Dmitry Peskov, press secretary of the Russian dictator, has said that the task of the aggressor country on the so-called�demilitarisation� of Ukraine has allegedly been largely fulfilled.
Even if you believe all of this, it should be obvious that the invasion was an abject failure in contributing towards these goals. There’s more NATO equipment and support around that border now than ever before. There’s even more NATO border incoming that didn’t exist before. Staying, expending more of your people’s lives, public and private capital looks like a really counterproductive thing to do. It’s only making those goals harder to meet longer term.
What do you mean by even if? Where did I say “therefore the invasion of Ukraine cannot be a failure” or “therefore Russia’s capitalist government will do the best for their people in the long term”? Again, what’s up with all this X and Y cannot be true at the same time.
Got it.
You say there is a NATO border incoming. Is this a win for the world population, to be closer to a nuclear war? When two blocks of oligarchies exchange punches, I would say one misses the point when they cheer on the blue-yellow one.
For the world population, maybe. There’s an argument to be made that a weaker militarily and economically Russia is less likely to decide to throw punches and the punches would be weaker. That might be good for the rest of us people of the world. I simply can’t see any stability emerging from the status quo in Russia in the medium term and so I see it as needing mitigation. The economic development didn’t manage to put enough money and control in the hands of average Russians who could tame punch throwing impulses. 😐 The average Russians will be paying either way.
There’s a lot of maybes and mights in there. That’s just my view. That said, a whole lot of Europe was a lot more positively inclined towards Russia before the war.
Sure, not because of Chernobyl, the national embarrassment of the failed soviet afghan war, the coup attempt on Gorbachov and the following turmoil causing Moscow to lose influence, followed by many republics declaring independence. but sure, just the profit/market economy
Even if you believe all of this, it should be obvious that the invasion was an abject failure in contributing towards these goals. There’s more NATO equipment and support around that border now than ever before. There’s even more NATO border incoming that didn’t exist before. Staying, expending more of your people’s lives, public and private capital looks like a really counterproductive thing to do. It’s only making those goals harder to meet longer term.
Russia managed to hold onto Crimea, an important warm water port.
Removed by mod
Got it.
For the world population, maybe. There’s an argument to be made that a weaker militarily and economically Russia is less likely to decide to throw punches and the punches would be weaker. That might be good for the rest of us people of the world. I simply can’t see any stability emerging from the status quo in Russia in the medium term and so I see it as needing mitigation. The economic development didn’t manage to put enough money and control in the hands of average Russians who could tame punch throwing impulses. 😐 The average Russians will be paying either way.
There’s a lot of maybes and mights in there. That’s just my view. That said, a whole lot of Europe was a lot more positively inclined towards Russia before the war.
Could easily argue that the winner of the Cold War was the US, considering the USSR collapsed through internal strife and balkanization.
Removed by mod
Sure, not because of Chernobyl, the national embarrassment of the failed soviet afghan war, the coup attempt on Gorbachov and the following turmoil causing Moscow to lose influence, followed by many republics declaring independence. but sure, just the profit/market economy
Removed by mod
I’m guessing the last time they flew into space was just before they brutally defeated and humiliated the red army.
They had a nice society before the USSR invaded, btw.