Yes, Putin being extraordinarily cautious and risk-averse
Putin invaded Ukraine to begin with. That's not "extraordinarily cautious and risk-averse".
If they don't want that, they should feel free to start World War III.
What World War III? Russia stands alone, with no friends, no allies, and no military. What would Russia fight this WW3 with? Babushkas & Gopniks?
NATO can utterly destroy any Russian incursion with conventional weapons, just like the US already demonstrated in Syria when Russia tried to attack an American-supported position, and the US annihilated them.
I've told you dozens of times: Russia will not use nukes. Putin and the rest of his leadership cabal have good lives of wealth and luxury, and don't want to die.
the sanctions of the GAE have turned out to be as toothless as the Empire itself.
The sanctions thus far have been limp dick because most of Europe [in particular France & Germany] simply didn't care much about Ukraine. Things would be different with Finland. They see Finland as one of their own.
LOL! A country of five million is going to occupy Russian territory. Are you real? You're just all wishful thinking, it seems.
History is replete with examples of smaller countries defeating larger ones in wars, and that would be true even if Russia's entire military was not tied down in Ukraine.
Russia has a peacetime military of 1 million.
On paper. The vast majority of those are not combat troops and not "deployable". Many are things like "railway troops" who can't fight.
If Russia really had 1 million troops, why did Putin need a partial mobilization? Why were the units defending the Kharkiv sector at 25% strength?
So pull Siberian and Caucasian divisions west
There is no such thing. Every combat capable troop was already "pulled" early in the war. Russia's total DEPLOYABLE combat force was only about 200k, and that was all sent to Ukraine Day 1. Afterwards, Russia had to start scraping non-combat units for replacements, together with offering large sums of money & opening the prisons. Even all that wasn't good enough, so a partial mobilization was required as a last resort.
You seem to believe that Russia has all sorts of "spare" troops lazing around which could be used. It does not. It never has. These troops only exist in your imagination.
Putin invaded Ukraine to begin with. That's not "extraordinarily cautious and risk-averse".
A clever man would have swallowed up all of it in 2014, when it was in state collapse, and couldn't even beat ragtab rebel forces, rather than letting the ulcer fester and become a mortal NATO threat.
I don't judge though, maybe it could not have withstood the withering GAE response.
What World War III? Russia stands alone, with no friends, no allies, and no military. What would Russia fight this WW3 with?
Nuclear weapons.
NATO can utterly destroy any Russian incursion with conventional weapons
It wouldn't though.
The sanctions thus far have been limp dick because most of Europe [in particular France & Germany] simply didn't care much about Ukraine. Things would be different with Finland. They see Finland as one of their own.
LOL! I know this is your cope, because you sure love your economic terrorism, but reality is that the economic terrorism has been far more extensive than anyone expected. And it was so from the very beginning, when Germany canceled Nord Stream 2 which you later blew up after mere recognition of the People's Republics. But now that they have failed utterly at "reducing the rouble to rubble", as Joe Biden bragged about when it was at 150 to the dollar, you try to dismiss them.
History is replete with examples of smaller countries defeating larger ones in wars, and that would be true even if Russia's entire military was not tied down in Ukraine.
There is no example of a country of 5 million occupying the territory of a country of 150 million.
If Russia really had 1 million troops, why did Putin need a partial mobilization? Why were the units defending the Kharkiv sector at 25% strength?
I thought not wanting to depopulate the border areas. But why does Russia need soldiers on its frontier with China?
You seem to believe that Russia has all sorts of "spare" troops lazing around which could be used. It does not. It never has. These troops only exist in your imagination.
Just lik a "Ukrainian victory" exists only in yours.
Russia can't use nukes because MAD = everyone dies. Russia cannot win a war using nukes. Nobody can.
Russia could certainly obtain meaningful gains from making nuclear threats if the target of the threats agrees to submission out of fear of nukes, but this has never happened historically, and has not happened in 2022 despite Russia making a lot of nuke threats.
You might be unhappy enough with your life that you'd be willing to commit suicide if it meant all the people you hate in the world would die, too. Certainly there are no shortage of mentally ill people online willing to take that position.
Thankfully, people like you are not in power in Russia or China, or even North Korea or Iran. All the elites who run those countries live very luxurious lives, and have a lot to lose. They don't want to die and see their nation glassed because they felt like they needed to flip the chess board as a cope for being a loser. Their true cope is to make their common people the losers while they continue to live lives of extravagance.
you sure love your economic terrorism
Is it "economic terrorism" if you refuse to buy Disney products? No? Then it isn't economic terrorism for the United States to refuse to buy Russian products.
No country on earth is entitled to the benefits of US trade or US money. We have the right to refuse to do business with anyone.
Russia can't use nukes because MAD = everyone dies. Russia cannot win a war using nukes. Nobody can.
That's your religion, but if that were the case, China, Russia and the US would not have spent massive amounts of money upgrading their nuclear stockpiles. Your own reference to Vasily Arkhipov makes it seem that you realize full well the limits of MAD.
You might be unhappy enough with your life that you'd be willing to commit suicide if it meant all the people you hate in the world would die, too. Certainly there are no shortage of mentally ill people online willing to take that position.
Westerners have a different mindset from the rest of the world. The fact that you are so obsessed with not dying, eventhough you one day will, is quite a useful tool for a country like Russia, quite apart from the fact that way more people live in the GAE than live in Russia - so nuclear war is not exactly a bad trade from their POV.
They don't want to die and see their nation glassed because they felt like they needed to flip the chess board as a cope for being a loser.
I imagine Western leaders also do not want their countries glassed - who will they order around and exploit if that were to happen? Putin's excessive caution has made them arrogant. They definitely would not be this aggressive if there were a gung ho Khrushchev type in power there.
Is it "economic terrorism" if you refuse to buy Disney products? No? Then it isn't economic terrorism for the United States to refuse to buy Russian products.
What a pathetic comparison. That is an individual choice, not an attempt to destroy an entire country's economy for doing what your warmongering country has done way worse in the past few decades.
No country on earth is entitled to the benefits of US trade or US money. We have the right to refuse to do business with anyone.
To be clear, you're saying that your tyrannical government has the "right" to imprison its own citizens for not refusing to do business based for fraudulent reasons? And that you have the 'right' to steal $300 billion in Russian reserves?
That's your religion, but if that were the case, China, Russia and the US would not have spent massive amounts of money upgrading their nuclear stockpiles.
China kept a tiny nuke force for its whole history until very recently, so that disproves your point, doesn't it?
I don't think a torpedo would have triggered a general exchange. It would have triggered some sort of escalation that would have made the Soviets worse off.
I don't think the Russian nuclear launch chain of command is insecure enough to result in a wildcard launch. Putin and his Oligarchs do not want another Valentin Savitsky to end the world and kill them.
Putin still doesn't have the balls to use a tactical nuke because he knows the sanctions response would be far worse, even if NATO wouldn't respond with nukes. The pariah status he would face would be irrecoverable.
I'm content to rely on MAD forever, if the alternative is "allow myself to be raped by nuclear blackmail forever". Why would anyone agree to that?
Westerners have a different mindset from the rest of the world. The fact that you are so obsessed with not dying, eventhough you one day will, is quite a useful tool for a country like Russia, quite apart from the fact that way more people live in the GAE than live in Russia - so nuclear war is not exactly a bad trade from their POV.
The elites who rule Russia are no different than plenty of elites in the West. They are rich and lead pampered lives of luxury, far better than the average Westerner. The Russian nuclear codes are not in the hands of some random Gopnik who doesn't care if he lives or dies. The fact that Western politicians actually care about social welfare isn't the weakness you think it is. GJ contradicting yourself on your "all politicians are the same" line, though.
I imagine Western leaders also do not want their countries glassed
Nobody does, which is why no one has ever used nukes. It's why Hitler didn't use chemical weapons in WW2.
What a pathetic comparison. That is an individual choice, not an attempt to destroy an entire country's economy for doing what your warmongering country has done way worse in the past few decades.
US sanctions are an "individual choice" on the nation-state level. They are not an attempt to destroy a country's economy, but rather to make it so America is not complicit in their war machine. Quite frankly your victim routine means nothing: the West isn't going to stop using sanctions to punish nations who behave badly.
you're saying that your tyrannical government has the "right" to imprison its own citizens for not refusing to do business
That is, in fact, how laws work. US corporations are required to obey US laws, and if we sanction North Korea or Iran, they have to cut ties.
Putin invaded Ukraine to begin with. That's not "extraordinarily cautious and risk-averse".
What World War III? Russia stands alone, with no friends, no allies, and no military. What would Russia fight this WW3 with? Babushkas & Gopniks?
NATO can utterly destroy any Russian incursion with conventional weapons, just like the US already demonstrated in Syria when Russia tried to attack an American-supported position, and the US annihilated them.
I've told you dozens of times: Russia will not use nukes. Putin and the rest of his leadership cabal have good lives of wealth and luxury, and don't want to die.
The sanctions thus far have been limp dick because most of Europe [in particular France & Germany] simply didn't care much about Ukraine. Things would be different with Finland. They see Finland as one of their own.
History is replete with examples of smaller countries defeating larger ones in wars, and that would be true even if Russia's entire military was not tied down in Ukraine.
On paper. The vast majority of those are not combat troops and not "deployable". Many are things like "railway troops" who can't fight.
If Russia really had 1 million troops, why did Putin need a partial mobilization? Why were the units defending the Kharkiv sector at 25% strength?
There is no such thing. Every combat capable troop was already "pulled" early in the war. Russia's total DEPLOYABLE combat force was only about 200k, and that was all sent to Ukraine Day 1. Afterwards, Russia had to start scraping non-combat units for replacements, together with offering large sums of money & opening the prisons. Even all that wasn't good enough, so a partial mobilization was required as a last resort.
You seem to believe that Russia has all sorts of "spare" troops lazing around which could be used. It does not. It never has. These troops only exist in your imagination.
A clever man would have swallowed up all of it in 2014, when it was in state collapse, and couldn't even beat ragtab rebel forces, rather than letting the ulcer fester and become a mortal NATO threat.
I don't judge though, maybe it could not have withstood the withering GAE response.
Nuclear weapons.
It wouldn't though.
LOL! I know this is your cope, because you sure love your economic terrorism, but reality is that the economic terrorism has been far more extensive than anyone expected. And it was so from the very beginning, when Germany canceled Nord Stream 2 which you later blew up after mere recognition of the People's Republics. But now that they have failed utterly at "reducing the rouble to rubble", as Joe Biden bragged about when it was at 150 to the dollar, you try to dismiss them.
There is no example of a country of 5 million occupying the territory of a country of 150 million.
I thought not wanting to depopulate the border areas. But why does Russia need soldiers on its frontier with China?
Just lik a "Ukrainian victory" exists only in yours.
Russia can't use nukes because MAD = everyone dies. Russia cannot win a war using nukes. Nobody can.
Russia could certainly obtain meaningful gains from making nuclear threats if the target of the threats agrees to submission out of fear of nukes, but this has never happened historically, and has not happened in 2022 despite Russia making a lot of nuke threats.
You might be unhappy enough with your life that you'd be willing to commit suicide if it meant all the people you hate in the world would die, too. Certainly there are no shortage of mentally ill people online willing to take that position.
Thankfully, people like you are not in power in Russia or China, or even North Korea or Iran. All the elites who run those countries live very luxurious lives, and have a lot to lose. They don't want to die and see their nation glassed because they felt like they needed to flip the chess board as a cope for being a loser. Their true cope is to make their common people the losers while they continue to live lives of extravagance.
Is it "economic terrorism" if you refuse to buy Disney products? No? Then it isn't economic terrorism for the United States to refuse to buy Russian products.
No country on earth is entitled to the benefits of US trade or US money. We have the right to refuse to do business with anyone.
That's your religion, but if that were the case, China, Russia and the US would not have spent massive amounts of money upgrading their nuclear stockpiles. Your own reference to Vasily Arkhipov makes it seem that you realize full well the limits of MAD.
Westerners have a different mindset from the rest of the world. The fact that you are so obsessed with not dying, eventhough you one day will, is quite a useful tool for a country like Russia, quite apart from the fact that way more people live in the GAE than live in Russia - so nuclear war is not exactly a bad trade from their POV.
I imagine Western leaders also do not want their countries glassed - who will they order around and exploit if that were to happen? Putin's excessive caution has made them arrogant. They definitely would not be this aggressive if there were a gung ho Khrushchev type in power there.
What a pathetic comparison. That is an individual choice, not an attempt to destroy an entire country's economy for doing what your warmongering country has done way worse in the past few decades.
To be clear, you're saying that your tyrannical government has the "right" to imprison its own citizens for not refusing to do business based for fraudulent reasons? And that you have the 'right' to steal $300 billion in Russian reserves?
China kept a tiny nuke force for its whole history until very recently, so that disproves your point, doesn't it?
And the US and Russia have greatly reduced their nuke warhead count over the years.
I don't think a torpedo would have triggered a general exchange. It would have triggered some sort of escalation that would have made the Soviets worse off.
I don't think the Russian nuclear launch chain of command is insecure enough to result in a wildcard launch. Putin and his Oligarchs do not want another Valentin Savitsky to end the world and kill them.
Putin still doesn't have the balls to use a tactical nuke because he knows the sanctions response would be far worse, even if NATO wouldn't respond with nukes. The pariah status he would face would be irrecoverable.
I'm content to rely on MAD forever, if the alternative is "allow myself to be raped by nuclear blackmail forever". Why would anyone agree to that?
The elites who rule Russia are no different than plenty of elites in the West. They are rich and lead pampered lives of luxury, far better than the average Westerner. The Russian nuclear codes are not in the hands of some random Gopnik who doesn't care if he lives or dies. The fact that Western politicians actually care about social welfare isn't the weakness you think it is. GJ contradicting yourself on your "all politicians are the same" line, though.
Nobody does, which is why no one has ever used nukes. It's why Hitler didn't use chemical weapons in WW2.
US sanctions are an "individual choice" on the nation-state level. They are not an attempt to destroy a country's economy, but rather to make it so America is not complicit in their war machine. Quite frankly your victim routine means nothing: the West isn't going to stop using sanctions to punish nations who behave badly.
That is, in fact, how laws work. US corporations are required to obey US laws, and if we sanction North Korea or Iran, they have to cut ties.
God willing, one day we will sanction China.