Putin Coup

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not that the truth matters to the delusional people of this forum, but the main schism in Putin's administration is over hardliners' push to use tactical nukes in Ukraine. Highly influential longtime insiders like Karaganov, whom most of you have probably never heard of, are advocating ending the war by making an example of Ukraine so Europeans think twice about continuing their campaign against Russia. Putin is the one counseling restraint because, lawyer that he is, he actually believes in observing the treaties on non-use of nukes and is worried about the precedent that using nukes could set for the ongoing Middle Eastern conflicts that Russia has an interest in. Anyone who cares about Ukrainians had better be rooting for Putin to stay in power because any would-be replacement would be much further to the right than he is.

Use of a tactical nuke would be the desperation move showing Russia lost. What's the value in conquering a devastated irradiated wasteland of your own making? It doesn't even serve as a "buffer" because NATO weapons have the range to fly straight over Ukraine. Russia's "hardliners" are clearly idiots who need some sense slapped into them. I don't know why Putin doesn't just have them served some polonium tea or "fall out of windows" the way he does to journalists, critics, dissidents and other political opponents.

You don't seem to understand the difference between tactical nukes and the sort of nukes America used in World War II. Please do some reading and try to catch up.

DP. There is no goal that can be attained by the use of tactical nukes. In the era of drones, there is never a major concentration of soldiers and armor anywhere in Ukraine or Russia these days. As for strategic nukes, again, no point for anyone. Leveling Kyiv and murdering 3 million civilians doesn't win the war. It simply makes it a much bigger war. Moscow would be gone within the week. Nukes are not happening in this war.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not that the truth matters to the delusional people of this forum, but the main schism in Putin's administration is over hardliners' push to use tactical nukes in Ukraine. Highly influential longtime insiders like Karaganov, whom most of you have probably never heard of, are advocating ending the war by making an example of Ukraine so Europeans think twice about continuing their campaign against Russia. Putin is the one counseling restraint because, lawyer that he is, he actually believes in observing the treaties on non-use of nukes and is worried about the precedent that using nukes could set for the ongoing Middle Eastern conflicts that Russia has an interest in. Anyone who cares about Ukrainians had better be rooting for Putin to stay in power because any would-be replacement would be much further to the right than he is.

Use of a tactical nuke would be the desperation move showing Russia lost. What's the value in conquering a devastated irradiated wasteland of your own making? It doesn't even serve as a "buffer" because NATO weapons have the range to fly straight over Ukraine. Russia's "hardliners" are clearly idiots who need some sense slapped into them. I don't know why Putin doesn't just have them served some polonium tea or "fall out of windows" the way he does to journalists, critics, dissidents and other political opponents.

You don't seem to understand the difference between tactical nukes and the sort of nukes America used in World War II. Please do some reading and try to catch up.

DP. There is nothing preventing tactical nukes. Ukraine has a few nuclear weapons right now and would take out Moscow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not that the truth matters to the delusional people of this forum, but the main schism in Putin's administration is over hardliners' push to use tactical nukes in Ukraine. Highly influential longtime insiders like Karaganov, whom most of you have probably never heard of, are advocating ending the war by making an example of Ukraine so Europeans think twice about continuing their campaign against Russia. Putin is the one counseling restraint because, lawyer that he is, he actually believes in observing the treaties on non-use of nukes and is worried about the precedent that using nukes could set for the ongoing Middle Eastern conflicts that Russia has an interest in. Anyone who cares about Ukrainians had better be rooting for Putin to stay in power because any would-be replacement would be much further to the right than he is.

Use of a tactical nuke would be the desperation move showing Russia lost. What's the value in conquering a devastated irradiated wasteland of your own making? It doesn't even serve as a "buffer" because NATO weapons have the range to fly straight over Ukraine. Russia's "hardliners" are clearly idiots who need some sense slapped into them. I don't know why Putin doesn't just have them served some polonium tea or "fall out of windows" the way he does to journalists, critics, dissidents and other political opponents.

You don't seem to understand the difference between tactical nukes and the sort of nukes America used in World War II. Please do some reading and try to catch up.

DP. There is no goal that can be attained by the use of tactical nukes. In the era of drones, there is never a major concentration of soldiers and armor anywhere in Ukraine or Russia these days. As for strategic nukes, again, no point for anyone. Leveling Kyiv and murdering 3 million civilians doesn't win the war. It simply makes it a much bigger war. Moscow would be gone within the week. Nukes are not happening in this war.

DP: They're not thinking about tactical nukes as a way to win the war. The war is already lost. The hardliners want to use tactical nukes as am exit strategy which doubles a warning to Europe. What they don't realize is that they have catastrophically misread Europe. Europe is only a threat IF they use tactical nukes. If they just leave, nobody will bother them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Russia is a huge country with literally more landmass than any other country in the world. It spans at least two continents, including both Europe and Asia. Its capital is Moscow, and its population exceeds 140 million

And? Is there a point here besides obvious facts I learned in fourth grade?

It is impossible to understand the country with an appreciation for what makes it unique

You didn't say anything we didn't know. DCUM tends to be highly educated and traveled, and many of us are from Europe, Asia or other parts of the world, where governments educate their kids better than here.

DCUM is in fact short for District of Columbia UM, so this is probably not true and if it is it is just by happened-stance. In any event, the reality is that Russia is a very large country with many people (though a population that is maybe not so commensurate with its geography, which is expansive)

[Anonymous]

These threads are hilarious. Putin is one of the least likely world leaders to be deposed.

Trumps more likely to get the 25th than Putin is to leave office by any method.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not that the truth matters to the delusional people of this forum, but the main schism in Putin's administration is over hardliners' push to use tactical nukes in Ukraine. Highly influential longtime insiders like Karaganov, whom most of you have probably never heard of, are advocating ending the war by making an example of Ukraine so Europeans think twice about continuing their campaign against Russia. Putin is the one counseling restraint because, lawyer that he is, he actually believes in observing the treaties on non-use of nukes and is worried about the precedent that using nukes could set for the ongoing Middle Eastern conflicts that Russia has an interest in. Anyone who cares about Ukrainians had better be rooting for Putin to stay in power because any would-be replacement would be much further to the right than he is.

Use of a tactical nuke would be the desperation move showing Russia lost. What's the value in conquering a devastated irradiated wasteland of your own making? It doesn't even serve as a "buffer" because NATO weapons have the range to fly straight over Ukraine. Russia's "hardliners" are clearly idiots who need some sense slapped into them. I don't know why Putin doesn't just have them served some polonium tea or "fall out of windows" the way he does to journalists, critics, dissidents and other political opponents.

You don't seem to understand the difference between tactical nukes and the sort of nukes America used in World War II. Please do some reading and try to catch up.

DP. There is no goal that can be attained by the use of tactical nukes. In the era of drones, there is never a major concentration of soldiers and armor anywhere in Ukraine or Russia these days. As for strategic nukes, again, no point for anyone. Leveling Kyiv and murdering 3 million civilians doesn't win the war. It simply makes it a much bigger war. Moscow would be gone within the week. Nukes are not happening in this war.

DP: They're not thinking about tactical nukes as a way to win the war. The war is already lost. The hardliners want to use tactical nukes as am exit strategy which doubles a warning to Europe. What they don't realize is that they have catastrophically misread Europe. Europe is only a threat IF they use tactical nukes. If they just leave, nobody will bother them

Russians were a lot smarter than this when they cut their losses and left Afghanistan. They are definitely stuck in stupid thinking and sunk cost fallacy. Along with being too invested in their own false narratives and propaganda about the fake "reasons" this war was needed. Packing up and leaving Ukraine would indeed be their best strategy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not that the truth matters to the delusional people of this forum, but the main schism in Putin's administration is over hardliners' push to use tactical nukes in Ukraine. Highly influential longtime insiders like Karaganov, whom most of you have probably never heard of, are advocating ending the war by making an example of Ukraine so Europeans think twice about continuing their campaign against Russia. Putin is the one counseling restraint because, lawyer that he is, he actually believes in observing the treaties on non-use of nukes and is worried about the precedent that using nukes could set for the ongoing Middle Eastern conflicts that Russia has an interest in. Anyone who cares about Ukrainians had better be rooting for Putin to stay in power because any would-be replacement would be much further to the right than he is.

Use of a tactical nuke would be the desperation move showing Russia lost. What's the value in conquering a devastated irradiated wasteland of your own making? It doesn't even serve as a "buffer" because NATO weapons have the range to fly straight over Ukraine. Russia's "hardliners" are clearly idiots who need some sense slapped into them. I don't know why Putin doesn't just have them served some polonium tea or "fall out of windows" the way he does to journalists, critics, dissidents and other political opponents.

You don't seem to understand the difference between tactical nukes and the sort of nukes America used in World War II. Please do some reading and try to catch up.

DP. There is no goal that can be attained by the use of tactical nukes. In the era of drones, there is never a major concentration of soldiers and armor anywhere in Ukraine or Russia these days. As for strategic nukes, again, no point for anyone. Leveling Kyiv and murdering 3 million civilians doesn't win the war. It simply makes it a much bigger war. Moscow would be gone within the week. Nukes are not happening in this war.

DP: They're not thinking about tactical nukes as a way to win the war. The war is already lost. The hardliners want to use tactical nukes as am exit strategy which doubles a warning to Europe. What they don't realize is that they have catastrophically misread Europe. Europe is only a threat IF they use tactical nukes. If they just leave, nobody will bother them

Russians were a lot smarter than this when they cut their losses and left Afghanistan. They are definitely stuck in stupid thinking and sunk cost fallacy. Along with being too invested in their own false narratives and propaganda about the fake "reasons" this war was needed. Packing up and leaving Ukraine would indeed be their best strategy.

Yep, and then the Americans thought they could do what Russian and the British could not do when they invaded Afghanistan. Different countries, same results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These threads are hilarious. Putin is one of the least likely world leaders to be deposed.

Trumps more likely to get the 25th than Putin is to leave office by any method.

No. Russia has a history of removing rulers after a failed foreign engagements. This war has been framed as existential struggle. The economy is wrecked, billions have been spent, millions have been killed, 11,943 tanks lost, 24,591 armored combat vehicles lost and 42,454 artillery systems lost, etc. Putin has to show results. Instead Russia is begging the North Koreans for help and are owned by the Chinese.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No American would ever, in the slightest, be concerned about Russian Media Monitor.

"Concerned"? No, of course not.

But, it is a useful look into the media machine that pushes the Kremlin narrative that a significant portion of the Russian public is profoundly influenced by. Similar to how one could listen to Bannon, Carlson, Loomer, Breitbart, FOX, OAN, etc to understand the right/MAGA and it's influence.

So, yes, no American should be concerned. If you watch it, it's mostly hot air, posturing and hyperbole(not dissimilar to our maga media). But an informed American would be interested in what is being said insofar as it plays into current geopolitics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No American would ever, in the slightest, be concerned about Russian Media Monitor.

"Concerned"? No, of course not.

But, it is a useful look into the media machine that pushes the Kremlin narrative that a significant portion of the Russian public is profoundly influenced by. Similar to how one could listen to Bannon, Carlson, Loomer, Breitbart, FOX, OAN, etc to understand the right/MAGA and it's influence.

So, yes, no American should be concerned. If you watch it, it's mostly hot air, posturing and hyperbole(not dissimilar to our maga media). But an informed American would be interested in what is being said insofar as it plays into current geopolitics.

You missed the context

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Russia is a huge country with literally more landmass than any other country in the world. It spans at least two continents, including both Europe and Asia. Its capital is Moscow, and its population exceeds 140 million

And? Is there a point here besides obvious facts I learned in fourth grade?

It is impossible to understand the country with an appreciation for what makes it unique

You didn't say anything we didn't know. DCUM tends to be highly educated and traveled, and many of us are from Europe, Asia or other parts of the world, where governments educate their kids better than here.

DCUM is in fact short for District of Columbia UM, so this is probably not true and if it is it is just by happened-stance. In any event, the reality is that Russia is a very large country with many people (though a population that is maybe not so commensurate with its geography, which is expansive)

Are you stupid? The people who post here skew towards wealthy, educated transplants whose cerebral career choices led them to pitch their tents in or near DC. They're transplants from other parts of the US, and some of them have deep knowledge of other countries, because of their careers and lifestyles; or they're foreign nationals or recent immigrants (equally, if not more, educated), whose jobs have also led them to DC (World Bank, IMF, NIH, contractors for same, etc).

There are very few posters whose families have lived in this area for generations. Practically none. My neighbor is one, but she's also a dual national.

Don't think you're the only person who knows stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No American would ever, in the slightest, be concerned about Russian Media Monitor.

"Concerned"? No, of course not.

But, it is a useful look into the media machine that pushes the Kremlin narrative that a significant portion of the Russian public is profoundly influenced by. Similar to how one could listen to Bannon, Carlson, Loomer, Breitbart, FOX, OAN, etc to understand the right/MAGA and it's influence.

So, yes, no American should be concerned. If you watch it, it's mostly hot air, posturing and hyperbole(not dissimilar to our maga media). But an informed American would be interested in what is being said insofar as it plays into current geopolitics.

You missed the context

I don't think I did. And I've spelled it all out for you. You're welcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No American would ever, in the slightest, be concerned about Russian Media Monitor.

"Concerned"? No, of course not.

But, it is a useful look into the media machine that pushes the Kremlin narrative that a significant portion of the Russian public is profoundly influenced by. Similar to how one could listen to Bannon, Carlson, Loomer, Breitbart, FOX, OAN, etc to understand the right/MAGA and it's influence.

So, yes, no American should be concerned. If you watch it, it's mostly hot air, posturing and hyperbole(not dissimilar to our maga media). But an informed American would be interested in what is being said insofar as it plays into current geopolitics.

You missed the context

I don't think I did. And I've spelled it all out for you. You're welcome.

You completely did. Doubling down on your mistake with condescension just makes you look stupid as well as a jerk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Russia is a huge country with literally more landmass than any other country in the world. It spans at least two continents, including both Europe and Asia. Its capital is Moscow, and its population exceeds 140 million

And? Is there a point here besides obvious facts I learned in fourth grade?

It is impossible to understand the country with an appreciation for what makes it unique

You didn't say anything we didn't know. DCUM tends to be highly educated and traveled, and many of us are from Europe, Asia or other parts of the world, where governments educate their kids better than here.

DCUM is in fact short for District of Columbia UM, so this is probably not true and if it is it is just by happened-stance. In any event, the reality is that Russia is a very large country with many people (though a population that is maybe not so commensurate with its geography, which is expansive)

Are you stupid? The people who post here skew towards wealthy, educated transplants whose cerebral career choices led them to pitch their tents in or near DC. They're transplants from other parts of the US, and some of them have deep knowledge of other countries, because of their careers and lifestyles; or they're foreign nationals or recent immigrants (equally, if not more, educated), whose jobs have also led them to DC (World Bank, IMF, NIH, contractors for same, etc).

There are very few posters whose families have lived in this area for generations. Practically none. My neighbor is one, but she's also a dual national.

Don't think you're the only person who knows stuff.

NP: Adding: In the 70s and 80s, because Russian was considered a critical "strategic" language under the NDEA, U.S. school districts were given grant funding to bring fluent Russian language instructors into advanced and gifted programs. My classmates and I studied the USSR and the Russian language in a public school program from 4th to 8th grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not that the truth matters to the delusional people of this forum, but the main schism in Putin's administration is over hardliners' push to use tactical nukes in Ukraine. Highly influential longtime insiders like Karaganov, whom most of you have probably never heard of, are advocating ending the war by making an example of Ukraine so Europeans think twice about continuing their campaign against Russia. Putin is the one counseling restraint because, lawyer that he is, he actually believes in observing the treaties on non-use of nukes and is worried about the precedent that using nukes could set for the ongoing Middle Eastern conflicts that Russia has an interest in. Anyone who cares about Ukrainians had better be rooting for Putin to stay in power because any would-be replacement would be much further to the right than he is.

Thanks for this insight. It's hard to find anything except regurgitated CNN talking points on DCUM nowadays.