With Putin's recent speech blaming nuclear threats from NATO, it seems we got a half-way measure in terms of "partial mobilization", whatever that is supposed to mean. It seems mostly a way to insist that you have more buttons to press after this.

The bills passed in the Duma and Putin's later speech shows the coordination between the Russian parliament and Putin's circle we would expect, so there are few political cracks to be seen there.

With Russian forces on the ground increasingly relying on irregulars, it might be the only way for Russia to quickly strengthen regular forces. It is tempting to say that it smacks of desperation, but more realistically it is just Putin and his circle attempting to escalate; about the only thing they know how to do in these matters. I also think the Kremlin operates in a "fact bubble", where bad news and realistic prospects are not welcome. Even though Kharkiv should have been a wakeup call, I suspect their grasp on the situation is still a long way from reality.

Of course, with a dwindling economy, crippled industry and a ton of modern equipment out of the fight, Russia has a logistical nightmare ahead. The organization of their army groups were a dumpster fire at the start of the invasion, and now seems to be almost non-existent. Color me dubious that this will be fixed.

The increase in incendiary rhetoric from the "loyal opposition" and Russian pundits on the government's "approved"-list is as always hard to analyze, since there aren't many independent voices or sources left in Russia. My guess is that it is "pre-approved" to make Putin's approach seem more moderate.

"Western" governments will require a steady hand ahead. Though, even if they wanted to, there is really no way out at this point.

I don't agree. I am much more inclined to see the explanation for the Iraq War as duplicitousness paired with incompetence rather than duplicitousness paired with 4D chess. If it was duplicitous 4-D chess, it was very short-sighted, because the net effect of Bush's war was to reduce domestic enthusiasm for military adventurism and nation building.

Also, it wouldn't have been necessary to send the message you are suggesting. All the countries that were likely to bear the brunt of U.S. military force assumed the worst about U.S. motives even before 9/11.

Ya we disagree.

I mean, we probably agree on most points but I think there was a lot of US flex there.

I think there was at least some belief (like we have and hope with Russia now) that the US would not go full lawless and just invade a country and depose its leadership because they could. That they would have to have an iota of a justifiable reason and the most solid of UN and world support.

The US could not even get Canada on board the Iraq invasion, and Canada is not important for our military force (although we almost always support the US with front line troops in any of their conflicts) but we are important, in being seen as a mostly fair arbiter. We give the 'seal of approval'.

I think GWB sent a clear message, which is one both Qatar and Ukraine were aware of when dealing with Trump, and that message is the U.S. CAN and WILL go completely rogue if they feel it is in their interests and we will pay ZERO price besides some meaningless 'reduced enthusiasm', which we really do not need to act. Trumps threat is less meaningful, imo, if they feel ultimately the US will be constrained by the UN or other outside forces.

A US willing to go rogue is, IMO, more terrifying to other nations than a US who can be restrained by the rules and a UN influenced heavily by China, who might say 'No'. If a country believes China and others thru the UN have the power to stop the US, that makes them feel safer. Knowing the US has no such constraint, puts them on notice.

USA, from time to time , has to send the message they can't be constrained. It's a necessary but somewhat unfortunate side effect of ruling the world.

US propaganda is known as truth and if you speak out against then you get ostracized quick. Doesn't matter that you will assuredly be proven correct in 5 10 or 50 yeats

Tough time to be a protester in Russia as they scoop up those protesting conscription and send them on their journey right to the front lines.


Thank you comrade for your service, let us help you to the processing centre.

We know from the release of early timelines that a western leader like Macron took a lot of their actions on the request of Zelensky and the Ukrainian government. For example Macron's call to peace even after the invasion happened was an example of this. The flaws and strengths of Zelensky will be discussed for decades to come, but being a stooge won't be on that list.

Of course, heeding Ukrainian requests is done in large part because there is legitimate reason to support Ukraine. That said, it of course isn't lost on European politicians that Zelensky still has that wartime-sheen, and that it might rub off on them.

But for my part, there is a cultural aspect here that is hard to convey to many of our resident American posters, since the US hasn't really experienced an existential war since its war of independence. American war debate is very much a debate of "over there" and how much trouble one can afford to bring home.

Over here, things are a bit different. I grew up with grandparents who had suffered invasion and existential war, as did most of my generation in Europe. We also grew up with Soviet bombers and divisions at our borders, and Soviet forces occupying a third of Europe.

Then when CCCP fell there was a brief period of niceties with Russia in the nineties, before we were back to Russian nuclear bombers, regiments drilling at the border and Russia doing land-grabs in neighboring countries. There was a friendly Russia too, by all means. Which was actually quite lovely, because a lot of Russian culture is wonderful. Still, in a way that only makes the actions of the regime worse, because you have seen how things should have been.

Nor is there any military equivalent of the US in European. Most countries are small, and even among the large ones it is questionable if any of them would would have been able to withstand Russia on their own. And that's even with what we now know of the state of the Russian armed forces.

Banding together becomes necessity. It doesn't come easy, cooperation is often weak and fragmented in a continent born out of millennia of internal strife, where most of us can still name relatives who were killed by soldiers from another European country. However, in the matter of Ukraine I think it finally became clear that it was now or never. An international coalition spearheaded by the US also made that choice a lot easier.

There is a tendency among some Americans to thing of European support for Ukraine as an expression of naivety, fear, warmongering, bravado, being brainwashed by Hollywood-esque patriotism or being blind to the faults of Ukraine.

While some of that surely exists, I'm not seeing much of it around me: It's more a weird fatalism which I'm beginning to think many Americans struggle to understand. An idea that it's not really about choice or outcomes at this point, it just is what it is.

Huh? I'm not at all clear what - if any - major political faction in the US has been framing European support for Ukraine these contradictory ways. If there is a sort of systemic bias from Americans, it is more that they think of themselves as doing all the heavy lifting and critiquing countries punching below their weight like France and Germany while ignoring the very significant contributions "above their weight" from countries like Poland or Czech Republic.

A reminder

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

What's your point?

I can't tell who the guy in the photos above is.

These two pictures are two totally different scenarios. One is an official meeting, the other is Trump kicking out all U.S. media and allowing only Russian media in the room.

Besides, Obama and Clinton didn't swarm how brilliant Putin is when Russia amassed troops on the Ukrainian border.

My point is that Trump is a Russian asset.


Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

content://com.android.chrome.FileProvider/images/screenshot/166473061583180014517.jpg

content://com.android.chrome.FileProvider/images/screenshot/1664730983122193757134.jpg

see Merkel there? the German gov is best buddies with putin.

You people aren't serious I hope.

Y'all Russian trolls or what?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Pathetic

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

What a charming guy

Meetings of heads of state, how does that work?

Sorry, you're defense of Trump is the typical political ploy of deflection. Trying to steer the conversation in a different direction.

By doing this, you're basically admitting that Trump in Putin's pocket.
I would not be shocked if all those classified documents Trump stole, and if it was anyone else, they'd be in prison already, intended to hand them over to Putin.




Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

I have no idea what I'm looking at but I'll make the correct assumption that it's not the same as a meeting with a NATO head of state

Small penis big table. Now we could just get this guy some hair we'll be ok

and btw since the Vietnam war, we get no honest war coverage. it's all lies and deception and more lies. they knew it was a disaster.

Usually with a witness present.

Trump ensuring no American translator or anyone else from the US could be witness to what he said to Russian operatives and only Russian translators and THEIR people were present was a shocking departure and a dangerous one.

they have their own NATO, they are playing their own game there. NATO is the enemy in their books.

they have 80% of the none western world on their team. why do you think the Latin states want to cooperate with them? because they are getting screwed by the West.