State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller’s comments come as other U.S. officials have acknowledged that there is essentially no money left for Ukraine aid absent legislative action by Congress.
State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller’s comments come as other U.S. officials have acknowledged that there is essentially no money left for Ukraine aid absent legislative action by Congress.
Are you suggesting we nuke Moscow? I suspect it’s 50/50 if they have the capability to use nuclear deterrence, though I doubt they’re still capable of full MAD. But yeah I don’t want a long drawn out war with Russia or any of the consequences of launching a nuclear strike. I would much rather we continue arming Ukraine and attempt to force a regime change in Russia to someone less actively hostile to everyone. I don’t think we need a Gorbachev or Yeltsin running the place, just someone who will avoid fucking with our democracies
Nuking Moscow is not what I’m suggesting. I think credible threats of imminent destruction of major population centers (conventional) would suffice. The credible threat alone would call his bluff in the eyes of Russians.
I agree that a Ukraine win with a Russian regime change would be good. But, that involves a great deal of time with a great many more lost lives, all while Putin manipulates the world stage into possible favorable conditions for himself. There’s no need for any of that.
The Kremlin is the center of the board right now, by Putin’s own hand. Let’s show him what a mistake that was. Calling his bluff will save lives and hasten his demise.
(While we may disagree on approaches, your position is reasonable and has my upvote)
Suggesting? I’m advocating for it.