4 ms·
>Why isn't the "full force" brought in to stop the humiliating series of defeats? Because Putin doesn't have the power to do such a thing: he is not a dictator
by aa-jv 4y ago
>Why isn't the "full force" brought in to stop the humiliating series of defeats?
Because Putin doesn't have the power to do such a thing: he is not a dictator, Western agitprop notwithstanding.
Same reason Bush had to invent a phony "war on terror" excuse to get around the requirement that he get - democratically - Congress' permission to declare war on the world.
>I don't think even Russian MoD claims that there is no Russian regular army in Ukraine. Who told you that?
The Russians themselves. You probably don't have access to their statements, though .. or haven't tried very hard to find them yourself.
This was a "special military operation" because Putins Presidency is not a total dictatorship. Conditions for declaring total war were not in place - they are now, however. The West likes to think this "special military operation" represents the totality of Russian military power being applied - and failing - but this is a very, very dangerous mistake to make.
- trasz 4y ago>The Russians themselves. Ah. Now I suspect I know what you're talking about: the terror campaign. Essentially what Russia did in Syria - they don't stand a chance against a proper army, but they definitely can commit genocide and level entire cities, like they did in Mariupol. So, yes, indeed, they are starting to do it again. But because they have already spent most of the tools they could use to do it - we know that because they are forced to use very expensive weapons in a way that doesn't make any sense, like attacking ground targets using anti-ship missiles - it will quickly fizzle out. They got one last push using Iranian ghetto-drones, but even those are in limited quantity - all of this stuff depends on western parts.