I've seen the speech he gave, it's on twitter somewhere. He's so bare-faced it's funny as fck Too many variables for me.... Trump was pretty fcked off about NATO and the amount the U.S. was carrying it financially. Would the NATO Secretary General have made statements to antagonise Putin with Trump in charge? Trump seemed to excuse quite a lot of Putin's actions. Would he have looked the other way if Putin had gone in to Ukraine, or even excused it? Then again if that were the case why didn't Putin go in during his presidency? All of that paints a pretty confusing picture imo.
Does it make any sense to you, is there something there they can extract from it, or is it just a strategic position, seems crazy otherwise to risk lives over it.
None of this **** makes any sense to me tbh. But the Chernobyl thing is maybe just the press looking for a convenient headline (though I don’t doubt they’re fighting there).
I asked google: "Is Chernobyl reactor 4 still active? The three other reactors remained operational after the accident but were eventually shut down by 2000, although the plant remains in the process of decommissioning as of 2021." They could blow it up, fooking most of europe and so saving most of the missiles for the US? Tonto say anything is possible.
Cherynoyl was 1986 and I thought the Ukraine split off around 1991, my dates could be wrong - if they are right though, that would make Chernobyl the fault of the old USSR? I do agree though, it's symbolic from a propaganda point of view, as the media have clearly focused on it.
Yeh it seemed so. But as I posted, why not invade in 2019 or 2020? My only thought is that the situation for Putin hadn't got to a point where he felt the need to do so? So if Trump was in charge now, would he have done? The counter argument is that whilst Trump was in charge, Putin didn't feel threatened. So the situation would never have got to this point in the first place. But all of the above would support the notion that Putin is primarily doing what he's doing because of NATO, which puts a kibosh on the notion he's trying to take over the world.
Putin has called his own bluff, I think. But what the **** do any of us know? I think he’s gone Radio Rental.
It brought about social changes and cooperation with the west. Was it Gorbachov before Putin? I think it was him that said Chernobyl is the real reason for the break up of the USSR.
This was published in April 2021, we poked the wolf with a stick, he could see where the future was going... https://ukraine-eu.mfa.gov.ua/en/26.../zona-vilnoyi-torgivli-mizh-ukrayinoyu-ta-yes
Ah fair enough, I didn't know that bit I've bolded. Edit: I've also reread your previous post, my fault I misread it.
Or America's bluff? I think they were angling for a "put up or shut up" from Putin to resolve the whole NATO expansion. They're banking on the idea that whatever happens, the end goal is Russia has to accept NATO on its doorstep.
It took quite some time for Trump's words about the UN to take effect and cause enough disarray within the members for Putin to be sure enough that they wouldn't be challenged by NATO on the ground, so he had to wait for that. That's assuming this is a well-thought-out long term plan coming to fruition, and not a case of mental breakdown. I think Putin needs a bit of a lie down. "He don't look well does he Margaret? No, not well at all"
