There's an obvious agenda to cause change. There always is.
But there is also the distinct chance of nuclear weapons. I don't understand if peace is possible without them. I don't understand how that bluff will keep raising their stakes without their use. If they aren't used. How can a population keep paying for their protection and deterrent. It is nothing more then a bluff.
At this point I would suggest there is no peace, until that inevitability. This war will continue to escalation.Then what, they agree not to use them. Hahaha. No. There is no peace and no chance of it until surrender, or loser. Or another means causes the war to stop, disaster, change of policy, arms shipments stopped. Improbable that policy has committed. War is the disaster. Economic collapse doesn't really affect a mobilised population it is under emergency conscription and in a self-sustaining nation less so.
So when do they deal and for what? Russia can't technically lose with nukes. Does the West pull funding. No chance of it currently. It cannot technically let Russia win.
West is trying desperately making Putin disapproval grow. Their rhetoric of Ukraine is wining and gaining territories is making some damage, but Russians only watch RussiaToday or some other local TV channel. That west move won't take too much effect to be honest. CIA is trying to start riots to make a coup and let Putin vanish from within. But KGB already know that (if I, a mere mortal knows about it, they know how to handle this and they were expecting). So I presume Putin won't be taken off by CIA's hands. What comes after is the scalation. USA is trying its best to scalate (by supposedly exploding North Stream cables and making the only chance of Russia winning Europe's money stop, and making European leaders furious with Russia now that they can't bargain anything from europeans) -> which brings Europe to throw more weapons to Ukraine. The day Russia throws a tactical nuke they lose (and we head to WW3 - unlikely so the world would end). So it will be a financial war. USA/Europe/NATO sending infinite weapons to Ukraine (but lacking personnel) VERSUS Russia (being backed up by the almighty Ch$na money -> 'cause if Russia loses it, China would be the next target). USA is trying to make Russia irrelevant to China as we speak, so that's the only way the win, being abandoned by China financially.
I understand all of this. Hence the hair cutting, it is a pathetic gesture, but in Iran it's the stuff of riots. How do stop unclear weapon.
But they need to show those weapons doing something. All that funding is causing look they're winning. They are killing people.
I know of a Russian tactic is to fein withdrawal and they didn't even care if Moscow burnt, that winter was brutal, because it trapped their enemy, and it was replayed on a host of other cities in the WWs, since Napoleon. Because when they regroup it's from advantage. When they regrouped those other armies lost. It has been consecutively replayed even more presently in Syria. So omg omg lol gaining what a few burnt out villages, is almost laughable and seemingly naive. But this war is no where near to the horrors it can still inflict. All it does is escalate.
I don't care much for propaganda only causality. What becomes of it.
Dunno.
There's an obvious agenda to cause change. There always is.
But there is also the distinct chance of nuclear weapons. I don't understand if peace is possible without them. I don't understand how that bluff will keep raising their stakes without their use. If they aren't used. How can a population keep paying for their protection and deterrent. It is nothing more then a bluff.
At this point I would suggest there is no peace, until that inevitability. This war will continue to escalation.Then what, they agree not to use them. Hahaha. No. There is no peace and no chance of it until surrender, or loser. Or another means causes the war to stop, disaster, change of policy, arms shipments stopped. Improbable that policy has committed. War is the disaster. Economic collapse doesn't really affect a mobilised population it is under emergency conscription and in a self-sustaining nation less so.
So when do they deal and for what? Russia can't technically lose with nukes. Does the West pull funding. No chance of it currently. It cannot technically let Russia win.
West is trying desperately making Putin disapproval grow. Their rhetoric of Ukraine is wining and gaining territories is making some damage, but Russians only watch RussiaToday or some other local TV channel. That west move won't take too much effect to be honest. CIA is trying to start riots to make a coup and let Putin vanish from within. But KGB already know that (if I, a mere mortal knows about it, they know how to handle this and they were expecting). So I presume Putin won't be taken off by CIA's hands. What comes after is the scalation. USA is trying its best to scalate (by supposedly exploding North Stream cables and making the only chance of Russia winning Europe's money stop, and making European leaders furious with Russia now that they can't bargain anything from europeans) -> which brings Europe to throw more weapons to Ukraine. The day Russia throws a tactical nuke they lose (and we head to WW3 - unlikely so the world would end). So it will be a financial war. USA/Europe/NATO sending infinite weapons to Ukraine (but lacking personnel) VERSUS Russia (being backed up by the almighty Ch$na money -> 'cause if Russia loses it, China would be the next target). USA is trying to make Russia irrelevant to China as we speak, so that's the only way the win, being abandoned by China financially.
I understand all of this. Hence the hair cutting, it is a pathetic gesture, but in Iran it's the stuff of riots. How do stop unclear weapon.
But they need to show those weapons doing something. All that funding is causing look they're winning. They are killing people.
I know of a Russian tactic is to fein withdrawal and they didn't even care if Moscow burnt, that winter was brutal, because it trapped their enemy, and it was replayed on a host of other cities in the WWs, since Napoleon. Because when they regroup it's from advantage. When they regrouped those other armies lost. It has been consecutively replayed even more presently in Syria. So omg omg lol gaining what a few burnt out villages, is almost laughable and seemingly naive. But this war is no where near to the horrors it can still inflict. All it does is escalate.
I don't care much for propaganda only causality. What becomes of it.