FREE shipping Winnie the Booh Halloween shirt, Unisex tee, hoodie, sweater, v-neck and tank top

No, it is not a sign of an impending nuclear attack, I am not saying people should not worry about nuclear weapons, but it remains in my opinion extremely unlikely, it is an absolutely final resort weapon, not even a choice worth considering because of operational setbacks. The Russians pull back from large areas such as this, once the front line is breached, this is to avoid being encircled and will allow Russian troops some breathing room as they set up another line of defenses. This is called elastic defense, and it is a common tactic for mobile forces which are outnumbered by an enemy offensive. It was used a lot by German in WW2, while the Soviet doctrine of defense in depth, takes a lot of time and resources to do fully. As such this type of defense is seen carried out by Ukraine most often and is overall a more effective defensive strategy. However, Russia has not had 8 years to build fortifications, so it is not available to them. As for Russia, there are many signs of resistance- mutiny and desertion in the army, public protest. I would describe Russian citizens as desperate only in the sense that they want an end to Putin’s war and don’t know how to achieve that. Putin must be desperate: he has been seen to have painted himself into a corner. What can he do now? He will blame others for his failures- he always does. In his youth, he learned that cornered rats attack. He is in that rat.

We don’t know exactly what was said. Those conversations were had in private, but the Americans – it is said – made it very clear to Putin what the consequences would be if he deployed nuclear weapons. And the Kremlin since that time has issued a statement that any deployment would be in accordance with published Russian policy (ie. they would only launch if they were struck first, or if Russia faced an ‘existential threat’). But my suspicion was that it was made clear that the deployment of nuclear weapons would mean that the full might of NATO’s forces would be deployed directly against Russia. Including, if necessary, the nuclear deterrent. In terms of conspiracy theories, this is amongst the most ridiculous, however, Putin’s “leadership” of the Russian nation in this war does definitely suggest that the man has become completely imbalanced. How much longer he can last is anyone’s guess but his days are definitely numbered. He has disgraced both himself and his nation. Of course not. Stop believing the left-wing smear tactics. Of interest, Bill Clinton gave Russia full access to the files of the US Patent Office. The “news” media buried that story. Hillary allowed the sale of about 20% of nuclear material to be under Russian control, and in return, the Clinton Foundation scam got a 20 million dollar “donation” from Russia. The “news” media buried that story too. Then there were the illegal campaign donations from communist China to the Bill Clinton campaign fund in which Bill Clinton allowed advanced missile targeting technology to go to China. The “news” media buried that story too even after this became known. Interesting that actual treason by Bill and Hillary gets washed away, but manufactured smears and accusations against Trump are printed as though it’s the truth. Hillary was right when she said that democrat voters are stupid and easy to manipulate.

I don’t think, that an exit strategy ever existed simply because Ukraine was expected to fall within two weeks or a month at most. You cannot just ‘.magic;’ such an exit strategy out of thin air and on the fly and I do not think Russia has any kind of ‘exit strategy’ even now so it has no real alternative but to carry on with the same old same old because the GENERALS had never even considered the possibility that they would need one. Mind you they are NOT alone are they? In the words of the KENNY ROGERS SONG- ‘ You gotta know when to Hold ’em, know when to Fold ’em, know when to walk away, and know when to run – and there’s plenty of time to return to the game. That was my contribution by the way!! This is the funniest post I’ve read today! Thanks for my laugh this morning. So you think an old man sitting in his gold embellished “throne” room and deciding which of his many subjects will march off to die is a “hero”? Tell me, please, what Putin is “sacrificing”? Has he sent his own children off to war? No. Has he contributed his own money to buy food and equipment for his badly supplied troops? No. Has he hopped into a military vehicle and personally visited his troops in the field? No. Is he existing on expired rations and begging the enemy for a cell phone to call his family? No. Sadly he had shown the world Russia’s current “true” limits by demonstrating the corruption that has robbed a once glorious army of all of its equipment, supplies, leadership, and trained manpower. And he has done absolutely nothing to stem that corruption. Just a little (literally) tinpot dictator. Putin’s possible exit strategies are, that he will either send so many resources into Ukraine that the country will buckle under the enormous pressure, or, he will shift goalposts until the offense is over, or until he dies. Even if Russia fails, Putin will not be a part of global politics anymore. So he will rule over rubble and death in any case.

The bigger question is, what is the Russian exit strategy? There will be no justice coming from inside Russia, but the world will demand it. There will likely be no surrender of nuclear weapons, but the world will also demand that. There will likely be no demilitarization, but everyone will demand it. How will Russia continue to exist under all this pressure? The Ukrainian language was the main language – the state language – even before the Nazi takeover in 2014, and this was not a problem. The problem was that the first thing the Ukrainian Nazis did after their coup was to take away the status of a regional language from the Russian language. And this means that from now on, Russian speakers (and these are Russians and almost all Ukrainians) had to communicate with the authorities only in Ukrainian (contracts, publication of laws and acts, etc.), and support for Russian-speaking schools was reduced or stopped, etc. . This is, for example, how to take away the status of the state language from the Swedish language in Finland, or make only one language state in Switzerland, or do the same with French in Canada, or with Breton and Occitan in France. And it was during the times of the USSR that the Ukrainian language began to develop and advance in the Ukrainian SSR. I was studying poli sci in college when the wall fell and that led to a LOT of discussion about what will come next. The consensus of the “deep thinkers” at the time is that any attempt at democracy will fail because there is no tradition of that in Russia and no one imposing it from above. The US’s form of democracy evolved out of Britain’s, which had a VERY advanced form of it in the 18th (by comparison). Germany after WW2? They had a history of it – but we really enforced it. Japan – We jammed it down their throats. Russia? nope. So they tried and they failed.

I beg to differ on this question. Putin’s narratives are not even credible because he had lied about Ukraine and Georgia on countless occasions after he invaded them. Given the technological lead of the US military in armaments and weaponry, the US could have easily exploited and suppressed the rest of the world as how the previous colonial and imperial powers did in the 16th~19th centuries. Contrary to the belief of some people, the US doesn’t exploit or suppress the rest of the world in the same way as the previous imperialists did. The unethical acts of some American corporations in other countries and their lobbyist Senators fall under commercial activities and do not reflect the official opinion of the US government. The fact is, the US government’s support to their allies and partners is all about moral support and economic interests meshed up in a so-called “humanitarian package” that will bring mutual benefits to the economies of the US and its allies/partners in the long run. Whenever the US assists a foreign country, it’s all about businesses and laissez-faire capitalism in above 90% of cases, with the only exceptions being the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo. Democracy and liberty do not come free. After all, it’s about post-war neoliberalism. My answers below explain why US neoliberalism is different from what Putin thinks about the US. J Tang’s answer to Why should we in the UK care for Ukraine? This war is there and the US’s fault, so why is my tax money going to their war effort? J Tang’s answer to Would you say that Putin is instrumental in unifying the world? I myself live in the former Soviet Union, and I always rode the vibe of “westerners not thinking enough about us”. Now they are, many of us want that badly because the West sets an example


The obvious answer is, basically, a smarter version of the way he tried to get rid of Zelinskiy: a full aerial assault, and paratroopers to take control of the Kremlin and all of Putin’s remote palaces and fortresses. But if you’re looking for the thing that’s most likely to make Putin launch those nukes—and also most likely for the entire chain of command to agree with his order—that’s pretty much it. To eliminate, say, a 5% chance of nuclear war, you’ve just created a 90% chance. There are small steps that could be taken to aid the Russian people in getting rid of him—but, besides the ones that are already being done for other reasons (aiding Ukraine, which among other things helps turn his war unpopular; sanctions; soft-power diplomacy, especially with his borderline allies; hosting and protecting fleeing dissidents; getting real news into the Russian infosphere; etc.), none of them are easy, many of them are risky, and some of them are morally questionable. If you have some specific idea that wouldn’t be risky, wouldn’t be evil, and has even a small chance of making a big difference, I’m pretty sure everyone would love to hear it. But also, regime change is not something to be taken lightly. Overthrowing the internationally-recognized leader of a sovereign country inherently makes you the aggressor. I mean, attempting to do that is the very thing that turned the world against Putin. It may be justifiable in some cases, but that’s still a matter of the huge good outweighing a large bad that’s still bad. And look at the success rate. Not every regime change ends with West Germany or 1950s Japan. Even ignoring the obviously failed wars of occupation in recent decades, how well did America’s coup in Iran turn out, the Soviets’ coup in Afghanistan, or most of the quasi-fascist and communist coups in South America? And look at who would be likely to take over in Russia under various scenarios, and make sure you’ve got a good reason to think it would be better before you root for it too hard. If overthrowing Putin means a new strongman who’s less deluded but more devoted to defeating the west at all costs, that’s not a win. If it means Russia devolving into nuclear-armed factions fighting for control, that’s not a win.