Finally, somebody wonders what the point of Putin's victories is:
And yet, have these moves had their intended strategic outcomes? Is Putin really a master strategist taking advantage of hapless European and American leaders?
No he isn't. Yet Putin could decide that more cowbell is the answer to his failures "despite" his military conquests:
Putin has certainly taken advantage of European and U.S indecision and lack of policy coherence to gain short- to medium-term victories. And he continues to use disinformation and denial to great effect. Yet, for all the issues in the United States and Europe—of which there are plenty, as is normal for any democracy where political pluralism exists—Putin has done nothing to achieve a brighter future for Russia. And as domestic disapproval lingers and even deepens, he will likely try his hand at further foreign interventions, both military and non-military. After all, as he himself recently projected while answering questions about Ukraine: “War helps cover up failures in economic and social policy.”
I've long argued that Putin is no strategic genius (and Mattis gets it).
Putin may yet become the "czar of all the Russias" (tip to the PJ Media live blog)--although I'm not sure why that step is necessary--but there might just be one shrunken Russia for Putin to rule.
But with so many nukes, even effing up his own country makes Putin a danger to the West.
Have a super sparkly day.
#WhyRussiaCan'tHaveNiceThings
UPDATE: Putin says a nuclear arms race could come from America's refusal to talk to Russia about Russia's violation of the INF treaty. Repeat the hashtag.
