"Sooner or later this will end in agreement," was Putin's message, arguing that Nato was coming to realise that defeating Russia on the battlefield would be impossible.
Does Putin realize that NATO is effectively fighting Russia with both arms tied behind it's back right now? We're funding Ukraine (who are doing a phenomenal job, fwiw), but we're not even giving them the top of the line hardware. If the US actually got involved, Russia would pretty much instantly lose any glimmer of air superiority they have, and Ukraine could advance all the way to Moscow under NATO air cover. Like, the only reason Russia still exists is because NATO hasn't even tried to fight Russia on the battlefield yet.
NATO isn't even fighting. NATO gave Ukraine their old boxing gloves and some advice.
And we're learning that a teenager with a drone can be hilariously effective against modern weapons.
So is Russia. Except Russia is learning how to combat the kids with drones too. They're gaining invaluable battlefield experience that NATO troops simply aren't.
Reports vary from side to side, from showing that Russians are curb stomping Ukraine to Ukraine is holding it's own. So, sure, NATO tossing the kid gloves to Ukraine and putting up a fight is comforting, but it isn't the whole picture. Russia wins a war of attrition. NATO is made up of democracies and war fatigue sets in fast when it's someone else's war. Russia is a de facto fascist dictatorship with deep oil pockets. The only thing that turns their troops around is the head of state dying, or a massive coup. Reports of ether being imminent seem to be rather premature.
War attrition sets in much slower when you're not at war.
Yes, my government is sending some old equipment and dedicating 10% of the military budget (which is like 2% of the total spending) to help Ukraine.
That is much less shocking than "Dave from school came back without a leg, and my cousin John didn't come back at all".
They're gaining invaluable battlefield experience that NATO troops simply aren't.
Oh, yes they are. Ukraine is in close contact with NATO countries and sharing intel. NATO countries are also buying drones in bulk right now. And developing ones that Russia will not see until they try to pick a fight with NATO.
How do you feel about Russia's deep oil pockets now that Ukraine is going after their refineries and porta? Do you think Russia can continue to advance or hold ground while also defending large swaths of the western part of Russia? Genuinely curious
NATO is Doc and Ukraine is Little Mac. Vodka Drunkinski doesn't stand a chance.
My guess is is does, but he wants the US to lose interest and move on so coloring this as an exercise in futility helps further that goal.
And it's great propaganda! Unless you are a smart Russian and realize he'll sacrifice as many Russian citizens as necessary to keep up the hoax.
Propaganda works. Period.
Does Putin realize it? Yes.
Does Putin want the people who watch Tucker to realize it? No.
Yeah right, NATO commands far more nuclear warheads than Russia! They'd definitely loose in a thermonuclear exchange!
If the nuke comes out, it won't make an ounce of a difference who has more of them: if only each side can manage to land a small handful, everyone is equally and utterly fucked.
This principle alone is why NATO has not engaged Russia more directly.
Yeah but they'd loose too! :D
I wonder if people forgot, or maybe gen Z and millenials never really know how bad nuclear weapons are. Even a regional nuclear exchange would probably lead to a nuclear winter and then a nuclear summer, completely fucking the climate. As long as we have them, it's inevitable that we'll eventually use them. Just the law of large numbers / Murphey's law. The wars climate change will cause will make that even more likely. But hey, lets keep playing stupid games.
At the same time, the world can't just roll over and let every tin pot dictator do whatever they want just because they have a nuke.
Yeah, why take Russia seriously at all? :D
Remember when NATO beat Vietnam 🇻🇳 by using a nuclear bomb?
Yeah Russia doesn't stand a chance in Ukraine do they?
If the US actually got involved air superiority would be the least of our worries. The minute any major NATO nation gets properly involved, the war goes nuclear very soon after
Putin said that about lethal aid, Putin said that about tanks, Putin said that about f-16s, etc. Will Putin really start Wolrd War 3 over The Donbas and Crimea?
I'm betting there are a lot of people under Putin that don't want to die for his stupidity.
There are people over Putin too. No ruler can rule alone and without consent, his rich oligarch buddies don’t want to cruise their yachts during nuclear winter.
Really dampens the mood. Not even the model-prostitutes will want to fuck in such dreary weather. Not that their consent matters to the oligarch.
Mutually assured destruction is pretty much why no one will ever actually go through with that if their target also has nukes or is protected by a country that has them. It's one of the major reasons no country that has nukes wants to disarm.
Ask Libya and Ukraine how that worked out
Sorry... do you think Libya with nuclear weapons under Gaddafi would have been a good idea?
I was thinking of South Africa and I was wrong.
No worries. Libya did give up its nuclear program as well, but it was because all the countries that invaded Afghanistan in 2001 said, "do it or you're next."
Gaddafi would still be alive. Dictators now need nuclear weapons to assure survival. Look for the world to get real crazy real fast.
There are 57 dictatorships in the world. Almost none of them have nuclear weapons.
You realize Muammar Gaddafi only died 12 years ago and Russia only invaded Ukraine two years ago? Nuclear weapon programs take at least that long to develop. Ukraine and Libya had programs (Ukraine actually had weapons) and abandoned them, much to their demise. If they kept their programs, they wouldn't have had these problems.
Okay, but that's not what you said before. You claimed, and as I pasted: "Dictators now need nuclear weapons to assure survival."
Please explain how the vast majority of dictatorships are surviving without them. Or do all 57 have nuclear weapons?
Many of them will lack the lasting power of North Korea.
Please provide evidence for this claim. An age of dictatorships chart will do.
You aren't just making that up, right? You do have the data, don't you?
The key word in my comment is "will." That's a prediction. You can ping me in 25 years to see if this works out. In the mean time, people are taking this prediction seriously (it isn't only my prediction) when discussing global politics.
They should have thought of that before co-signing the Budapest accords. At least two NATO countries are already involved.
The last time Russian units engaged Americans in combat they were so outmatched that the Russian chain of command disavowed their own guys and pretended not to know them. Nuclear conflagration would be a much better death by comparison.
Does Putin realize that NATO is effectively fighting Russia with both arms tied behind it's back right now? We're funding Ukraine (who are doing a phenomenal job, fwiw), but we're not even giving them the top of the line hardware. If the US actually got involved, Russia would pretty much instantly lose any glimmer of air superiority they have, and Ukraine could advance all the way to Moscow under NATO air cover. Like, the only reason Russia still exists is because NATO hasn't even tried to fight Russia on the battlefield yet.
NATO isn't even fighting. NATO gave Ukraine their old boxing gloves and some advice.
And we're learning that a teenager with a drone can be hilariously effective against modern weapons.
So is Russia. Except Russia is learning how to combat the kids with drones too. They're gaining invaluable battlefield experience that NATO troops simply aren't.
Reports vary from side to side, from showing that Russians are curb stomping Ukraine to Ukraine is holding it's own. So, sure, NATO tossing the kid gloves to Ukraine and putting up a fight is comforting, but it isn't the whole picture. Russia wins a war of attrition. NATO is made up of democracies and war fatigue sets in fast when it's someone else's war. Russia is a de facto fascist dictatorship with deep oil pockets. The only thing that turns their troops around is the head of state dying, or a massive coup. Reports of ether being imminent seem to be rather premature.
War attrition sets in much slower when you're not at war.
Yes, my government is sending some old equipment and dedicating 10% of the military budget (which is like 2% of the total spending) to help Ukraine.
That is much less shocking than "Dave from school came back without a leg, and my cousin John didn't come back at all".
Oh, yes they are. Ukraine is in close contact with NATO countries and sharing intel. NATO countries are also buying drones in bulk right now. And developing ones that Russia will not see until they try to pick a fight with NATO.
How do you feel about Russia's deep oil pockets now that Ukraine is going after their refineries and porta? Do you think Russia can continue to advance or hold ground while also defending large swaths of the western part of Russia? Genuinely curious
NATO is Doc and Ukraine is Little Mac. Vodka Drunkinski doesn't stand a chance.
My guess is is does, but he wants the US to lose interest and move on so coloring this as an exercise in futility helps further that goal.
And it's great propaganda! Unless you are a smart Russian and realize he'll sacrifice as many Russian citizens as necessary to keep up the hoax.
Propaganda works. Period.
Does Putin realize it? Yes.
Does Putin want the people who watch Tucker to realize it? No.
Yeah right, NATO commands far more nuclear warheads than Russia! They'd definitely loose in a thermonuclear exchange!
If the nuke comes out, it won't make an ounce of a difference who has more of them: if only each side can manage to land a small handful, everyone is equally and utterly fucked.
This principle alone is why NATO has not engaged Russia more directly.
Yeah but they'd loose too! :D
I wonder if people forgot, or maybe gen Z and millenials never really know how bad nuclear weapons are. Even a regional nuclear exchange would probably lead to a nuclear winter and then a nuclear summer, completely fucking the climate. As long as we have them, it's inevitable that we'll eventually use them. Just the law of large numbers / Murphey's law. The wars climate change will cause will make that even more likely. But hey, lets keep playing stupid games.
At the same time, the world can't just roll over and let every tin pot dictator do whatever they want just because they have a nuke.
Yeah, why take Russia seriously at all? :D
Remember when NATO beat Vietnam 🇻🇳 by using a nuclear bomb?
Yeah Russia doesn't stand a chance in Ukraine do they?
If the US actually got involved air superiority would be the least of our worries. The minute any major NATO nation gets properly involved, the war goes nuclear very soon after
Putin said that about lethal aid, Putin said that about tanks, Putin said that about f-16s, etc. Will Putin really start Wolrd War 3 over The Donbas and Crimea?
I'm betting there are a lot of people under Putin that don't want to die for his stupidity.
There are people over Putin too. No ruler can rule alone and without consent, his rich oligarch buddies don’t want to cruise their yachts during nuclear winter.
Really dampens the mood. Not even the model-prostitutes will want to fuck in such dreary weather. Not that their consent matters to the oligarch.
Mutually assured destruction is pretty much why no one will ever actually go through with that if their target also has nukes or is protected by a country that has them. It's one of the major reasons no country that has nukes wants to disarm.
Ask Libya and Ukraine how that worked out
Sorry... do you think Libya with nuclear weapons under Gaddafi would have been a good idea?
I was thinking of South Africa and I was wrong.
No worries. Libya did give up its nuclear program as well, but it was because all the countries that invaded Afghanistan in 2001 said, "do it or you're next."
Gaddafi would still be alive. Dictators now need nuclear weapons to assure survival. Look for the world to get real crazy real fast.
There are 57 dictatorships in the world. Almost none of them have nuclear weapons.
https://planetrulers.com/current-dictators/
You realize Muammar Gaddafi only died 12 years ago and Russia only invaded Ukraine two years ago? Nuclear weapon programs take at least that long to develop. Ukraine and Libya had programs (Ukraine actually had weapons) and abandoned them, much to their demise. If they kept their programs, they wouldn't have had these problems.
Okay, but that's not what you said before. You claimed, and as I pasted: "Dictators now need nuclear weapons to assure survival."
Please explain how the vast majority of dictatorships are surviving without them. Or do all 57 have nuclear weapons?
Many of them will lack the lasting power of North Korea.
Please provide evidence for this claim. An age of dictatorships chart will do.
You aren't just making that up, right? You do have the data, don't you?
The key word in my comment is "will." That's a prediction. You can ping me in 25 years to see if this works out. In the mean time, people are taking this prediction seriously (it isn't only my prediction) when discussing global politics.
They should have thought of that before co-signing the Budapest accords. At least two NATO countries are already involved.
The last time Russian units engaged Americans in combat they were so outmatched that the Russian chain of command disavowed their own guys and pretended not to know them. Nuclear conflagration would be a much better death by comparison.
X
Press (formally Twitter) to doubt.