8 ms·

I posted it because I thought the Russian perspective was worth knowing, not because I agree with it (retweet is not endorsement.) His attitude is pretty fright

I posted it because I thought the Russian perspective was worth knowing, not because I agree with it (retweet is not endorsement.) His attitude is pretty frightening actually because he thinks this thing is going to get much bigger. I feel like he is saying they will do whatever it takes to win. If that means attacking a NATO country, so be it. He says NATO is worthless because it doesn't obligate any country to actually go to war for another country in NATO. Not sure that's true, but that's what he says.

baybal2 5y ago
NicoJuicy 5y ago
That's not true, article 5 of NATO - https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm For the Russian perspective, you could visit 1420 on Youtube ( It's in Moscow, so the opinions are more liberal than in rural area's)
- mwattsun 5y ago
  "Man on the street" interviews are not very interesting. I was referring to the Russian leadership perspective.
  - NicoJuicy 5y ago
    You thought to find a leadership perspective from that? There's plenty of US resources on that, that became available the last months.
    - mwattsun 5y ago
      Right, but he's actually advocating Putin's thinking. He's the next best thing to hearing from Putin himself to my ears. But you're right, there's a lot available. My favorite: https://twitter.com/kamilkazani https://twitter.com/kamilkazani
      - NicoJuicy 5y ago
        This is the best one i know of - https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA444-3.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA444-3.html It's 180 pages fyi
ipv6ipv4 5y ago
Stop and marvel for a moment at the Doublethink he’s displaying. On the one hand he’s claiming that NATO expansion is a threat to Russia that is the reason for the war. On the other hand he’s claiming that article 5 is toothless, ergo NATO is harmless to Russia. I can’t tell if he is genuinely so irrational (like most other Russian thinking on Ukraine as evidenced by events of the war) or if he’s exceedingly cynical.

baybal2 5y ago

NicoJuicy 5y ago

That's not true, article 5 of NATO - https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm For the Russian perspective, you could visit 1420 on Youtube ( It's in Moscow, so the opinions are more liberal than in rural area's)

mwattsun 5y ago
"Man on the street" interviews are not very interesting. I was referring to the Russian leadership perspective.
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  You thought to find a leadership perspective from that? There's plenty of US resources on that, that became available the last months.
  - mwattsun 5y ago
    Right, but he's actually advocating Putin's thinking. He's the next best thing to hearing from Putin himself to my ears. But you're right, there's a lot available. My favorite: https://twitter.com/kamilkazani https://twitter.com/kamilkazani
    - NicoJuicy 5y ago
      This is the best one i know of - https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA444-3.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA444-3.html It's 180 pages fyi

ipv6ipv4 5y ago

Stop and marvel for a moment at the Doublethink he’s displaying. On the one hand he’s claiming that NATO expansion is a threat to Russia that is the reason for the war. On the other hand he’s claiming that article 5 is toothless, ergo NATO is harmless to Russia. I can’t tell if he is genuinely so irrational (like most other Russian thinking on Ukraine as evidenced by events of the war) or if he’s exceedingly cynical.