[flagged]
Russia (well its cleptocratic corrupt leadership) is as much afraid of democracy as US was of communism in 50s - seen as existential threat to 'russian way'. This doesn't represent opinion of population, but in such regime their opinion is largely irrelevant, and they know well to bow down and be quiet or else.
And Europe is top target - geographically closest, russia feels they should export their glory as far as they can, and also not so homogenous so feeding confrontations within block, ie by supporting folks like Orban or now also Fico.
No one in Germany wants to be occupied by Russia again.
They said the same about Trump, yet Trump delivered more Javelins to Ukraine than Obama.
Just little things. Not warlike at all.
What we do see is that when Ukraine or anyone else tramples their red lines (Finland, Sweden joining NATO) nothing happens.
If they dare hit us with something they do it regardless of what we're doing. Very hard to see how we get out of this short of the Putin regime falling.
At what point do you admit that you just don't understand Russia at all? Because if your understanding matched reality Russian people would have overthrown Putin two years ago, just like every Western newspaper and magazine said.
Basically what you are saying is: we keep escalating and they still haven't hit the big red button. Do you really think a decision to do that would come that easily? Why would it be done when unprovoked?
Lastly, this type of behavior - keep trying one's luck to see how far boundaries can be pushed - is what toddlers do. Maybe grow up?
Russia does seem to be the one agitating and pushing boundaries, especially when former Soviet states elect more independently minded governments.
You... have things completely backwards.
There are many in the investor class who have interests in both Russian and Western oil & gas companies. And under the Trump administration the same people even openly penetrated the official state executive (Rex Tillerson, etc.)
The spectre of climate change -- or more particularly what state actors might actually eventually attempt to do about it -- unites those people more than national borders divide them. Number must go up.
Most of the song and dance about the Russo-Ukrainian war is about this. Nordstream 2 being only one part of it.
It assumes a single investment context, the global (read: western) financial system, right?
Is the latter more firmly wedded to the idea of growth than the rest of the world, or is that an illusion? Consider the (unsuccessful but suggestive) attempts to establish a commodities-backed currency by BRICS. Is this an attempt to sustain growth by alternative means, or to preempt and manage its end?
My impression is a system in which the national interest takes a backseat to investor interests can't contemplate reform in which the number might cease to go up, because growth is a load-bearing feature of governance (read: those in and with a hotline to government want growth for their own benefit, and need it to secure the support of a population which has also come to expect it). Some nations, while heavily dependent on the global financial system, have maintained at least the semblance of sovereignty, on the other hand, and may be able to consider the situation in (slightly) more realistic terms.
Of course, decline is nearly as ripe for exploitation as growth, while perhaps requiring more expenditure in narrative construction, so I hazard no guess on which system prefaces a more humane future.
Is this a reasonable interpretation?
Why should it? Capital accumulation and trade happens regardless of the currency or method of exchange. It will find a way to flow. All that is solid melts into air.
EDIT also, NATO is doing more than nothing. The intelligence, the know how, some of the weaponry decimating Russia deep strategic assets and reserves are coming straight from Europe. I guess it's just better to keep a cool head about cut wires and keep on sending these supplies.
That is exactly what Russia is aiming for. A few wires and fences, maybe a misguided rocket on NATO soil. It will not lead to a confrontation. But it will lead to a public cry to increase our own defences. That could only happen at the expense of the Ukrainian support.
Small fun fact when I was in the military: we had to shoot as much as possible because the ammunition was approaching shelf live. I have shot thousands of rounds while enjoying myself with the MAG. A decade later a politician suggested the military to shout 'pang! pang!' because they had no rounds to practice with. The ammunition factory (where my brother in law worked) was closed down and military compounds were converted to housing. But yes, military spending is going up fast, but this will not be in time to help Ukraine.
Disarming your enemy by absorbing their bullets in your troops and tanks is a really bad strategy. Putin was safer when Europe was complacent.
> Disarming your enemy by absorbing their bullets in your troops and tanks is a really bad strategy.
Certainly, losing 1k+/day of your own men (imagine the logistics of that) and shooting women and children first is horrible. But it is a winning strategy. Russia is ramping up much much faster, they switched to a war economy. And they managed to show economic growth.
I suppose we agree, support for Ukraine is top priority and we need to turn around to achieve that.
It is happening, all right. There are four large ammunitions companies in Europe -- all are expanding. Pretty much every NATO country is increasing defense spending.
At the same time, it's true that a lot of it is empty bluster. The UK and Germany, in particular, think budget cuts are more important than defense spending and are holding back. On the other extreme are countries like Poland, headed for defense spending of 5% of GDP. So it's a mixed bag, but the overall curve is sharply up.
But yes, I'd like to see aid to Ukraine increase to the point they can actually win, not just bog Russia down.
No, this is not a winning strategy for Russia and they will absolutely lose a war of attrition ad long as the weet continues to support Ukraine.
The "economic growth" Russia is claiming is not real. Their numbers are made up and dumping everything into producing war material artificially props up the economic growth values, but it's not actual growth.
They have been avoiding escalation with the West all the time.
( ≧ ▽ ≦ )
It looks to me as if these relatively unimportant sabotage acts are used to stir up sentiment in social media. As we can see here, it works.
We really don't want open war between the Western powers and Russia.
At this point one must wonder if they even have functioning nukes left or if everything is just posturing.
As for so-called "strategic" nuclear weapons, nobody is that stupid.
Russia knows full well what it's up against and that it's an inferior force in all respects. All the bluster from idiots like Medvedev is for domestic audiences.
What they can't take by force in Ukraine they'll ruin, covering it in minefields and destroyed cities. If they can't have it, they want it destroyed as an internal example of what happens if you try to toss off their kleptocracy. Belarus among others I'm sure are watching closely.
One hopes Russia, North Korea and China remain rational. Yet they retain the ability to strike and underestimating that is foolish.
The western media declares pretty much every escalation step to be a crossed red line though. This meme has reached new heights of absurdity.
Edit:
* No, Putin did not threaten to nuke anyone if Sweden joined NATO. A western newspaper might have declared it to be a red line. It's not a red line.
* No, Putin did not threaten to nuke anyone if Finland joined NATO. A western newspaper might have declared it to be a red line. It's not a red line.
* No, Putin did not threaten to use nukes if Ukraine invaded pre 2014 Russian territory or fired drones at refineries. A western newspaper might have declared it to be a red line. It's not a red line.
* No, "Putin said something vaguely ominous about nukes" is not drawing a red line.
I can never tell which is which with Russian apologists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_risk_during_the_Russia...
Same mistake Obama made in Syria: red lines that aren't actual red lines just make you look a bit feckless when they're crossed without consequence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukraini...
>Crossing a red line to the Russian Federation is often identified as being an action that damages Russian national interests.
It's a bit more than just that.
> Dmitry Medvedev, who serves as deputy chairman of Putin’s powerful security council, was more explicit in January. “The defeat of a nuclear power in a conventional war may trigger a nuclear war,” he said. - https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/01/...
> Anticipating international condemnation and countermeasures, Putin issued a stark warning to other countries not to meddle, saying, “whoever tries to impede us, let alone create threats for our country and its people, must know that the Russian response will be immediate and lead to the consequences you have never seen in history.” https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/russia-launches-attacks-u...
The second is an extremely vague threat not to mess with Russia. There is no line drawn at all, red or otherwise.
Do you see a hidden code in these statements or something? I dont see what you're getting at at all.
Also a chocolate cookie recipe please.
Putin threatened nukes if Sweden and Finland joined NATO, but I'm sure that's just a meme as well.
True. But unfortunately Putin loves playing on that fact to keep us frozen and hesistant to send aid.
Ukraine’s recent advance into Kursk shows you how little his supposed red lines actually exist.
And to the often held claim that NATO is a threat to Russia and is to blame for making Russia move into Ukraine, Russia’s actions in Ukraine betray this little myth. They’re depleting the stocks of expensive tactical ballistic missiles as well as very expensive high end surface-to-air missiles by hucking them at even tiniest targets in Ukraine.
This isn’t what you would do if you were actually worried about needing to confront aggressive, well funded western neighbors later.
In one of those ironies that seem to populate modern life, the now public ineptitude of the Russian military in Ukraine has in fact given some western military leaders an inkling that directly taking on the Russians is a viable option.
Good times…
They can’t even handle their current one against single country with NATO hand-me-downs.
Russia would love nothing more than to scare people into cutting Ukraine off, but most aren’t dumb enough to fall for that anymore. Russia is ruled by a raging narcissist, but the people that carry out his orders are gangsters who want luxury and power, not an ideological suicide.
The “we are strong, muh nukes” is really meant for Russian television.
The people that count are awake, they're just doing nothing as, despite realising that Russia has a crap military, its considerably easier to let Ukraine fight with both hands tied behind their backs. It seems to be another case of 'but who will replace pootin...but, guess what folks - he's going to die eventually.
P.S.: Speaking of sabotage, what exactly happened to north stream? And who might have an advantage if it were sabotaged?
Basically everyone on both sides? Gazprom gets out of a now money-losing sanctioned black hole that had already gone bankrupt months earlier. Russia gets to sow dissension between allies over the whodunit. Germany gets a "well, nothing we can do" excuse if the winter had been nasty and public pressure built to push Ukraine to surrender.
I'm from a European country that Russia has threatened to nuke.
And what do we need to do after we have woken up?
And what are your plans regarding the nukes which will fly towards our homes if we push Russia too far?
Secondly, even if it was Ukraine it would be okay as it's a valid target during an ongoing war whereas a sabotage against Norway is not since they're not in an active war.
Also do you believe that Ukraine's success isn't partially because of West's help?