guess what she used it on.
I came to this forum expecting a higher level of conversation than the horror I've witnessed on reddit. Instead I see outrage over "Russia support everywhere" in a thread where literally 1 heavily downvoted comment was not making fun of Russians(at the time of writing of course). I question the sincerity of people behind such comments. We all know psyops exist, but apparently never in our neighborhoods. Another theory is it's just trolling, which is basically a modern version of wife-beating. "Husband comes home from work frustrated where he was taking insults all day from an abusive boss and takes it out on his wife." vs. "Modern internet user is put down by society/boss/wife and takes it out on strangers on the internet." This whole propaganda shit-fest is playing right in the hands of abusers. My father used to say "come war, the bastards move up in society".
And for gods sake, can someone tell me what percentage of the global production is weapons manufacturing? One used to be able to find that piece of information, but not anymore.
I don't think there's a single person on this forum that's not an ace at googling. So I take it you didn't google it for other reasons. Which is also a point I'm making and has been additionally explained in the post you're replying to.
You are being needlessly obtuse in your responses and in providing any clarifying information, which is either acting in bad faith or arrogance. If you believe me calling that out as such is a personal attack, then I suggest you provide sources so your points actually can be accessed and addressed.
I already explained my motivations behind what you describe as "acting in bad faith or arrogance" and would rather not be going in circles.
- It's available on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKcmNGvaDUs and was posted in April 2021
- It's searchable on Amazon currently despite being blocked in March of this year per the archived result in the article: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Ukraine+on+Fire&rh=n%3A2625373011...
This feels out of date; the movie is not being censored now. It was blocked by private companies likely as a quick response to the beginning of the war, and has since been made accessible again.
Please do realize you didn't check any of my points. Found any footage of Merkel in Kyiv that millions remember from weeks of news coverage, but apparently never happened? What percentage of the global economy is the weapons industry? I could continue with more concrete examples of censorship, but we can't even tackle any basics as they are getting ignored.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_on_Fire
The executive producer (better known for his work as a director) was Oliver Stone. You can buy it on DVD from several major retailers or pay to get it instantly via streaming on Amazon Prime.
The reason "few US citizen seem to know about it" is probably because most US citizens don't watch political documentaries.
It's not 2014 any more...
What's sad is up to two months ago there were UN observers in the area, publishing all their observations daily in an open public online database. If one so chooses, one can read up on the intensified shelling of the Donbass regions leading up to Russias intervention. Took me seconds to find the first time. Up to 1000 artillery explosions per day counted by international observers and published online. Go on. We're in the information age, with all that information available to us, yet no one seems to know anything concrete or where to find it. Why is that?
As for literal Russian Nazis: https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1572972414451027970 for just one example.
I did some light digging with the information you provided. The source is not an "independent researched", but a member of a Washington based think tank "The Woodrow Wilson Center". Literally everything he wrote in the past years was slandering Russia. Where did you think the gigantic budget of the CIA went?
The proof you provided is a telegram screenshot. You want me to make one that reads "Russian troops offering lollipops to Ukranian POWs"? Should take the average ycombinator reader minutes to whip up such a picture. You should know better.
That word's time has come again!
It’s possible that this will give them an overwhelming force.
And, 300k without artillery, tanks, air support, and logistics isn't an overwhelming force. Does Russia have the rest of what it takes to make them an effective force?
They have less than 800 multipurpose and attack planes combined (because i don't want to explain it in another comment: they have air superiority, so their fighter plan count isn't relevant).
If we consider Russian hardware as well maintained as France or US, it means 650 available planes max for offensive operations. A bit more than 50 planes are confirmed destroyed, so I'll round it up to 600. That means 300 sortie a day max (if each plane have 2 maintenance crew fulltime). But as the long-range air defense is effective, you cannot penetrate too deep, and that limit the efficiency.
Ukraine is like twice the size of Irak, with more population and vegetation. Russia do have air superiority but they cannot action it.
Hopefully for the conscripts, Putin just want to defend and wait it out . In this case, manpower is effective.
Another way to use manpower is to assault continuously WW1 style, supported by artillery fire. This would be stupid.
Air superiority during WW2 meant that your fighter+recon force is dominant in the 3rd dimension. You can have air superiority and suffer more from air interdiction than the enemy (and usually that's how it goes btw, see WW2 and Korea war).
Air superiority is needed to be able to send your attack planes in enemy territory overtly, which the russian do. Not much, but they do.
Like i said, i took fairly large numbers to explain why the airforce didn't do much (i don't remember the comment but it should be something like 200 outing per day on average, when in the first gulf war, the US managed 800 outing a day on average for 43 days, on a smaller country with better terrain).
Now, the real number? I think that of their 800 attack planes, they only have 300 to 400 available, because of what we've seen of their equipment and the rampant corruption.
I don't think they have enough mechanics to prepare more than a hundred planes a day originally, and they stupidly lost some their mechanics during the first week of the war (encamped in a Ukrainian airport on the frontline). I think this is the reason whay the outing are so reduced compared to the early days in fact.
Like my favourite defense analyst likes to say “war is contingent”.
Keep in mind Ukraine had 45 million people before the war versus Russia's 144 million. But Ukraine mobilized absolutely everyone they could versus Russia which needs to keep their population content and downplay the "special operation".
The reality is that Putin has elected to invade a sovereign neighbor country and can unelect to do so. Not one "western" leader, military or civilian, has threatened Russia "existentially" and certainly no one has threatened to invade Russia.
Putin is a liar, to put it simply. He's apparently playing the crazy-card, in attempts to freak the world out, but his constant threats to the entire world of nuclear first-strikes and then saying that "THIS TIME IS NOT A BLUFF" means that people can't really learn much by his unchanging and silly rhetoric. As some boxer said: "Be aware of the main trunk of his body and where it's moving and watch his hands"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/21/vladim...
"few of Putin’s contradictory storylines stand up to even a moment’s critical thought: we are winning in Ukraine – but the forces of the west aligned against us are so powerful that now we need to dig deeper to stay in the fight; our proxy regimes in Ukraine need to hold referendums to join us – but we already know they all want to join; we’re protecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia itself – but to do this requires incorporating part of another country; our war aim has always simply been to “liberate” Donbas – but to do that we’ve also taken so much of Ukraine that we have a 1,000km frontline."
It doesn't matter which side you stand on today, if you think the solution to this problem is war instead of negotiation and peace, you are being abused by everything you read and hear.
It's going to take 100,000+ dead Russians. At some point the military and civilian leadership in Russia will realize that Putin has to go, and that is when all this will end.
There is a lot of death and destruction yet to go. Ukraine will struggle with hundreds of thousands of new bodies arming Russia's antique military machine. Iran is flying in large quantities of drones that will expose Ukraine's forces to effective Russian artillery. But the outcome won't change; Ukraine will ultimately win because it's not a war of choice for Ukraine and Ukraine has the allies it needs to keep fighting.
Ukraine would be foolish to trust the North America or Europe to support them forever, especially if even more major economic issues happen in either continent.
That seems to be Putins play, he is hoping the West's internal issues sufficiently flare up. This winter will probably determine that. The only real diplomatic path is to convince China to sever with Russia, and thats not gonna happen. Its well understood China is looking at this as a dry run for what kind of responses to expect if Taiwan gets attacked. And China is the clear winner of the Ukraine conflict right now.
It’s not going to fully happen, but Putin met Xi Jinping in Uzbekistan last week, and returned a bit disappointed.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/09/16/world/vladimir-...:
“President Vladimir Putin acknowledged Thursday that China had “questions and concerns” about Russia’s war in Ukraine, a notable, if cryptic, admission that Moscow lacks the full backing of its biggest, most powerful partner on the world stage”
⇒ I don’t think Russia will get much support from China.
The sudden disruption in an economy with that many people might produce some serious destabilization.
China would probably prefer a slow fadeout of the West rather then a rapid implosion.
The current status quo where a luke warm ally nearby country whose territory and resources you might want to scoop up some day and your major rival are both burning resources, while you get to profit being the middle man between the 2 benefits China greatly. Fully supporting Russia doesn't.
This is why Nixon sought to keep China and Russia separate. I don't know what the US State department's strategy is with Ukraine except to become energy supplier to Europe and grind Russia down. But in the process make China stronger?
Well, another thing China might want from Russia is Manchuria, but it’s not the time I think.
how allies will help if Russia will use tactical nukes on Ukrainian forces?
How so, why are you confident allies will declare some kind of war in such event?
If a country invades a neighbor, claims it’s now part of their sovereign homeland while the neighbor is still actively defending, and then uses nukes based the justification their newly occupied “homeland” they just invaded is being invaded by its defenders then it means any country with nukes can use nukes to invade and grab neighboring territory
At the very least, everyone is going to get nukes
its ongoing process already. On one hand you have Iran, Israel, N Korea who developed/developing nukes, on another hand US has agreements for sharing nuclear weapons with plenty of countries already, I think American nukes deployed in several European countries right now.
Not really, Russia doesn’t have precision guided munitions. Ukraine - or NATO - is at least decade ahead technologically, maybe two.
Russia has ample artillery. While they're blind it isn't very effective. Drones correct that deficiency, which is why Russian drones are a serious threat.
This is badly incorrect. You have fantastical ideas about how artillery works. Perhaps you've seen images of a few cratered wheat fields and figure that is Russian SOP and goes on 24x7. It doesn't. Those are major operations that require a lot of costly preparation and time. Russia can't afford to do it on a whim, firing whilly nilly at phantoms. No one can.
Fire must be directed. Otherwise you're just making noise.
Also, what Russia is doing is mostly making noise. That’s why their offensive over the past couple of months was so hilariously slow. That’s also why they level entire cities instead of specific military targets.
Get ready for WW3.
Against who? Russia can't even fight Ukraine. China es calling for peace. This is a minor regional conflict. I feel sorry for the people of Ukraine and Russia that are going to suffer and die pointlessly for the delusional imperial ambitions of an old man that lives 75 years in the pass.
Putin is the new Mussolini, getting his ass handed to him while trying to invade Greece and for exactly the same reasons; mainly a low moral, low quality army that doesn't want to fight that war.
No.
All this “but USA!”, “but NATO!”, “but the Nazis!” whataboutism is complete nonsense.
It doesn’t even begin to explain one country invading a neighbor with 125k men, leveling entire cities and killing thousands of civilians.
Even making hypothetical Mexico comparisons is impossible without focusing the debate around something other than the invasion and therefore sounding like a Russia apologist.
2013 Viktoria Nuland orchestrated a coup to oust Yanukovych because he changed his mind at signing an economic agreement with EU and signed one with Russia instead. A pro Western leader was put in place. https://consortiumnews.com/2014/02/23/neocons-and-the-ukrain...
Since 2014 NATO has been training Ukrainian forces. https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/nato-has-been-training-ukr...
Cuba was not allowed to have Soviet missiles but it's ok for Ukraine to become a member of NATO?
The "Nazis" should not be underestimated. They are small but powerful because they use violence and intimidation. Like the Cartels influence with law enforcement in Mexico they influence policy in Ukraine.
> Ukrainians spontaneously united against the actions of President Viktor Yanukovych after his government refused to sign the Association Agreement with the European Union, which had taken seven years to negotiate, due to pressure from Russia.
If the Ukrainians spent 7 years wanting to get closer to the west and then as you say "[Yanukovych] changed his mind". I think it's easy to see the populace wanting to oust this leader and that the following leader would be pro western, like the leaders in the seven prior years.
Does a coup in a foreign country form a valid pretext for invasion you mean?
> Since 2014 NATO has been training Ukrainian forces.
Yes. Are you trying to argue that this forms a reasonable pretext for invading a neighboring country? Or how else is it relevant?
> it's ok for Ukraine to become a member of NATO?
Of course. It's their choice as a sovereign state to have any alliance with anyone.
It seems you are enumerating a number of things that Russia disagreed with or that was even outright hostile or Anti-russian. But that doesn't form a pretext for invasion does it?
> Cuba was not allowed to have Soviet missiles
Accoring to who? The US? Ukraine? The soviet union? Nato? No. It was the US that considered this unacceptable. And the Soviet Union considered the placement of MRBMs in Turkey unacceptable. So you might argue the US "started" that. But a key fact in that story is of course that the drama ended with both countries withdrawing those missiles, luckily (The US from Turkey, and The USSR from Cuba).
The US certainly hasn't always behaved will in international relations. But don't try to make this a whataboutism discussion about "NATO is the US and the US did X so no one can point fingers at russia for doing similar thing Y".
Ukraine isn't in NATO any more than Austria is, and Ukraine takes no responsibility for past US or NATO actions. Ukraine is a sovereign country that has a right to territorial integrity. Did Cuba have that as well? Yes!
If Ukraine feels it needs a military alliance, that's their choice. If Russia fels that the threat of a big military alliance on their doorstep is too much, then they are of course entitled to build up defenses on their borders. This would create tensions, and those tensions could need addressing.
But the bottom line is: if a country invades another country, the case is pretty clear cut. It doesn't matter whether someone else made the same error. It's wrong and must be condemned. There is no valid pretext for this invasion.
Really? So Canada can become a close ally of China? Maybe invite Chinese military to train Canadian troops? Maybe even allow the Chinese Navy to use Canadian ports?
Is Canada "free" to do that?
And there is Iraq. They were invaded because they had WMDs. Oops sorry Iraq we were wrong. Oh right Blair got Bush to get UN approval so they had to fake WMD evidence. Just ask Colin Powell.
Cuban missile crisis ended Peacefully because both Kennedy and Khrushchev wouldn't listen to their respective War hawk cabinets.
Ukraine was a defacto NATO member before the invasion.
That was an invasion on incorrect pretexts. But you are resorting to whataboutism again. Can one not condemn both invasions? Ukraine wasn’t part of the Iraq invasion…
> Ukraine was a defacto NATO member before the invasion.
No, NATO members are defended by the troops of other members, not just their money and equipment. You aren’t a “de facto” member otherwise.
Countries that would be defended by NATO troops (and not only NATO weapons and money) could perhaps be said to be de facto members, I’d argue that applicants like Sweden have been already before applying.
But whether or not someone is a de facto member of NATO or not doesn’t change the fact that invasions of sovereign countries are, well, bad.
NATO members ARE helping Ukraine. They are behaving a lot like they would if Ukraine was an OFFICIAL member of NATO. They only reason they dont send troops is because Russia is a NUCLEAR power. Simple as that.
I'm not arguing whether the Invasion was good or bad or moral or immoral or justified or unjustified. I'm arguing that, over what the US has been doing in Ukraine for years was bound to provoke a Russian invasion.
International Relations is ruled by power not morals.
Of course power is a layer on top of that, but we don’t sit idly watching countries being invaded.
The question at this point is: should the international community be ready to accept (any) escalation in order to restore Ukraine’s territorial integrity (1991 borders)? And that’s mostly up to Ukraine who suffers most of the sacrifices, but the answer must be yes. We must ensure this example is made. I’m more afraid of a world where Russia annexes an inch of Donbas than even direct conflict between NATO and Russia.
I’m arguing that at the end of the day “spheres of influence” or “buffer zones” aren’t relevant concepts here. Basically: borders are holy, cross one and that’s it.
The mistake the West has made here is not suring up Ukraines borders sooner, and of course not reacting stronger when Crimea was invaded. That invasion should have come with all the sanctions we see now, and more.
They are behaving like Ukraine is a country that is friendly towards NATO but not a member.
> They only reason they dont send troops is because Russia is a NUCLEAR power. Simple as that.
You know that the entire reason for NATO was to stave of the USSR and now Russia right?, saying 'NATO won't intervene with a nuclear power' is useless when your alliance was literally formed to fight a nuclear power.
NATO isn't intervening because Ukraine isn't a member, is that simple.
> I'm not arguing whether the Invasion was good or bad or moral or immoral or justified or unjustified. I'm arguing that, over what the US has been doing in Ukraine for years was bound to provoke a Russian invasion.
no one did anything 'provoke' an invasion, that just removes all agency from Russia itself, and Ukraine. Russia is the sole entity that decided to invade, no one else made that decision for them.
Russia is the one solely to blame for all the war crimes that are being committed in Ukraine right.
> International Relations is ruled by power not morals.
Then clearly Russia is going to be knocked down a beg in international relations, because its quite clear that Russias army cannot even get to a city less then 300km from there border in 6 months, and not even against, but against a country using second rate NATO gear.
You can argue with every point, but won't ever win cuz "it's just a way to communicate without being pedantic", but then you put all of this together and get a complete and utter gibberish. And this is basically how doublespeak works.
Putin took Crimea because he was afraid of losing it if Ukraine joined NATO.
The US won against Japan essentially without help from the USSR.
There was an article a while back that showed a much higher recognition of Soviet efforts and sacrifices in WW2 immedistely after the war ended but tapering away ever since.
You should at least make an effort to see things from the Russian point of view. To say there's nothing valid in the Russian state's actions, is really idiotic.
1) Are post WW2 borders sacred?
2) The dissolution of the USSR was chaotic, unnegotiated, and basically due to the magnanimity of Gorbachev.
3) Therefore, post USSR space resembles post-colonial Africa: former co-nationals are now minorities, depending on which post-Soviet state one examines. Armenia and Azerbaijan are good examples. Oh, but the news didn't tell you to get upset about it yet, so you have no opinion? That's why these opinions on Ukraine are so unprincipled.
4) The Turks depopulated Ukraine via the slave trade. Russia conquered the land, pushed the Turks back, and colonized E Ukraine for themselves. 18th century stuff. What I want to know is why the wokester position (the official Western "Good Guy" position, otherwise known the Party Line Winston) finds the USA's existence an affront to Native Americans and Mexicans, Israel's existence an affront to Palestinians, but cares not one whit for Poland occupying half of historic Germany, Turkey's ongoing genocide of Armenians (They back Azerbaijan, and Turkey is also a NATO power), and Greeks (threatening to invade... read proper journalists and you'll know)?
5) The West did the same thing to Serbia. The West in fact helped with the Muslim genocide of Serbians. Kosovo is the origin of Serbian culture and the Muslims overran it in the last 400 years. If you weep for the Native Americans and Tibetans, then you should care about what happened in Serbia too. Worse, the precedent is the one that the Russians used as the pretext to invade Ukraine.
6) Crimea was given to Ukraine in the 1950s by Khrushchev. It was Tatar and then it was Russian. HOW IS THAT SACRED? The same international law the US breaks constantly?
7) Remember that post-Cold War Magnanimity by Gorby? Know how people keep saying 'uh oh, if Putin loses, he'll nuke us all?' Do you really think that political shift came from nowhere? The west has been attacking Russia ever since the Cold War ended. If western idiots (sadly, most of us) haven't recognized (or are too ignorant to even know about because you don't read) the damage, that's only because you do the same thing the Russians do: slavishly listen to leaders without actually questioning the fact-stack. The US broke the promise not to move NATO eastward. That was the original sin. That was not nothing. That was as aggressive as attacking Ukraine. The demographic decline of Russia is not war damage? The economic damage of allowing China into the WTO and not Russia (when they were trying to be good) is not war damage? The use of western financial institutions to pillage Russia and financialize and control its mineral assets, while at the same time encouraging the de-industrializing of Russia is not war damage?
8) The Russians stopped the Cold War, but the US and the West did not.
9) Now they are mobilizing. They can't do it like we do: the US uses war to pillage its own people. The Russians are mobilizing the only way they can: the old fashioned way. The Russians are pushing back the only way they can: the old fashioned way.
10) Everywhere I go, supposedly intelligent people act like citizens of Oceana who can't seem to remember what happened the prior news cycle and remember only what the Wokeing class demands. Everything else goes in the memory hole.
11) THE WEST IS JUST AS BAD! CYBERPUNK IS JUST AS SH!T AS FALLOUT!
12) I didn't want any of this. The time to have stopped this was in the 1990s when the Western Trojan horse known as Chubais was busy annihilating the Russian economy. We nurtured China because their slaves were going to make our masters more profits and turn the majority of Americans from a free people with trades into a poor, welfare dependent people from the noblesse oblige of our 'elites' who shipped our manufacturing overseas... Russia has resources, China has slaves. Russia didn't play along when we tried financializing their economy and pulling it into our orbit. So now it's war.
13) To all you stubborn ignorant dummies: Good job. You have caused global starvation, European economic collapse, the annihilation of Ukraine, and it all benefits... you?
14) Hacker News is filled with beneficiaries of US policies. You can rely on a man to not understand something when his paycheck is dependent on him not understanding.
15) Keep on downvoting. The truth is a virus and I hope it destroys your brains.
Non-existent moderation and both side-ism is killing HN. Now the median post is barely better than reddit, but with lots of DK and idiotic contrarian garbage up top. @dang what's it gonna take for you to do start deleting this crap? A nuke?
Do you want the legitimacy debate confers your position? Then debate.
None of my points are any one else's talking points. That's a sign of a non-dogmatic thinker, dummy.
It's not like the mainstream US narrative is correct either, but you are so wrong it's not even funny. One of the bigger reasons we are in this mess is that 'the West' was too timid, not because it was too aggressive. If you give Russia an inch, they are (and always were) going to take a mile, because they see willingness to compromise as weakness. Weakness provokes, strength deters. But what the fuck do I know, I only live in a post-communist country. I'm sure some tankie or a champagne socialist will be along shortly to explain that if only we would all be nice to each other we would live in some post scarcity Star Trek paradise already and why the military budget should be used to house the poor instead...
"What I want to know is why the wokester position (the official Western "Good Guy" position, otherwise known the Party Line Winston) finds the USA's existence an affront to Native Americans and Mexicans, Israel's existence an affront to Palestinians"
Is not entirely true in the US. The majority of the political class supports Israel and looks the other way to what is happening to Palestinians. In fact right now multiple states have introduces anti-BDS laws (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) to help stop any attempt to curtail Israeli expansion via peaceful means.The Native American population also isn't doing great either which goes against your narrative.
And to anyone who thinks taking the Russian point of view means you are Russian shill please view some John Meersheimer on YouTube. He also references prominent and respected IR American scholars who criticize American policy towards post Soviet Russia. It's been a disastrous mess. And now we face possible nuclear war because of arrogance.
Arguing that policies have been poor isn’t.
It’s possible that this war could have been avoided through different policies, but this is an unprovoked invasion. Arguing it somehow has any responsibility outside Russia is like arguing rape victims should have dressed more appropriately.
Rand Corporation https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html
It’s a term that’s used as “justified”.
Reality: in this day and age it's not OK to begin bombing your neighbors for any reason. Never mind blamethrowing, equating old treaties to bombing, and appeals to good ol-fashion murder.
1) you didn't say "bombing anyone for any reason", does it imply it's ok to bomb distant countries for some reason?
2) if (1) is yes, then:
2.1) what is the appropriate distance to a country to count it as distant?
2.2) what are the appropriate reasons and is this list of reasons exhaustive?
3) where has "this day and age" begun and why on that moment specifically?
You can stop reading here
They aren’t. But the only international law that matters says you don’t try to change borders by force. You don’t murder civilians or stage fake referendums to annex territories.
There is no “other perspective” worth nothing other than as an excercise in trying to predict the criminals next step.
How about you just make an argument on it's merits, instead of injecting your own bad take?
I would say Putin escalating a major war in the heart of Europe and his threats of nuclear warfare with the West fall under 'interesting new phenomenon'.
2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Ukraine
BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR
https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-country-reports-on-human-...
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/313615_UKRA...
(I love how the downvotes have already begun not even a minute in... how is this not context to the speech? Zealots...)
This formal declaration by Russia is basically saying they are about to stop holding back. They have purposefully avoid destroying infrastructure like water and power in ukraine for an unusually long time. They also have been sending their b-c teams not their A-list because they wanted to save them.
This action pleases a great deal of the america military complex because money. At least it would have if American troops were in better shape, enlistments were dropping heavily, and troop fitness is dropping radically. The desire for the common man to die for his country has dropped significantly in Russia AND NATO countries.
So you will soon see the following, America will try to rebuild "patriotism" prior to instituting a draft. This is why the pentagon is reviewing all psyops, they are about to reverse the social engineering psyops in motion such diversity and "woke". Russia will push religion to build morale on their side.
I believe a draft in America will lead to disintegration, but only time will tell.
That this comment claims this really says all one need about the comment. Russia Just admitted it was over extended and had exhausted its professional army by declaring a mobilization of reservists.
Everyone clearly knows the professional army is the C list and it’s the reservists that are the true A listers. <heavy sarcasm>
Evidence?
NATO is sending a lot of materiel and weapons. NATO is helping with intelligence. If that's what you mean by "core operations", maybe I can see it. More than that? Let's see the evidence.