We don't see Russian State broadcast anymore, but if we did, I wouldn't be surprised to see Graham's quote taken out of context and broadcast hourly.
This is a regime happily willing to commit war crimes, attack nuclear facilities and threaten nuclear warfare. They are lying to their own people about de-nazifying Ukraine. If they wanted to say an American Senator wants to assassinate Putin, they don't need him to actually say it - they could just make it up. In my opinion, people are trying way too hard to not offend Russia. They are going to do what they are going to do and the pretzel logic people are using to appease and not offend him is insane to me. We are currently in the midst of destroying his economy and crushing his economic regime and putting Russia in ruin. We think *that* is totally cool and won't cause him to attack someone with nuclear weapons, but if we shoot down 1 Russian jet, we are concerned it would start WW3? He's sitting 30 feet from his generals because he values his life and power and doesn't want to be assassinated, but we think he'd launch nukes and ensure himself a death sentence?
You maybe 99% right. But that's not good enough. That's the issue - it's not what he is likely not to do, it's what risk tolerance do we have? Shoot down a few Russian planes and he isn't going to get the launch codes, but he *might* decided to launch a missile strike against the base they came from to send a message. And NATO might decide to send a message back. And so it goes in the low level conventional back and forth with both sides thinking - "The other side isn't crazy enough to move closer to nukes" - but that exactly what is happening even though neither side wants that. It's a slippery slope where one can all of a sudden find themselves tempted to use just one nuke, or a tactical nuke, because so much has escalated bit by bit to that point. It's not that we fear Putin using nukes, it's that we have to fear that nukes could be used by EITHER side. Who's to say we wont be the first to use them? There's just so many ways for things to go sideways out of Putin's control or NATO's. If you want to stop Putin from taking more action than he is now, fine - put defensive NATO forces in Finland and Sweden and make them under NATO protection or whatever. Do it with Georgia as well. But you have to use NATO in a defensive posturing, not an offensive one.
I think you make some good points, but what good comes from Lindsey G spouting off about assassination? I just don't see the benefit. Maybe it's coordinated -- I hope so -- with Intel to turn up the paranoia volume for Putin, but I don't think you can crank paranoia past his already pegged 11.
You say 99% isn't good enough, but there's a chance he reacts to sanctions or putting troops in Finland or whatever else too so why is that OK? There's nothing that comes with 100% certainty. Defending Ukraine would be a defensive posture. It's not like NATO would be attacking Russians in Russia. They'd only be attacking troops that are in another country's territory and attacking it. It's no different than putting troops in Finland and repelling an attack from Russia there. Agree - there's no benefit to it. I just don't think it's particularly harmful or that anyone in Russia really cares what Lindsey Graham thinks any more than we care what some random member of the Russian Parliament thinks.
Because there is a big difference between military engagement and sanctions. Putting troops in Finland or Sweden would be highly provocative. But I think given what we know now about Russian military capability, I am sure we can help Finland and Sweden devise a defense and what exactly it would take. Russia would have to do an amphibious assault to take Finland right? I mean I'm not the military expert but the overland route is blocked by a lot of mountains and a crazy number of lakes that give a huge advantage defensively. Attacking Russian forces. That's the problem - you can't defend Ukraine without engaging Russia militarily - and I think that is just too risky. Ukraine was always a lost cause from a perspective of what the US could do. There was no way the American people would support US troops in Ukraine and for good reason. Politically it wasn't possible before, and its even less possible now. We can not attack Russian troops for the same reason Russian troops can not attack us. And we have to use the fact that Russia can't attack us to our advantage, that's why I would be ok putting NATO forces in Finland. Because you are right, Putin won't initiate an attack on NATO forces. But at the same time, he won't cower if he is attacked.
I don't think what Lindsey says matters.... Putin is not going to suddenly go..."What, they want me dead"....like.....no **** Sherlock.....We didn't target Oligarths because we want their boats......there is nothing here, a nothing burger..... Putin needs to be killed, the Russian regime needs to fall it is a crime mob.....we are using this time to do it.......let's hope it works. DD
They aren't going to attack Finland. This is what happen the last time they tried. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_Häyhä
WOW You guys REALLY do have a preference for Putin and authoritarianism. I thought it was just a thin veneer and brought up because of the Trump coziness with Putin..... but there IS more to it. Amazing.
We all know it, and know it's the best way out of this for the world's sake. However what CANNOT HAPPEN is for there to be a rallying cry in Russia that helps Putin. Putin will feed his people propaganda regardless, but firsthand account quotes probably do not help. We all know a military coup is 100% the most ideal situation right now. People like Lindsay Graham need to be helping the situation by shutting the hell up, and letting our intelligence assets do their work to influence assets in the Russian government & military behind closed doors.
It is BS that Putin's reason for war is to kill neo Nazis. It is not BS that there is an actual neo Nazis group in the Ukraine national guard, jewish president or not.
