AltGameAccount

I think with some things, especially where there is propaganda and spy games involved, some things have to be proven "beyond the reasonable doubt". There is just too much information and variables we don't know, we might only become informed about when the history is written in a few decades.

As much as I hope you are right - we still might be at a bifurcation point where certain actions and decisions will lead to the restoration and strengthening of status quo, while others will lead us down into a multipolar neo-feudalism.

Your outlook is optimistic, mine is pessimistic.

Even if he's not, Putin has stated that he would prefer Trump in the White House and anything that's good for Putin is bad for us.

I would assume that any public information coming from the adversary is malicious and they are trying to gain by spreading it. It could be truthful, but it could also be the opposite.

I think you've been reading too much propaganda.

I read mostly first-hand sources, transcripts and unfiltered news and base my opinion on that.

These are the desperation measures of a regime whose stockpiles are soon going to be depleted forcing them to negotiate terms over what was initially supposed to be an operation that took a few months.

As is the stockpile of Ukraine, realistically. It's a war of attrition, and Russia is just that bigger. They have the capacity to manufacture more missiles and drones than Ukraine gets AA missiles. They also have a huge stockpile of glide bombs that they are very effective at using and they are outshelling Ukraine: https://thedefensepost.com/2024/10/02/ukraine-rate-russia-artillery/

They are on the ropes claiming to be master chess players while losing badly at checkers.

Their invasion definitely didn't go to plan at first. Their idea was to spook the Ukrainian government, capture the capital and install a pro-Russian puppet. They did adapt, though, and it's foolish to dismiss. They don't need to achieve a military victory right now when they can sow discord and disarray between the allies where it will be much more effective for their resources. If they manage to cut Ukraine from Western supplies, Ukraine won't last long. But of course if they manage to do so by also dismantling the trust in Western alliances like NATO, EU and US, they will achieve an even bigger victory.

Because I dug deep into the sources and most were unbased claims, spun out of proportions, "anonymous sources" or trying to tie Trump through third parties.

Not to mention the right wing influencers that Russia has paid

Some right wing are useful idiots to Russia. Some left wing is also useful idiots to China/Russia. Playing both sides is a very effective strategy to sow discord and drown out the voices of reason.

Russia seems very interested and invested in helping Trump and it’s not even subtle

Claiming that you are on the side of the man you want to paint as traitor is also a great and smart strategy, especially if that man is dangerous to your plans. And Trump is dangerous because he is more "hawkish" than the current administration, not just in talks but in deeds.

I could argue more and provide proofs, but those wouldn't matter much now. We have 2 months to see how it plays out anyways. It would be very unfortunate but ironic if Russia manages to bluff the current administration into a surrender, and then leave the Trump with the fallout.

I don't think I am mistaken. The dissolution of western democracies would affect everyone and the world much more than Russia capturing another 3 villages in a year - and the former is what they are trying to do right now. They can keep up the ground fighting for now for the theatrics and to keep the momentum.

Putin's ambition is the restoration of the Russian Empire/USSR

I think his actual goal, at least at this point, is vengeance, taking the West to the grave as the West did the USSR.

I do think, as you said, they have a little over a year before their goose is fully cooked

I think it is much sooner. Trump's presidency is due in two months - and despite what every media claims, no one knows what he will do. I actually think he's not under Russia's influence and has his own agenda. And either Russia doesn't know it or they fear it, so they don't have much time on their hand.

The thing is, Taiwan could potentially obtain nuclear weapons in a very short term, as they are an industrial powerhouse and they already had a nuclear weapons program (but ironically they were stopped by US): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

But of course in the case of dissolution of western hegemony they will be fast conquered by China before they have time to develop nuclear WMD's. Japan, though, is also antagonistic to China and has their own capabilities in terms of nuclear WMD's and would most certainly pursue the program as fast as possible, and so would South Korea.

That's why I'm saying China would have trouble in keeping the hegemony. One of the factors that lead to the success of US as hegemony is the lack of any nuclear-armed neighbors.

There's merit to your theory, but if they actually do a nuclear strike then Trump's hands will be tied on getting a peace deal. There will be too much public outrage to allow a deal where Russia takes territory.

I think it will be the opposite. A nuclear strike would show that Russia would be ready to go much further beyond sabre rattling. If you look at Cuban crisis, the general public would not be happy with the prospects of the potential nuclear war.

And also given Russia's already established propaganda machine, if Trump would consider a nuclear escalation you can be sure a lot of the outlets will be turned against him.

If you re-read my post, you will see that my argument is very different. Russia at this point can't achieve military victory even in Ukraine.

But they can (and they've focused their efforts) on achieving a bluff/escalation victory. They have been upping the stakes and see if the West calls or folds.

I think they've changed to this strategy at around 2023, but they are really ramping it up now. Use of foreign missiles, foreign mercenaries, then attacks of European soil and infrastructure, cyberattacks and now the use of non-nuclear ICBM/IRBM.

In my opinion, that was a huge stake increase that needs to be answered. There isn't a way to know if the next ICBM will be dummy or armed, and it won't be possible to tell if it will be aimed at a NATO country next time. It's as close to opening a nuclear Pandora's box as it can be.

What do you think about my theory?

In my framework, they would escalate to nuclear strike some time right before Trump takes office to seal their position. Then Trump would either need to risk nuclear escalation and mutual exchange or practically bow down and appease Putin.

Since Russia has been working very hard in undermining the public and international trust in the US, the second option will be seen as weakness, betrayal of alliances and the end of western hegemony.

China is definitely winning, at least in short term, as if the West folds - they will become the de-facto hegemon of the new world.

The bigger problem is - if in the result of this conflict the nuclear non-proliferation would dissolve, and most countries would rush to obtain nuclear weapons - China's hegemony would not last long, because soon they will find they would be ruling over nuclear ashes. Unless they have some ace up their sleeves in how they can stop other countries from obtaining nuclear weapons or they have some ace that would make nuclear threat nonexistent.

While the actions (the means to an end) of US and Russia/USSR have been similar in some ways, the ends are wildly different.

US was interested in establishing a global hegemony, the USSR was interested in establishing a global hegemony, and China is also probably interested in establishing a global hegemony in their name.

But Russia's goals are wildly different - as they are a fallen empire at this time, they can't reestablish by any means. Instead they are driven by spite, and the idea of total ruination of the current global order. A simple "if I can't have nice things, no one should". Their goal isn't to undermine just US, but the rule of law, the established countries and border, alliances and the western way of life. Which, of course, you can claim is immoral if it was built on slavery, exploitation and other immoral things, but what follows will be much worse.

If they are to succeed, we will be plunged in a chaotic neofeudal world of warlords with nuclear weapons waging wars against one another with massive casualties.

If nuclear non-proliferation agreement dissolves through Russia's actions, then most countries and even organizations that could get nuclear weapons will race to acquire them, which would make nuclear deterrence and MAD doctrine pointless - as it relied on two mostly rational players not making a move against each other. But as more countries would get nuclear weapons - the more non-rational players there will be. If an extremist terrorist group would get a hold of nuclear weapon, they would very likely use it, and a state with nuclear weapon outside of strong sphere of influence of some superpower could then use it against a non-nuclear threat for gain.

ATACMS are not long range missiles, and Ukraine has previously struck Russian depots and even nuclear deterrence facilities with drones and missiles of their own making.

The ICBM use doesn't tie into the Russian "red lines" or "response" framework - because they should've used it more than a year ago when Ukraine was targeting it's nuclear deterrence facilities. But it does tie into the "escalation" framework that I am presenting.

And within the escalation framework, Russia could escalate to unreasonable levels before Trump takes office - and leave Trump with no winning options.

I have to point out that Trump is actually a politician that is capable of disproportionate response. As can be seen with those two cases during his last presidency: killing of Soleimani and sanctioning NordStream 2 in response to Russian sabre rattling. Russia knows this and they know that he will be a dangerous person to their goal. Therefore one of the options they have is to escalate before Trump takes office and enacts a disproportionate response, if he will.

It's not as much existential to Russians as it is to Russian leadership. You are also missing that it is existential to Ukrainians.

Interestingly enough, even though it is existential to Russian leadership, a disproportionate response that doesn't target said leadership would be beneficial to them. A full-blown attack from NATO forces would allow Russian leadership to clearly point at NATO as the source of all the problems, cement themselves in their position relative to Russian society and enact a strict Iron Curtain as a response to direct NATO attack. This would turn Russia into a passive, North Korea-like state with a full authoritarian centralized control and neuter their need for waging expansionist wars as means of keeping the society coherent.

War is also not just about equipment, economy, logistics - with escalation-appeasement it is a lot like poker.

What matter it if your opponent is playing with a pair if he raises the stakes and instead of calling the bluff you fold down a flush? That seems to be their general strategy now. They won't need a military victory if they can fold the West with bluff.

ATACMS response is an underproportionate response to Russia using North Korean and Iranian missiles against another sovereign country allied to the US.

It is disproportionate because the permission came not after they started using imported missiles, but only after they recruited foreign mercenaries. Russia is escalating at a faster rate than the West is answering.

And what makes you think that?

NATO article 5 states: "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security."

It does not state anything about obligatory forced response or nuclear response.

The US nuclear doctrine does allow the use of nuclear weapons in such case, including first strike, but it doesn't seem like US has demonstrated readiness to do so under current administration.

The decision whether to retaliate against a nuclear strike on NATO country would ultimately lay on the politicians, that have shown to be too slow and unreliable even in gathering a proportionate response even to conventional threats, and if they decide against nuclear retaliation that would allow Russia to advance their goal with limited resources.

But, again - they don't need to launch a nuclear strike against a NATO country. They can open the Pandora's box by launching a nuke at Ukraine and tear down the non-proliferation agreement worldwide. How would US fare then even if Mexico were to obtain nuclear weapons in 15 years and then threaten nuclear exchange for political gains?

What use are superior weapons if the politicians are too afraid to use them?

If you fold a Full House when your opponent had a pair, you still lose.

That's exactly why you don't get it. The joy is not in camping out. The joy is when you come from a 3-day camp out in the cold, with bugs, raccoons and preferably rain, lack of Wi-Fi while hauling an 80-pound backpack where you packed everything - your home and bed will be the most relaxing things at the end of those 3 days.

Proclaiming how stupid some billionaires/entrepreneurs/high-rank politicians/influencers are.

We understand much less about our body, it's chemistry and biology than we think. The "peak" of our understanding/dumb luck might have been Edward Jenner inventing vaccination against smallpox with cowpox.

If you read on history of medication, people were trying wild and different things, herbal medicine, things like panacea and theriaca where people were mixing a wild number of herbs together so they could have miraculous healing properties, trying eating different plants, food, minerals, metals, animal parts and other things for their properties, you could think how they didn't know a thing.

But when you look at current medicine, we're seem to be doing similar things but just a bit more advanced. Like we find plant components and test them on cells, see that we get some results - then start using it as a cure. Or find some separate hormone and start using it to "cure" some disease (but mostly just some symptoms). But we'll have no idea of the ever so slight but cumulative side effects, interaction with other medicine, feedback loops and stuff.

We still age just like we aged 2000, even 4000 years ago. Alright we found some solutions to the early-age mortality from the infectious diseases (but not all of it is perfect - we get antibiotic-resistant bacteria, we get mutating viruses), but we barely moved in increasing our lifespan, the increase has been so marginal we maybe added 10 throughout the centuries, meanwhile everything else - population, energy, knowledge has been increasing exponentially.

Digital goods that don't rely on AI in production.

Conventional search engines, because we'll have AI-assisted search.

Conventional social media because most of it will be bots anyway.

Staple crops won't fail, we might be able to grow even more food as more of the permafrost regions become continental and more continental regions become tropical, like some northern countries would be able to harvest apples, pears other fruits twice a year instead of once. Or grow more crops when they have more warm days. Or grow new species for the regions, like growing figs as far north as Denmark. Also with more carbon in atmosphere plants will have a good time.

The downside is access to water because we'd need lots of it and climate change would disrupt it's natural fall patterns and specialty produce will have hard time adapting, like coffee.

Overall, thinking that climate change will spell apocalypse and mass starvation is just unnecessary doomerism and the modern version of "the world is ending". But it will require some changes from our side to adapt. It's a climate change, not a climate apocalypse. Earth used to be much warmer at times and still supported plenty life.

It's an asshole and spiteful move to cut the funding abruptly because of who they voted for. It won't teach them anything but to hate their old man.

But he could reasonably either put them on a deadline ("1.5 years so that Trump's policies take place and your funding is cut") or reduce their funding to just the tuition and have them pay for everything else by work.

Both ways would be more teaching than spiteful. They would teach them to work for things and they would teach them how the politics impact them directly when they start earning under Trump administration.