That’s right: all evidence points to it. If there was contradicting evidence that one of us was ignoring because it did not fit our preferred worldview, then that would be a separate matter.
Post your evidence that Trump was a real deterrent to Putin invading Ukraine otherwise you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
I have done so several times. You’ve read it. You probably just ignored it because it doesn’t fit. The first point you just stated yourself (albeit in a dismissive way): - Putin made no aggressive moves during the Trump Administration - Putin did not start building up troop strength on the Ukraine borders until the Biden Administration and accelerated it notably after the strategic defeat in Afghanistan - Trump initiated lethal aid to Ukraine, despite Putin not wanting him to - Trump obstructed Russian construction of Nordstream 2 (again, not what Putin wanted) - Trump was the first President in generations who called out certain NATO members for not meeting their 2% defense spending goals - Trump called out EU members for the growing dependence on Russian hydrocarbons Now all of those facts above can be equivocated or minimized, but they are also evidence (not proof) that Trump was not preparing to roll over for Russian aggression. Trump is no buddy of mine. Even the things he did above that I agree with he often did in a way that was counterproductive. Now have we spent enough time being counterhistorical, and can we get back to enjoying Russia’s terrible defeat in Kherson?
It wasn't just damage to NATO. In Russia's eyes, Trump was also doing a lot of damage to America and democracy. Trump admired dictators, and when it came time to step down, he tried to manipulate election results to essentially stage a coup. True, Trump's unpredictability might have discouraged Putin from invading Ukraine, but Trump was also fairly adamant about avoiding foreign military entanglements.
Some bad news along with the good during the retreat of Russia from Kherson: it looks like Russia blew up part of the Nova Kakhovka Dam. New damage to major dam near Kherson after Russian retreat -Maxar satellite
Putin would have loved for DT to in office to help reduce aid to Ukraine. Putin held off until after election so DT didn't have to show his russian support before the election. That and Xi wanted him to wait until after olympics
Maybe they tried to blow it with the same planning and competence that have characterized this entire war for them.
Russia has a surprise planned for Kherson. Soldiers were left behind and told to get rid of their uniforms and bulletproof vests, but keep their weapons, so they can blend in like civilians, and plan attacks on Ukrainian troops entering the city. Bonus for Putin: he will claim that the people carrying out the attacks are civilians, providing a justification (of sorts) for Russia's invasion. Abandoned Russian soldiers disguise themselves as civilians and hide weapons in Kherson
Putin was waiting for Trump’s second term. He was relying on Trump weakening the NATO relationships in the first term. And that this would continue into a second term or that a Dem would have a weakened NATO of Trump list.
Well, that’s a theory, and I’m certain you believe it. I also acknowledge the elements that support your theory, such as the stupid and ignorant things that came out of Trump’s mouth. But, as I just said, it’s difficult to reconcile what you believe with Trump actions like giving lethal aid (such as the Javelin, which was so critical in the early days of this war) to Ukraine, when Obama refused to do so. I think if we all step back from our religiously-held beliefs on the matter, we will see that neither Biden nor Trump wanted Russia to invade Ukraine and were both prepared to resist Putin using different means. Trump was often wrong in his dealings with Putin. Biden has also screwed up (and continues to) in his dealings with Putin since becoming President. And, yes, I tend to be more biased against President Biden’s errors because he is President, what is happening now began under his watch, and only he can set matters on a more correct course.
Ukraine update: Celebrations continue in Kherson, as elsewhere the war goes on Updates post Kherson liberation. Looks like we’ll be getting more news from the other fronts moving forward.
Looks promising. I hope it continues. I keep waiting to hear more news on domestic strife, which usually follows military disasters in authoritarian and totalitarian countries. Seriously, how much more are the Russian people going to put up with this?
Putin only has to imprison a very small percentage of protesters (or send them to Siberia) to eliminate most of the protesting. And if it's men under the age of 60 that are protesting, he has an even easier way to dispose of them. He has been fairly ruthless so far, and the people understand that he will stop at nothing to hold on to power. We probably have to hope that someone near the seat of power forms a coalition to retire Putin. However, Putin removed most of the people in his cabinet and only kept the most loyal yes-men. So it may be a while. The only protests I have heard about are women who drive to the border with Ukraine and demanded that the army give them their sons back (which doesn't seem likely).
Weren't the Russians starving around the time that the czar was removed? Starvation is something that will motivate people to stop caring about the punishment for protesting, and can cause a general rebellion. With modern agriculture, it doesn't happen very often in developed countries. Things are bad economically for Russia, but I don't think the people are likely to starve anytime soon.
Truly, I am going to have to read up on the Russian Revolution (maybe we all should), but sans research I believe it had to do with more than starvation. The Russian people might have been designed in a lab to be able to endure more suffering than any other on the planet. My thin slice is that it took more than just going hungry. I’ll bet they already lived that way in 1914.
Starvation (and indifference of the monarchy to it) was a main driver in the French Revolution and Napoleon's rise to power. You can see it in the documentary "History of the World Part I". Starvation (due to an extended regional drought) was also a main driver in the Arab Spring protests. It can take a while for the population to start protesting over starvation, because their initial reaction is that the people in power did not actively pursue this as a policy, and everyone is in it together. Eventually, people realize that the wealthy are not starving, and decide they need to make some changes.
I don’t doubt it as a factor in Russia in 1917. I wonder if military defeats and monstrous casualties were not an even bigger factor. Laughed at your characterization of History of the World Part 1 as a documentary. I make the same joke, particularly about Idiocracy.
