Russian Bloggers 'Shocked' at Military's 'Incompetence' in Ukraine
By: Jason Lemon (Newsweek)
Have people begun to figure it out yet? Russia has been characterized as the greatest threat to the United States. But it's becoming all too obvious that Russia does not pose a military threat to the United States, NATO, or Europe. American politicians have been lying to the public for their own benefit. The defense agencies of the Federal government has been gaslighting the public for their own benefit.
The United States has spent trillions of dollars on the military over the last 30 years to defend against a bogeyman.
Russia does thwart the United States dominating the world with a veto vote on the UN security counsel. Russia does hold the United States military in check with a large nuclear arsenal. Russia does hamper the political efforts of the United States to utilized overwhelming military force to intimidate less developed countries. But it's plainly apparent that there won't be a 'Red Storm Rising' as Tom Clancy imagined it. The Russian military threat has been nothing but pure fiction used to waste public money for the last 30 years.
So, what does Joe Biden hope to accomplish by using Ukraine as a proxy to weaken Russia? Biden has succeeded in expanding NATO. Biden has achieved increased NATO military expenditures to defend against a bogeyman. Biden has coaxed eastern European NATO members to allow US troops into their countries on what is beginning to look like a permanent basis. Biden has gotten eastern European NATO members to adopt more US manufactured weapons systems. Biden has convinced NATO to prepare for a war that Russia obviously cannot fight.
So far, Biden has failed to strip Russia of its veto vote on the UN security counsel. Biden is forcing Russia to rely more heavily upon its nuclear arsenal. Biden has fostered greater fear of the United States among less developed countries. Biden has destabilized the global economy by blocking use of Russian fossil fuels. Biden has increased the risk of famine. Biden has allowed a humanitarian crisis in eastern Europe which always provides political fodder.
Biden had a choice to either negotiate a resolution to an ethnic conflict in Ukraine - or - use Ukraine to fight a bogeyman. Biden is not fighting in Ukraine. Biden is not even defending Ukraine. Biden has only been using Ukraine to weaken Russia and eliminate obstacles that hampers the United States dominating the world with military force. The world is paying a hefty price for Joe Biden's political legacy.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Russian mini-bloggers are "shocked" at their military's "incompetence" as Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to push his internationally condemned invasion of Ukraine, a new report said.
Moscow began the full-scale unprovoked assault on its Eastern European neighbor on February 24, drawing rapid backlash from the majority of United Nations General Assembly countries. Although the Kremlin reportedly believed that Russian troops could easily take control of much of Ukraine's territory and topple Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's government, they have largely failed to achieve their objectives.
After reports surfaced Wednesday that Ukraine had destroyed a Russian unit attempting to traverse the strategically significant Siversky Donets river in Ukraine's southeastern Donbas region, a number of Russian observers of the conflict reportedly became alarmed. Drone footage has since confirmed the reports of the Russian unit's destruction, the Atlantic Council reported Friday.
In a Saturday report, the Institute for the Study of War explained that the tone coming from Russian mini-bloggers shifted after news of the unit's destruction emerged.
"The Ukrainian destruction of significant elements of a Russian motorized rifle brigade that tried to cross a pontoon bridge over the Siverskyi Donets River on May 11 has shocked prominent Russian milbloggers. Those bloggers have begun commenting on the incompetence of the Russian military to their hundreds of thousands of followers," the report said.
It pointed out that these mini-bloggers previously had been "cheering on the Russian military," but now "criticized Russian armed forces leadership for failing to learn from experience in the war." The report continued, saying, "They also expressed the concern that the constant pushing of Russia's propaganda lines was making it hard for them to understand what was actually going on."
Meanwhile, the United Kingdom's Ministry of Defense assessed in a Saturday report that Russia has likely lost "one third" of the ground combat force it initially committed back in February to fight in Ukraine. It appears unlikely that Moscow will be able to quickly recover from the significant losses.
"Russian forces are increasingly constrained by degraded enabling capabilities, continued low morale and reduced combat effectiveness. Many of these capabilities cannot be quickly replaced or reconstituted, and are likely to continue to hinder Russian operations in Ukraine," the British defense ministry's report explained.
Newsweek reached out the Russian foreign ministry for comment.
Despite the apparent setbacks and losses, Moscow continues to insist that it is achieving its objectives and will not give up.
"We are confident that all the goals set by the supreme commander-in-chief before our armed forces will be completely attained. We will never give up, won't back up," Anatoly Antonov, the Kremlin's ambassador to the U.S. told the Soloviev Live TV channel, Russia's state-run Tass news agency reported on Saturday.
Tags
Who is online
681 visitors
Have people begun to figure it out yet? The United States has spent trillions of dollars on the military over the last 30 years to defend against a bogeyman.
Maybe we will be lucky and China will be incompetent as well. How many nukes and nuke delivery systems should we divest this year?
Ridding the world of nuclear weapons would unleash the US military.
Russia's economy is comparable in size to many of the NATO countries. Russia is ranked 11th in the G20. And Russia's military expenditures are comparable to those NATO countries, too. Only the United States' military expenditures are far above the norm in NATO. Biden is not trying to normalize United States' military expenditures. Biden is fear mongering so that the other NATO countries increase their military expenditures.
NATO is preparing to fight a war with Russia that Russia obviously cannot fight.
So you don't think that we should divest any of these expensive systems?
You see Finland and Sweden as just sheep being led by Joe?
Defending against a bogeyman is no justification for military expenditures. What's the purpose?
The United States is depending upon military force because the United States can't accomplish it's goals through diplomacy. If the goal of the United States is to intimidate the world with military force then we need these systems. But we also need an honest explanation for our military expenditures. And, IMO, we need to reassess the goals of the United States.
In my view, establishing an American global empire would be counterproductive for human progress. That appears to be the only purpose for the military expenditures of the United States. But we can't divest ourselves of these expensive military systems until we change the ultimate goals of the United States. What will be required is much more than cutting the defense budget.
Basically, yes. Although it's a much more complex situation than that simplistic buzzword description suggests.
Do you write for Russian tv?
Blaming Putin is beginning to look like a hollow excuse. Russia's failures in Ukraine are revealing too much to ignore. Russia can't even defeat Ukraine. Russia is not a military threat to the United States, NATO, or Europe.
Russia hasn't been lying to the American people to increase Federal military spending. American politicians and Federal defense agencies are responsible for those lies.
Blaming the US is beginning to look like Russian propaganda.
Only the United States is responsible for its own military expenditures. Only the United States is responsible for how it uses its own military capability. Only the United States is responsible for setting its own priorities, goals, and objectives in international relations.
The United States relies heavily upon its own military capability in foreign affairs. Only the United States is responsible for that approach in international relations and diplomacy. Only the United States is responsible for its own policy that the threat of war ensures peace.
Place blame all you want, whatever you say, the US is not responsible for the actions of Russia.
All facts but none support the argument that one should blame the USA and not Putin for the Ukraine invasion.
And Russia's threat has never been its awesome military but rather its awesome nuclear arsenal and the likelihood that it would actually use it. So no matter how pathetic the Russian military is, the threat of nuclear weaponry exists. Indeed, one might argue that the threat is heightened by an incompetent military (and unstable/irrational national leadership).
That's correct, the United States is not responsible for the actions of Russia. The United States is only responsible for its own action and inaction.
The people of the United States have been told that we needed large defense expenditures to defend against a Russian threat. So, where's the US military? Why isn't the United States doing what it told its own people it would do? The United States doesn't need a large, technically advanced, highly capable military to impose economic sanctions.
This is not the 1980's. Our military is not for the sole objective to be against Russia.
That is ridiculous on its face.
So, who is responsible for the action and inaction of the United States?
That's correct. Russia has not been a military threat to the United States, NATO, or Europe. Russia is a nuclear threat. And Russia needs a presence in the Black Sea to both support that nuclear threat and to defend against nuclear threats directed toward Russia. Crimea is important to Russia for its own nuclear deterrence which involves both threat and defense. Eliminating Russia's nuclear deterrence would unleash the conventional military capability of the United States and NATO. Russia cannot defend itself from an invasion by conventional forces without relying on nuclear weapons. The shear size of the United States and NATO military capability is a direct threat to Russia that can only be held in check by nuclear threats.
NATO has been preparing for a war that Russia cannot fight. The United States has spent trillions of dollars preparing for a war that Russia cannot fight. Who's responsible for that expenditure of public money?
Where do you get this idea that the US and NATO wants to invade Russia....
Oh come on Nerm why ask such a stupid question? The military is used to defend the nation against ALL potential threats (not just from Russia) and the key threat from Russia is that of nuclear weaponry. Further, you are pretending that the US military only exists for defending Ukraine; that the US public has been told that the military spending is just for Ukraine; that anytime there is the possibility of using our military that we should do so. Do you really think anyone here is buying that ridiculous reasoning?
For Ukraine, in these circumstances, the world (not just the USA) is doing its best to avoid expanding this war. We are helping Ukraine and imposing sanctions in the hope that we will not need to resort to military action against Russia.
And Russia is not the Soviet Union of the 1980's, either. Ukraine was an important member of the Soviet Union in the 1980's. In the 1980's Ukraine was the third largest nuclear power in the world. Ukraine served as a front line defense against invasion of the Soviet Union (and Russia) that relied on nuclear threats.
Why is the United States still expending large amounts of money on conventional forces to defend against a threat that disappeared with the collapse of the Soviet Union? Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security guarantees from the United States and NATO. Why did the United States and NATO fail to fulfill their promises to Ukraine? What are the goals and objectives of the United States and NATO?
Once again you are projecting wants and needs of countries that had nothing to do with the Russian invasion.
What you are admitting is Russia wants control of these areas as a strategic military position.
What is the purpose of NATO? Who is going to invade and occupy Europe? Ukraine has demonstrated that Russia does not have that capability.
The United States has demonstrated its conventional military capability by twice invading Iraq, by invading Afghanistan, and by removing Gaddafi in Libya. The United States has demonstrated that its military capability is so overwhelming that it can quickly take control of other countries and topple governments. Only the United States has the military capability to invade and occupy Europe. And the United States really does use its military capability to intimidate. Is that why the United States is expending so much public money on the military?
Ukraine has demonstrated that a nuclear threat completely nullifies the overwhelming superiority of the United States conventional military. And Ukraine has demonstrated that the United States does not need a superior military capability to impose economic sanctions.
Ukraine has proven, beyond doubt, that a country needs nuclear weapons to defend itself against the United States military. Why shouldn't we expect an upsurge in nuclear proliferation?
If Ukraine were a member of NATO then we would likely have seen its purpose. Even as a non-member we have seen quite a bit of international support for Ukraine.
Get a grip, Nerm.
The Ukraine war has illustrated how dealing with nuclear states is very different from dealing with non-nuclear states. The world is complex, Nerm, wear a cup.
As if anyone needed a war to know this.
So blame-the-USA Nerm twists reality and blames the USA for the fact that nuclear weapons are a useful deterrent and that being a nuclear state places one in a stronger bargaining position. This fact would be true even if the USA did not exist. Hello?
Where do you get the idea that if Russia didn't have nukes we already wouldn't have been rolling towards Moscow long ago?
Iraq, Serbia, and Libya are more than proof enough that the US/NATO is not above taking military action in countries it doesn't agree with politically; and wants to expand it's influence.
We all heard the same bullshit during the Kosovo War that if the US didn't act Serbia would run right through Kosovo and into US/NATO allied countries. Serbia was no threat to the US/NATO. Same as Iraq, same as Libya.
What I want to know is if the US really thinks Putin is unstable, and in failing health; then why are we so openly poking the Russian Bear? Think Putin isn't fully aware of Biden's, Congress, and media talking heads openly calling for his removal? Think he doesn't notice the US/NATO flooding Ukraine with high end military weapons and tech? Or that we are still training Ukraine troops in Poland and Northern Ukraine on how to use it? Is Biden trying to start WWIII?
Biden hasn't stated what the end game is. Is to weaken Russia to the point that it is no longer anything other than a nuclear threat to the world? That was done even before Russia invaded Ukraine. Is it to gain enough power within NATO to start leveraging it against China; the real #1 threat to US/NATO control of the world?
So, why wasn't Ukraine admitted to NATO over the last eight years? The United States has considerable influence over NATO and the United States could have sponsored membership. France and Germany were supporting Ukraine in 2014 by mediating the Minsk agreements.
NATO was reluctant to admit Ukraine because of the ethnic war in Donbas and the Russian presence in and annexation of Crimea. The United States under the Obama administration began using Ukraine as a proxy to indirectly confront Russia. Obama was attempting to use Crimea as leverage in Syria.
How would Ukrainian membership in NATO have changed that? Russia had been in Crimea long before the popular uprising in Kyiv emboldened the Ukrainian parliament to remove the elected president. Russia had been in Crimea long before Russia annexed Crimea. It would have been necessary for NATO to learn how to coexist with Russia in Ukraine.
Only the United States is responsible for its own action and inaction. The United States adopted a first-strike policy against Russia in 1948. The highest levels of the US military were pushing to use the nuclear monopoly of the United States to destroy Russia before Russia could develop its own bomb. The US military was arguing to nuke Russia as a response to the Berlin blockade. The problem was that the United States did not have workable bombs in its arsenal and did not have a reliable means to deliver them.
Russia has feared an attack by the United States since 1948 because that was the official war plan of the United States. Stalin knew that the US military was pushing for a first strike nuclear attack on Russia. Truman had to take control of nuclear weapons away from the military; only the President can order a nuclear attack. And Eisenhower required the development of safeguards so that the military could not act without Presidential authorization.
At the end of World War II there were only two powers who could exert dominance over the world; the United States and the Soviet Union. And the United States military began planning for the elimination of the Soviet Union. The United States established the policy of overwhelming force and perpetual war readiness between 1946 and 1948. The United States has been at war since the end of World War II and that policy has not changed. And Russia knows.
Just stop with the bullshit. We were never going to attack Russia and we are not the ones attacking anyone.
The official military policy of the United States was to attack Russia with nuclear weapons. That was the war plan put in place by James Forrestal. The plan was to strike seven cities in Russia with about sixty Fat Man bombs. The United States did not have the capability to execute that plan.
The plan was to destroy Russia (and the Soviet Union) before Russia could develop its own atomic bomb. The US military overestimated its own capability and Russia developed a nuclear bomb sooner than expected. The official military policy at that time was to use nuclear weapons offensively in a first strike as a prelude to conventional warfare. The only thing that prevented the United States from attacking and invading Russia was lack of ability to execute the plan.
Just stop. Having a plan is a necessary thing. Having a plan does not mean it is suppose to be executed.
Do you honestly think Russia did or does not have a similar plan?
Your continued insistence that the US is at fault for all of Russia's woes is bordering on you being nothing more than a Russian propagandist.
Hell you might as well write for RT news.
Trump ordered a plan for use of only conventional forces. Forrestal overruled Truman.
How was Russia (or the Soviet Union) going to attack the United States?
Buzzword argument doesn't dispel ignorance. Perhaps it would be wise to obtain a copy of 'Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb' by Richard Rhodes. Rhodes is a highly respected historian and the book is copiously sourced.
So you actually believe that Russia has or had zero plans on how to use their nukes or when and where to strike.
Stop living in the past dude. This is 2022.
The past has resulted in the present, hasn't it? Hasn't the Soviet past influenced the current planning of the United States military? Biden's Cold War rhetoric is a revival of the past. Biden promised a return to normalcy; a return to the status quo . Biden is expending a lot of effort to revive the past. Biden is partying like it's 1962.
What a load of shit.
I am done with you. You are noting more than a putin apologist.
That's okay. The Bidenista are war lovers that hates anyone who interferes with their quota of body bags.
How we learned to stop worrying and live with Biden.
Non sequitur. The point is that NATO would respond differently if a NATO member was invaded by Russia.
Ukraine as a member of NATO would NOT change the need to treat nuclear states like Russia differently than non-nuclear states. But as a NATO member, Russia invading Ukraine brings forth automatic defense. This is known in advance so NATO providing, for example, air-space support would be expected. To wit, it is much easier for NATO to bring forth a real defense for members because the NATO pact is known ahead of time and Putin attacking a NATO member carries much bigger stakes. A very likely scenario is that we would have not seen the invasion of Ukraine.
Another platitude. The Cold War is over. The USA has no plans to attack anyone with nuclear weapons.
But would NATO respond differently if Russia were already present in the country? Russia has maintained a naval base in Sevastopol since before the collapse of the USSR. The argument presumes that NATO could coexist with Russia in the same country.
Both NATO and Russia were operating in Ukraine when Ukraine adopted a neutral position. As has been reported, Sweden and Finland joining NATO will give up their neutrality. So, the situation really is more complex than only the behavior of Russia.
Which suggests that the real purpose of NATO has been to extend the nuclear capability of the United States into Europe and not to act as a conventional military force. Conventional military forces do not deter nuclear weapons.
NATO claims the primary function of conventional forces is to act as peacekeepers in internecine conflicts within Europe. Yet NATO's official position is not to become involved in the internal affairs of member states. So, that means NATO's conventional forces are only used to expand NATO into nonmember states.
The United States definitely plans to attack other countries with nuclear weapons. That's a key component for deterrence. What you are alluding to is first-strike policy or preemptive use of nuclear weapons. The United States has officially stated that nuclear weapons will not be used for a preemptive strike against other countries. But there are loopholes in that official policy. And the United States has never stated that nuclear weapons will not be used as offensive weapons.
The nuclear threat of the United States isn't any different than the nuclear threat of Russia.
Waste of good breath here TiG when dealing with someone with a seemingly implacable hatred of Ukraine, dislike of the US military, and overt support of Russian military expansionism. Not to mention the total lack of concern for the loss of innocent Ukrainian civilian population being massacred by Russian forces while caught up in the madness of a war generated by Putin.
Russia has already expanded into Europe. But it's been an economic expansion. Economic ties between Europe and Russia weakens the influence of the United States in Europe. A trade relationship between Europe and Russia threatens the need for NATO and undermines justifications for exorbitant military expenditures. The United States attempting to shift focus onto China is more about the defense budget and national security than it is about economic security.
The United States and NATO could have prevented the Russian invasion of Ukraine by deploying a conventional peacekeeping force to Ukraine. The United States and NATO have a vastly superior conventional capability. Putin gave the United States and NATO six months to prevent war in Ukraine. Russia invading Ukraine was certainly not a surprise attack. The United States and NATO had sufficient warning to remove troops from Ukraine as a precautionary measure and deploy additional forces to Poland and Romania. The United States and NATO saw what was coming and began popping corn for the big show. Biden thumped his chest, made a lot of noise, and used economic measures to weaken Russia's real threat to the United States in Europe; trade between Europe and Russia.
NATO and Russia coexisted in Ukraine as long as Ukraine maintained neutrality. It was Ukraine, itself, that sought to end that neutrality. The Ukrainian government deliberately created a conflict between NATO and Russia. Apparently the Ukrainian government believed that the United States and NATO would rush in to defend Ukraine instead of waving goodbye and heading for the exits.
Ukraine has highlighted that exorbitant military expenditures by the United States isn't about national security. The United States has such an overwhelmingly superior conventional force that it's necessary to fight brush wars to justify the military. Biden is deploying troops to Somalia to fight an extended brush war when the United States could take the entire country in less than a week with a small fraction of military resources. Somalia is just busy work for the US military.
I think it is fair to say that the reaction of NATO depends on the specific circumstances. So you can spend your time dreaming up all sorts of scenarios and ask members of NT to speculate on what NATO might do in a given scenario. I will not participate in an exercise of vague and unbounded speculation.
Yes, it is! Now follow your own observation and cease implying you know what would happen in given scenarios.
The 'real' purpose of NATO? More wild-ass conspiracy theory.
You pretend to not understand the difference between having defensive contingency plans vs. intending to initiate an attack.
What kind of a mind thinks that the USA would gratuitously use nuclear weapons to attack (not defend) another nation? That is the opposite of the concept of deterrence (which, Nerm, is why we have nuclear weapons: to reduce the likelihood that anyone would use such weapons).
If the attempt is to present oneself as insightful, it has been failing miserably.
Also, after two grand masters play a game of chess, the post facto analysis of the game reveals arguably better moves and seeming mistakes made by the grand masters. It is so much easier to find a more perfect strategy if one has privy to the future. 'The USA should have done xxx' is such bullshit.
It's not a matter of speculation. NATO and Russia coexisted in Ukraine since 1995. What changed was Ukraine's decision to abandon neutrality in 2014.
But we already know what has happened in Ukraine as long as Ukraine maintained neutrality. That's a matter of record; it's not speculation.
Do you deny that conventional military capability does not deter nuclear threats?
Your argle-bargle is still talking about preemptive use of nuclear weapons. The United States definitely plans to attack other countries with nuclear weapons as deterrence policy. But that deterrence conflates nuclear weapons with other weapons of mass destruction. The United States really does have plans to use nuclear weapons as a response to chemical or biological attacks. The United States also has plans to use nuclear weapons should conventional forces be overrun. That's why the United States maintains small yield weapons in its stockpile.
The United States maintained a stockpile of M48 nuclear shells that could be used with a conventional 155 mm howitzer until the collapse of the Soviet Union. Why do you think Ukraine has wanted 155 mm howitzers?
Because the M777 155 mm howitzer system is one of the best and most accurate systems in the world that happens to be 155 mm. That is why Ukraine likes and wants them. And the M48 nuclear howitzer shells cannot be fired by the M777 howitzer.
I did not state that it was speculation that NATO and Russia coexisted. I reject the idea that you simply made a mistake here; this is a slimy tactic and it looks like the balance of your post is more of the same.
Go debate yourself, Nerm, I am not going to continue to spend my time exposing your slimy debate tactics.
The M777 is about the only towed field artillery piece available from the US. The M777A1 is accurate but the digital system requires training. It would seem that the M119 105 mm would be attractive for rapid movement, line of sight fighting, and easier logistical support. The M777 is just as mobile but the logistics in a running battle would be more difficult. Those longer range guns need spotters on the ground to be effective without air reconnaissance. Moving M777s in close gives up the advantage of range. And without digital control the M777 wouldn't be as effective against moving armor without being in close.
And, yes, I got the designation wrong; it's the W48 nuclear artillery shell. The W48 was specifically designed to be used with a standard 155 mm howitzer and they would be compatible with the M777. The W48 has been retired according to official reporting. The United States still maintains around 300 tactical nuclear weapons according to reporting but I don't know what type; they may be nuclear armed cruise missiles or torpedoes.
No, you didn't state that it was speculation that NATO and Russia coexisted.
What you did state was that I was dreaming up scenarios and expecting speculation. That's the falsehood I'm addressing. The fact of the matter is that I have been presenting reality and not dreamed up scenarios. The reality of the situation doesn't fit your interpretation.
No, spotters on the ground are not always needed as the M777A1 is now capable of fielding the "Excalibur" 155 mm smart round that is GPS capable that is in flight correctible and is also capable of being fired by the latest M109A7 variant of the "Paladin" mobile howitzer.
Nerm honestly seems to think the way for peace in Ukraine should have been for everybody in Europe should have just kowtowed down to Russian territorial demands and let them have their way. Russia sure seems to believe that. I guess they found out wrong didn't they?
More than 60, if you care to recall the Soviet ambition of missiles in Cuba, as well as it's other short bus excursions. It's only with the hindsight of watching Russia's startling failures can NATO's cost be derided. They haven't added anything to their playbook in 80 years.
Yeah but everyone points out the Soviet Union is gone and the Cold War is over. Everyone ignores how NATO has expanded into the former Soviet Republics.
Russia's failures aren't that startling. Russia just isn't living up to the political lies and gaslighting by defense agencies. The people of the United States have been told a fairy tale about a bogeyman to continue spending money on a military capability that really isn't necessary. Russia's economy is comparable in size to many European countries and that constrains Russia's military expenditures the same those European countries are constrained.
The United States at war with Russia would be the same as the United States fighting a conventional war with Canada or the United Kingdom or Germany. Ukraine is highlighting that Russia does not pose a military threat to the United States, NATO, or Europe. Russia is a nuclear threat. And conventional forces do not deter a nuclear threat. We've been spending enormous amounts of money to defend ourselves from a bogeyman.
I guess too many people felt that President Eisenhower's farewell speech was simply aimed at Vietnam and ignored the larger meaning... (the bold below is mine)
Yet Eisenhower promised/provided support for the Diem regime in Vietnam and sent 700 ''advisors'' there.
All kinds of messages coming out of Moscow. 40 Billion is a bit much though, as Putin stares at defeat.
Who replaces Putin? A hardline government that relies more heavily on nuclear threats doesn't seem to be a desirable end game. That would only make the world less safe. And a greater Russian reliance on nuclear threats completely hamstrings our large conventional military.
Will economically isolating Russia turn the country into a western democracy? Somehow it's difficult to believe that the Russian people will not blame the United States. If anything, we should expect the Russian people to view the United States as a bigger threat. The rational expectation would be that the Russian people would want a stronger leader than Putin.
Can the United States achieve its goals through diplomacy? Obviously not. The United States could not (or would not) lessen tensions in the region and attempt to avoid a military conflict. The Biden administration did not marshal the diplomatic resources of the United Nations or European diplomatic corps before the Russian invasion. At least superficially, it appears that the United States wanted Russia to invade Ukraine.
What is the purpose of NATO? Biden has expanded NATO. Biden has coaxed NATO countries to increase military expenditures. Biden has gotten NATO to prepare for a war that Russia obviously cannot fight. NATO has avoided entering into the fight in Ukraine. NATO is not defending Ukraine. NATO directly confronting and defeating Russia would remove the justification for NATO.
Yeah, ok . . . A bogeyman with over 6,000 nuclear warheads. More than any country in the world.
I don't have a problem saying that Russia's conventional weaponry, military intelligence, or personnel training are inferior to our own, but let's not characterize them as something as harmless as the bogeyman. Sheesh!
WTF? To say that Biden is "using Ukraine" implies that all of this is his doing somehow - part of some plan. That's ridiculous. Joe Biden didn't invent Russian aggression. Biden didn't compel Russia to invade Georgia or Ukraine.
And where is it that the United States is intending to dominate the world with military force? Why we would start with Russia? We aren't even trying to dominate Mexico or Central America (which we could do relatively easily), much less Russia. What a weird accusation.
Yeah, but they have been in Ukraine since 2014. That can't be president Biden's fault.
Putin is anti-circumcision. He's a complete prick.
Good one!