The purported association with Ukraine is unusually suspicious.
However, I agree with the comments that Russia has limited its actions. With the media hyping this war, critical aspect of such limitations get ignored. From the beginning, due to Russian domestic considerations there have been limitations on the number and type of troops involved. And then we have the limitations on tactics noted above.
On the question of Russia pulling its punches, one need look no farther than the equipment deployed. The. armor is very old model tanks. The troops are mostly conscripts with little to no combat knowledge or experience. Air power, which Russia has plenty of, is almost non-existent. None of that seems like the Russia we all know and love so much.
Iâve been wondering about this, too. I have been thinking Russia could have long ago leveled population centers if it had wanted to do so. In my imaginings, theyâre thinking long term and hoping for eventual (at least tepid) peace if not fraternal relations. Given my memory of the âCuban Missile Crisisâ of 1963 - where the US believed it to be an existential threat - I can see Russia (and not just Putin) believing that Ukraine membership in NATO is exactly the same existential threat; a hill worth dying on. We came close in 1962. Itâs. A âsauce for the gooseâ situation. It was avoidable had NATO not moved aggressively east AND then stirred the pot in Ukraine.
Serious question about that. Conventional reporting says that Russian conscripts serve for a limited period of time and are legally restricted to serving within the borders of the Russian Federation. The conscripts have mostly been stationed far from active fighting. Russia also has âcontractâ soldiers, volunteers who sign up for a period of time and can serve wherever â those constitute the bulk of the military which has been deployed in the Donbas.
Is that conventional reporting in error?
I kind of donât think NATO had any real part to play but straw man. MY opinion is that this whole Ukrainian âproblemâ was a CIA operation. Go back to the original overthrow of the pro-Russian government - the so-called âflower revolutionâ I believe. There is NFW âstudentsâ organized that overthrow. Too widespread, too organized, too targeted. THAT was the CIA looking to discomfit Russia. But Russia took it in stride, working with the new corrupt, now pro-West, government. Letâs face it - theyâre a lot closer than we are to the area in question. It was the potential inclusion in NATO that was the straw that broke the camelâs back. And that was NOT a NATO decision, or at least the European part of NATO. Europe is willing to abuse any nation to the last American dollar or soldier. Just not THEM. Review the last Balkan War for details of our meddling.
Who really knows what is correct reporting and what is propaganda. In todayâs world one needs to assume most of what you hear from other nations is spin at the very least. Russia may, indeed, have all kinds of rules about where conscripts can or canât go, but ?do you seriously believe for even a NY minute that Putin feels at all constricted by laws. He has had opposition reporters killed with no qualms OR repercussions. Donât think laws about where conscripts can be used would slow him down for an. instant. The only question is what Putin thinks is useful and appropriate for the situation.
It was Victoria Nuland and her minions. She was caught on an intercepted mobile call saying as much. The CIA may have also been involved. Full conversation:
In this case, the color revolutionâs name was Euromaidan or, more pompously, the Revolution of Dignity.
I have the perfect solution: pre 1917 borders