We had hopes for Putin. Now all we can hope is that someone from Russia's patriots replaces him in the next election. That will probably take a miracle though.
I saw an interview with MacGregor from Dec. 8, and it seems he's not buying the story of TU-141's flying from Ukraine. He said his inside sources are saying it was likely drones launched from inside Russia, and apparently they used commercial airline routes to avoid detection by air defenses.
Just like everything about this war, nothing about this 'attack' makes sense within the prevailing narrative. The big thing about it that raises a red flag for me is that there's a principle in military intelligence by which if you've identified a weakness in the air defenses of the enemy, allowing an attack deep inside their territory, you'd save it for an attack that really hurts them, because it's likely the same trick won't work again. Looking at the damage, it's merely symbolic in nature, having no impact on Russia's military whatsoever. NATO would never reveal a major air defense weakness to the enemy in order to strike a little nuisance blow. The story makes no sense.
So I have to ask, what could be the motives for the attack? What did it accomplish?
Seems to me what it accomplishes is further rallying support for Putin and the SMO in Russia by showing Russians that they're all in danger even deep inside Russia. That's a negative benefit to Ukraine, if things are as we're told.
Once again, NATO's actions have the effect of strengthening Putin politically, and further insuring the complete annihilation of Ukraine.
And of course Putin's nonchalance about it is just another confirmation of my instincts. He really isn't the least bit concerned about a real NATO attack, and he has no intention of retaliating against NATO. Everyone on both sides are being played, which historically is the rule in major wars.
We had hopes for Putin. Now all we can hope is that someone from Russia's patriots replaces him in the next election. That will probably take a miracle though.
Вы неправильно написали "мир во всем мире", должно быть взбитый горох (whirled peas).
Otherwise I agree with your analysis and sentiment, hopey-changey though it is. It's all we've got.
BTW, no input yet from Col.s Mcgregor or Ritter on the airfield attacks. I've got my eyes peeled.
“… this is the first attack by anyone on the element of a nuclear defense system of any country …”
That’s a good point
I saw an interview with MacGregor from Dec. 8, and it seems he's not buying the story of TU-141's flying from Ukraine. He said his inside sources are saying it was likely drones launched from inside Russia, and apparently they used commercial airline routes to avoid detection by air defenses.
Just like everything about this war, nothing about this 'attack' makes sense within the prevailing narrative. The big thing about it that raises a red flag for me is that there's a principle in military intelligence by which if you've identified a weakness in the air defenses of the enemy, allowing an attack deep inside their territory, you'd save it for an attack that really hurts them, because it's likely the same trick won't work again. Looking at the damage, it's merely symbolic in nature, having no impact on Russia's military whatsoever. NATO would never reveal a major air defense weakness to the enemy in order to strike a little nuisance blow. The story makes no sense.
So I have to ask, what could be the motives for the attack? What did it accomplish?
Seems to me what it accomplishes is further rallying support for Putin and the SMO in Russia by showing Russians that they're all in danger even deep inside Russia. That's a negative benefit to Ukraine, if things are as we're told.
Once again, NATO's actions have the effect of strengthening Putin politically, and further insuring the complete annihilation of Ukraine.
And of course Putin's nonchalance about it is just another confirmation of my instincts. He really isn't the least bit concerned about a real NATO attack, and he has no intention of retaliating against NATO. Everyone on both sides are being played, which historically is the rule in major wars.