[Beren]

Indeed, but the perception of US/NATO weakness probably mattered too.

Sure, he sensed weakness in general and considered Ukraine an easy prey while the timing seemed perfect. So he decided to attack, although even his closest colleagues weren't sure. But what do those minions know about hunting?

[Rancid]

Indeed, but the perception of US/NATO weakness probably mattered too.

His mistake is interpreting restraint as weakness.

The reality that anti-west, anti-US people don't understand is that the US and the west in general has a history of showing a tremendous amount of restraint around the world. Interventions of the last 70 years, be it Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, Africa, Iraq/Afghanistan, were minimal compared to the level of imperialism/meddling/dominance the US could have actually unleash on the world if it wanted to. Let's not forget, there was even a time where the US had a monopoly on nuclear weapons after WWII. The US had the opportunity to put more of the world, including the soviet union under its thumb if it wanted to. Instead, it showed restraint.

Don't get me wrong, we can rightfully complain, condemn, and denounce the US hegemony/meddling around the world in the last several decades. This cannot be excuse, but the fact remains, the US has shown an incredible amount of restraint in the decades after WWII.

So, when you have up and coming autocratic dick faces like Putin and Xi, they misinterpret this history of relative restraint (compared to empires of the past who showed no restraint when they are in a position of power) as "weakness", because they themselves are imperialists and subscribe to antiquated views of historical empires. Hence, they falsely believe that the reason the US hasn't subjugated more of the world is not because of levels of restraint we've never seen in history, but because of weakness. Again, these guys have antiquated views of the world.

[Political Interest]

The Russians made a huge mistake in reading the Western response. They thought the West are all soft and that Westerners just love comfort without principles. This was based on massive cultural ignorance. For example they didn't understand that in countries like England and Scotland there are many hardmen who love fighting and that machismo is a big part of the British culture. The bravery and courage of Ukrainians has gained them tremendous support among the British working classes. You can see Ukrainian flags in many working class parts of the country, as well as generally.

[wat0n]

His mistake is interpreting restraint as weakness.

The reality that anti-west, anti-US people don't understand is that the US and the west in general has a history of showing a tremendous amount of restraint around the world. Interventions of the last 70 years, be it Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, Africa, Iraq/Afghanistan, were minimal compared to the level of imperialism/meddling/dominance the US could have actually unleash on the world if it wanted to. Let's not forget, there was even a time where the US had a monopoly on nuclear weapons after WWII. The US had the opportunity to put more of the world, including the soviet union under its thumb if it wanted to. Instead, it showed restraint.

Don't get me wrong, we can rightfully complain, condemn, and denounce the US hegemony/meddling around the world in the last several decades. This cannot be excuse, but the fact remains, the US has shown an incredible amount of restraint in the decades after WWII.

So, when you have up and coming autocratic dick faces like Putin and Xi, they misinterpret this history of relative restraint (compared to empires of the past who showed no restraint when they are in a position of power) as "weakness", because they themselves are imperialists and subscribe to antiquated views of historical empires. Hence, they falsely believe that the reason the US hasn't subjugated more of the world is not because of levels of restraint we've never seen in history, but because of weakness. Again, these guys have antiquated views of the world.

Not enforcing your own red lines isn't restraint, it's weakness.

Russia not enforcing its own red lines on aircraft transfer to Ukraine is not restraint, it's weakness.

Where Putin erred was in thinking the Ukrainians were weak, and that the West would not take notice of their example should they resist as they in fact did. Had the Ukrainians not resisted, the West would've done nothing beyond their "deeply concernism"

[Beren]

His mistake is interpreting restraint as weakness.

I'd rather bet he was duped.

[Tainari88]

Not enforcing your own red lines isn't restraint, it's weakness.

Russia not enforcing its own red lines on aircraft transfer to Ukraine is not restraint, it's weakness.

Where Putin erred was in thinking the Ukrainians were weak, and that the West would not take notice of their example should they resist as they in fact did. Had the Ukrainians not resisted, the West would've done nothing beyond their "deeply concernism"

All these putitos de Putines Putin are the same. They all have delusions of grandeur and how they can conquer the world like if they are playing RISK the board game. Real life is not RISK. It never was. Human beings are very incredibly adaptable and resilient creatures and they also can be very hard to conquer if they have the tools and technology to resist. Also many working in unison for a goal is hard to beat. They become extremely hard to bully. It doesn't matter if it a small nation or a big one if all find unity of purpose and want a goal and instead of in fighting they cooperate? El Puto Putito Putin won't win. No matter what. He is used to his country being under autocratic rule. But he doesn't realize that many people only tolerate autocracy if their living conditions and their lives are stable, they have jobs, bread, and security and they can study, work and buy a luxury once in a while in a peaceful place. If they have war, and then instability, hardship and death and disrupted lives? They got nothing to lose by going for the autocratic deposement. The problem is the autocrats often think they can intimidate people easily into compliance. They might be able to for a while. But not for long stretches of time. And the other part of that problem? You can't both keep all the Russians unhappy with the war decisions in line in Moscow, and also the Ukrainians with weapons fighting to retain their geographical sovereignty.

The ones making a good profit killing out all these issues in Europe? The Arms manufacturers. The weapons dealers. Who are loving all the shooting and war going on that makes them richer than they already are.

The reality is people in many nations got to choose in investing in peace, education, housing, jobs and food production, and consumer goods that are sustainable, cleaning up the ocean, the land, and the air and the water in their countries. And make sure never to allow some insane Autocratic puto to ever be in a position of power again. Period. That goes for Trump, Le Pen, the Racist Right, the fascist types, and the rest of the ones with autocrat fantasies.

[wat0n]

All these putitos de Putines Putin are the same. They all have delusions of grandeur and how they can conquer the world like if they are playing RISK the board game. Real life is not RISK. It never was. Human beings are very incredibly adaptable and resilient creatures and they also can be very hard to conquer if they have the tools and technology to resist. Also many working in unison for a goal is hard to beat. They become extremely hard to bully. It doesn't matter if it a small nation or a big one if all find unity of purpose and want a goal and instead of in fighting they cooperate? El Puto Putito Putin won't win. No matter what. He is used to his country being under autocratic rule. But he doesn't realize that many people only tolerate autocracy if their living conditions and their lives are stable, they have jobs, bread, and security and they can study, work and buy a luxury once in a while in a peaceful place. If they have war, and then instability, hardship and death and disrupted lives? They got nothing to lose by going for the autocrats deposement. The problem is the autocrats often think they can intimidate people easily into compliance. They might be able to for a while. But not for long stretches of time. And the other part of that problem? You can't both keep all the Russians unhappy with the war decisions in line in Moscow, and also the Ukrainians with weapons fighting to retain their geographical sovereignty.

The ones making a good profit killing out all these issues in Europe? The Arms manufacturers. The weapons dealers. Who is loving all the shooting and war going on that makes them rich.

The reality is people in many nations got to choose in investing in peace, education, housing, jobs and food production, and consumer goods that are sustainable, cleaning up the ocean, the land, and the air and the water in their countries. And make sure never to allow some insane Autocratic puto to ever be in a position of power again. Period. That goes for Trump, Le Pen, the Racist Right, the fascist types, and the rest of the ones with autocrat fantasies.

Indeed, and you know what? The Russian intelligence could have covertly commissioned polls to the Ukrainian population about "what if Russia invaded?". This is something intel agencies, including the CIA nd the KGB, have been doing since the 1950s so this isn't reinventing the wheel or anything, just standard work. And Putin worked as a KGB agent.

[Tainari88]

His mistake is interpreting restraint as weakness.

The reality that anti-west, anti-US people don't understand is that the US and the west in general has a history of showing a tremendous amount of restraint around the world. Interventions of the last 70 years, be it Korea, Vietnam, Latin America, Africa, Iraq/Afghanistan, were minimal compared to the level of imperialism/meddling/dominance the US could have actually unleash on the world if it wanted to. Let's not forget, there was even a time where the US had a monopoly on nuclear weapons after WWII. The US had the opportunity to put more of the world, including the soviet union under its thumb if it wanted to. Instead, it showed restraint.

Don't get me wrong, we can rightfully complain, condemn, and denounce the US hegemony/meddling around the world in the last several decades. This cannot be excuse, but the fact remains, the US has shown an incredible amount of restraint in the decades after WWII.

So, when you have up and coming autocratic dick faces like Putin and Xi, they misinterpret this history of relative restraint (compared to empires of the past who showed no restraint when they are in a position of power) as "weakness", because they themselves are imperialists and subscribe to antiquated views of historical empires. Hence, they falsely believe that the reason the US hasn't subjugated more of the world is not because of levels of restraint we've never seen in history, but because of weakness. Again, these guys have antiquated views of the world.

I happen to believe in talk the talk and then walk the walk philosophy Rancid. If you keep saying that you are the light of democracy, you are the best at human rights, you are the most just society? You are the example for all other nations to follow? BE CONSISTENT. Walk the walk. Don't just talk the talk. If you become two faced and hypocritical what does that show to your friends and your enemies? You become Ted Cruz my man Rancid.

And that snake ain't easy to like. I don't think there is restraint Rancid. I think the USA just doesn't really do long term and very well planned diplomacy that works in the long haul. If they did? Their foreign policy failures would not be so deeply flawed. Arrogance is the core of that problem Rancid. Humility is what is required for good diplomacy. But? Who knows when they will learn such things. Not only the USA but Russia and others.

The PRC I think is heartless and doesn't care about the workers. If it continues with that shit mentality it will become a state with a lot of riots and instability. And China's plans for the future will be in the toilet. Autocracy never works. But that I think the USA is restrained in their abuse of power? No. It is the only country on the face of the Earth that has actually thrown two nuclear bombs during the war. That is not restraint Rancid. That is genocide.

If any other nation does that again because they want to follow the USA's WWII example? Nothing restrained about it. It is insanity.

[Rancid]

Not enforcing your own red lines isn't restraint, it's weakness.

We all have our moments of weakness, but I think as a general point, what I stated is still valid.

[Politics_Observer]

@wat0n

Only make red lines that you have an incentive to make and an incentive to enforce. If you make a red line that you have no incentive to make and no incentive to enforce and then that red line gets crossed, you won't enforce that red line and will end up paying a cost for not doing so.

[Beren]

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday told the leaders of France and Germany Moscow is ready to look for ways to ship grain stuck in Ukrainian ports but demanded the West lift sanctions.

Putin apparently feels the responsibility expected from a world leader (of a permanent member of the UNSC) for the people who have nothing to do with his Ukraine shit whatsoever and can starve to death due to his blockade of Odessa, while this blatant and beastly blackmail also proves how sanction proof the Russian economy really is, of course. The blame is also on the West for this as usual.

[wat0n]

@wat0n

Only make red lines that you have an incentive to make and an incentive to enforce. If you make a red line that you have no incentive to make and no incentive to enforce and then that red line gets crossed, you won't enforce that red line and will end up paying a cost for not doing so.

Exactly, but I'd also add that you must have the ability and resolve to enforce it. Did Russia have an incentive in enforcing its no aircraft transfer red line? Yes, absolutely. But it lacked the resolve to (and arguably the ability to do so as well).

When the Obama administration did not enforce the Syrian chemical weapon use red line, it showed weakness. Not a weakness of ability but of resolve

[Rancid]

It looks like the US has approved the transfer of long range MLRS systems.

[Politics_Observer]

@Rancid

It looks like the US has approved the transfer of long range MLRS systems.

What is your source for this information? I knew we were considering it, but the Biden Administration hadn't given the final approval, last time I check and so far from what I can read on the internet.

[ingliz]

long range MLRS systems

The MGM-168 ATacMS – Block IVA range is 300 km (or more*).

* With the United States' withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the range of the PRSM will be increased beyond the '499 km' limitation previously placed upon it by the treaty.

Dual-use ballistic missiles.

The US has a death wish, methinks.

[Independent_Srpska]

Oh, look at that.
NATO fanboy club cheerfully paddling on their usual flow of utmost nonsenses.

Let me direct your thinking process to Maydan events and 8 years of killing Russian speaking people in east Ukraine.

Somehow ,you all from the Club, keep avoiding that "small" fact that caused escalation in February 2022.

Reading you, some Martians, could conclude that Putin is a lunatic, whore and a madman because he did not like NATO humanitarians to sponsor killings Russians in Donbass for 8 years.
Including bright conclusion that NATO cowards, who pushed idiots in Kiev to harass their own people in Nazi insignia, should have put red line on Putin's feeling, so he wouldn't dare to dislike harassment of his own people.

I just wish you were smart enough to be pissed with Kiev from 2013...but, you were not.

[Rich]

When the Obama administration did not enforce the Syrian chemical weapon use red line, it showed weakness. Not a weakness of ability but of resolve

It showed iron will and total resolution to act or not act in the interests of the Israeli state. Israel did not want a unitary Sunny Arab state in Syria with any sense of legitimacy. Also Saudi Arabia did not want any so called moderate regime, in any way associated with the Muslim brotherhood. Both Israel and Saudi Arabia would have been happy with the Islamic State, unfortunately for the Western establishment, the Islamic State were the real deal and just wouldn't play ball with the West.

Years before the civil war broke out, when all this was a theoretical eventuality I said that Israel would veto the removal of the Assad regime and that proved to be the case. Some people may not like it, but the fact is that who rules in Damascus is of critical interest to the Jewish State. Who rules in Kiev is not.

[Rugoz]

The MGM-168 ATacMS – Block IVA range is 300 km (or more*).

* With the United States' withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the range of the PRSM will be increased beyond the '499 km' limitation previously placed upon it by the treaty.

Dual-use ballistic missiles.

The US has a death wish, methinks.

A death wish? What is it with you Putler-lovers always salivating over nuclear weapons.

The range depends on the munition provided. Needless to say Russia uses tons of similar systems in Ukraine.

[JohnRawls]

The MGM-168 ATacMS – Block IVA range is 300 km (or more*).

* With the United States' withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the range of the PRSM will be increased beyond the '499 km' limitation previously placed upon it by the treaty.

Dual-use ballistic missiles.

The US has a death wish, methinks.

We need to provide even more of long range cruise missiles and make sure Ukraine gets unblockaded. The greatest crime against humanity is already happening and around 20 million will starve while 10 million of them will die if Ukraine doesn't get unblockaded.

[Wels]

The situation in the east is very difficult, however intel shows that Russia's assault is once more not going as planned, and ukrainian defenses are holding.
Maybe it will be better for ukrainian troops to make a retreat to not being encircled, and change to asymmetrical warfare again, while at the same time hammering Putler's forces from a safer distance.