That’s just bullshit. Russian’s military (it’s not just Putin - he’s an authoritarian, but he’s not a supreme leader - he has to watch his step very carefully or the next authoritarian will take his place) definetly did have a strategic interest in the black sea. That’s why all that annexation of crimea business started (afaik).

So it’s the Russian government that’s enforcing the nation state’s interest here, definetly not due to the “personal whim” of someone.

Putin can’t afford to be a mad king. He definetly isn’t the only one in the Kremlin who can just disappear people…

I’m not claiming that they’re not effective at defending. I’m arguing that they’re still a tool of imperialism.

Nah, that’s just survivor’s bias talking.

That doesn’t explain why Russia should have any strategic interest in invading Europe, though.

Ok. That makes sense. But wouldn’t it have beenmore accurate to claim that the US (and it’s allies) “could take Moscowin days”?

Where’s the whataboutism?

Neoliberale Austeritätspolitik geht brrrrrrr

it is already evident.

I disagree. But I see now that this whole discussion is stupid.

I’ll let you and your motivated reasoning alone.

KyberEi spricht das aus, was wir alle denken.

woosh.jpeg

Where do you get the impression that Russia isn’t a threat?

Having a military that’s in such a supposed desolate state is mutually exclusive to being a threat. That’s like claiming a teenager with a slingshot is a threat to a gang of polige officers with assault rifles.

Ukraine proves that it very much is.

I don’t follow. The invasion of Ukraine had a strategic motivation behind it (so did the annexation of Crimea). What possible strategic benefit would it have for Russia to attack the EU?

That’s like claiming that the US is about to invade Mexico, because of the Iraq war(s).

I still don’t really get why the spending has to increase if Russia’s military is so desolate. Why is there discussioneof mandatory military service in Germany if it’s simply to “defend” against an enemy that is too weak to actually be a threat?

that only it has happened because the Russian military command were too scared of Putin to actually tell him the truth.

Sorry, that is just motivated reasoning to frame Putin as an unstrategic maniac.

Are you seriously comparing court rules of individuals with statements about treaty organisations? Thoes two things are completely different entities and not comparable at all.

How can you proof that someone “has always wanted” something?

But “chronic underspending” doesn’t fit together with “could take Moscow in days”.

Have you considered not commenting on a video if you don’t watch videos?

Those aren’t proof. Those are speculations.

Edit - Context for the removed comment:

I said that the donbas was at war with Kiew since 2014. That was supposedly disinformation. It wasn’t

Removed by mod

they now factually know that Russia is a paper tiger and could take Moscow in days.

And still: Europe is increasing it’s military capabilities. How does that fit together? Genuine question.

… did you watch the video? The video doesn’t agree with the book.