You don’t send your best troops into a position they can’t get out of if you don’t expect results.
They sent like 3 helicopters of their best looking soldiers. Why wouldn’t they try, at least it binds Ukrainian attention? But it’s muddy. To me it doesn’t look like a serious attack. They were also retreating at the same time as there was the peace treaty and the claim is that the retreat was part of the deal. I will judge that when the cloak of war is gone.
The joined military exercises, the advisers, the defence lines and the time it took to take Grozny. That requires a level of ignorance by the Russians that is very unlikely.
But even if they expected an easy victory, does that change that Ukraine is used to undermine and ultimately conquer Russia?
Russia was always going to push something to the point where other nations wouldn’t let them anymore. It’s not like Ukraine is the first sovereign nation they’ve invaded.
No. They used conflicts to prevent Nato expansions at their borders. Which souvereign nation do you have in mind?
Iraq, Libya, Syria. How can the West throw stones? I can understand and accept why we fight those wars. But without discussing the true motives we have essentially given up on our democracy while spreading democracy.
They are still purchasing it,
They are not purchasing it directly. Germany is paying for a war that is against their strategic advantage while handing over profits to other countries.
which is dumb because it increases they amount the need to spend in Ukraine
Russia won’t go broke. If Russia loses, China is next. China will always send enough money.
Gas is a liquid commodity. Russia could export to Algeria and Libya and they export their own gas to the EU. The more complicated the more costs. Russia will always sell gas and the EU will always import gas.
I think 2027 capacity will be there and Russia will be out. How much money was that for Russia? I don’t think that changed the war but immensely helped the EU.
They sent like 3 helicopters of their best looking soldiers. Why wouldn’t they try, at least it binds Ukrainian attention? But it’s muddy. To me it doesn’t look like a serious attack. They were also retreating at the same time as there was the peace treaty and the claim is that the retreat was part of the deal. I will judge that when the cloak of war is gone.
The joined military exercises, the advisers, the defence lines and the time it took to take Grozny. That requires a level of ignorance by the Russians that is very unlikely.
But even if they expected an easy victory, does that change that Ukraine is used to undermine and ultimately conquer Russia?
No. They used conflicts to prevent Nato expansions at their borders. Which souvereign nation do you have in mind?
Iraq, Libya, Syria. How can the West throw stones? I can understand and accept why we fight those wars. But without discussing the true motives we have essentially given up on our democracy while spreading democracy.
They are not purchasing it directly. Germany is paying for a war that is against their strategic advantage while handing over profits to other countries.
Russia won’t go broke. If Russia loses, China is next. China will always send enough money.
Gas is a liquid commodity. Russia could export to Algeria and Libya and they export their own gas to the EU. The more complicated the more costs. Russia will always sell gas and the EU will always import gas.
I think 2027 capacity will be there and Russia will be out. How much money was that for Russia? I don’t think that changed the war but immensely helped the EU.
https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2023/20230105_RueckblickGas2022.html
20% from Russia are 300 TWh. At 30 Euro per MWh that’s 9 billion Euro.
This only increases costs for the EU and moves industries to other countries.
That’s dumb, especially since Germany could still use North Stream. Cui bono again.