Ehhhh, it was always just an excuse, just like all the other reasons that they invented. Nazis, NATO, will of the people, whatever bullshit he came up with, the real reason was always because there’s was money to be made by owning their land.
I wonder if they did the math on the cost of this war vs the benefits of the money to be made? Is it still worth it as this point? Sunk cost fallacy at this point?
I know, it’s just so fun to engage on that level because the logic is truly incomprehensible. Like pretend the US or NATO actually wanted to invade Russia or whatever they’re trying to imply by saying that shit. They’re feeling a million times better about it now than 10 years ago since Russia has been revealed as a paper tiger, with soviet vehicle and ammo stocks depleted and nearly a million casualties for a chunk of land, not to mention the fact that they got counter-invaded and it took 7 MONTHS to recapture their own fucking land.
In our pretend land where someone actually wants to invade Russia for some reason, they’re gong to identify the fact that they could break the entire Russian offensive (probably the entire military) with a single carrier group, and do that.
Yes, Putin squandered away a lot of his power with this war and the inability to adjust the plan after it failed (the historic traffic jam north of Kiev). But the issue always was, is, and will be: the wildcards. They got nukes. They might not work well, but who knows. It makes it technically impossible for any nation to ever “break the entire russian offensive” without some serious gambling.
Xi gets pissed whenever Putin threatens with nuke and tells Putin to stop with the bluff. That being said, it is a sign that Russia’s actual influence is eroding because of the war, and that Russia’s sovereignty is slowly being captured by China.
Ehhhh, it was always just an excuse, just like all the other reasons that they invented. Nazis, NATO, will of the people, whatever bullshit he came up with, the real reason was always because there’s was money to be made by owning their land.
I wonder if they did the math on the cost of this war vs the benefits of the money to be made? Is it still worth it as this point? Sunk cost fallacy at this point?
If they did, they are shit awful at math.
I think putin just got senile and wanted to restore the glory of the soviet union tbh. People get really weird when they get old.
Nah, he took up a new hobby during lockdown, most people did sourdough or a language, he did an invasion
It was a calculated risk, but
3.5 roentgen. Not great, not terrible.
3.6 even
I know, it’s just so fun to engage on that level because the logic is truly incomprehensible. Like pretend the US or NATO actually wanted to invade Russia or whatever they’re trying to imply by saying that shit. They’re feeling a million times better about it now than 10 years ago since Russia has been revealed as a paper tiger, with soviet vehicle and ammo stocks depleted and nearly a million casualties for a chunk of land, not to mention the fact that they got counter-invaded and it took 7 MONTHS to recapture their own fucking land.
In our pretend land where someone actually wants to invade Russia for some reason, they’re gong to identify the fact that they could break the entire Russian offensive (probably the entire military) with a single carrier group, and do that.
Yes, Putin squandered away a lot of his power with this war and the inability to adjust the plan after it failed (the historic traffic jam north of Kiev). But the issue always was, is, and will be: the wildcards. They got nukes. They might not work well, but who knows. It makes it technically impossible for any nation to ever “break the entire russian offensive” without some serious gambling.
Xi gets pissed whenever Putin threatens with nuke and tells Putin to stop with the bluff. That being said, it is a sign that Russia’s actual influence is eroding because of the war, and that Russia’s sovereignty is slowly being captured by China.