How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[Elixir]

I said oligarchs are not allowed to fund opposition to Putin.

You also said Pootey wasn't going to invade Ukraine.
Guess what?
Pootey invaded Ukraine.

Is there some reason what you say should be accepted as truthful?

 

[laughing dog]

Zelensky applied for immediate EU membership. Don't know if that in and of itself will get Ukraine anything more than what they are already getting from the civilized world.

Basically, Ukraine would become part of the free trade zone in the EU and have better access to financial resources for rebuilding its country after the Russians leave. However, they would also become subject to EU laws and regulations. I doubt that the membership will come quickly, since it would have to be ratified unanimously by all EU members. The offer to join made by the EU president may not actually have unanimous support. I'm not sure how Hungary's Orban would vote. He has been moving increasingly in an autocratic direction and cozying up to Putin.

The EU has found some backbone recently via withholding subsidies and grants from countries who do not adhere to the rule of law. I suspect they will be willing to extend that backbone to other areas, especially in the case of Hungary.

 

[lpetrich]

Ukraine, Russia begin talks on Belarus border | News | Al Jazeera - "Ukraine seeks ceasefire and immediate withdrawal of Russian troops."

Also has a map that shows the current state of the fighting. Russians have made the greatest advances in south Ukraine, but they are stalled in the east and in the north.  Russo-Ukrainian War also has a map of the conflict, as do several other sources.  2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has the same map as the previously-mentioned Wikipedia article.

Interesting tidbit: there are Russian troops in Transnistria, a strip on Moldova's eastern border. However, they seem to be staying put and not joining the invasion.


The sanctions have had an effect.
The list of global sanctions on Russia for the war in Ukraine - CNN - Feb 25

Russia is already in some ways paying a price for its aggression, with the country's stocks and currency tanking this week after Putin's earlier decision to order troops into eastern Ukraine.

On Thursday, Russia's main MOEX index closed down 33%, while the ruble sank to a record low, down 7% against the US dollar. It rebounded on Friday, trading at 84.7 versus the US dollar.

That was on February 25.

 International sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War

Every European country but Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, North Macedonia, and Belarus, and outside Europe, Eurasian Georgia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, the US, and Canada.

 List of people sanctioned during the Russo-Ukrainian War - a long list of highly-placed people

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Most corrupt global sporting agency FIFA bans Russia from World Cup qualifications / World Cup Final.

Russia will be barred from the 2022 men's World Cup and other international sports competitions after FIFA and the International Olympic Committee levied extraordinary sanctions in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

FIFA, soccer's global governing body, and UEFA, the sport's European governing body, announced Monday that they have banned all Russian national teams and clubs from all competitions "until further notice."

The suspension will likely remove Russia from next month's World Cup qualifying playoffs, and end its hopes of earning a berth at the most prestigious tournament in international sport.

 

[Jarhyn]

Most corrupt global sporting agency FIFA bans Russia from World Cup qualifications / World Cup Final.

Russia will be barred from the 2022 men's World Cup and other international sports competitions after FIFA and the International Olympic Committee levied extraordinary sanctions in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

FIFA, soccer's global governing body, and UEFA, the sport's European governing body, announced Monday that they have banned all Russian national teams and clubs from all competitions "until further notice."

The suspension will likely remove Russia from next month's World Cup qualifying playoffs, and end its hopes of earning a berth at the most prestigious tournament in international sport.

Did Russia not foresee a world where the global community could take their (FIFA Soccer) ball and go home, and leave Russia (and Russians) crying?

 

[lpetrich]

Kamil Galeev on Twitter: "Why Russia will lose this war? ..." / Twitter

Why Russia will lose this war?

Much of the "realist" discourse is about accepting Putin's victory, cuz it's *guaranteed*. But how do we know it is?

I'll argue that analysts 1) overrate Russian army 2) underrate Ukrainian one 3) misunderstand Russian strategy & political goals

May be overconfident, but at the way that the war is going, I suspect that a victory for Russia is likely to be a Pyrrhic one.

Consider a timely paper on Russian army by Bismarck Analysis. It's good & informative. It's correct on its land-based and artillery-centric character. It's also correct that Minister of Defence Serdyukov greatly increased army's efficiency in 2007-2012. But it's still misleading. Yes, Minister Serdyukov indeed reformed the army. He increased its efficiency, fought with corrupt and crony armament producers improving the army supplies. As a result he became extremely unpopular, made tons of powerful enemies and was ousted in 2012 losing his power and status.

His successor Shoygu knew better than that. Now who's Shoygu? Shoygu is the *only* single Russian minister who uninterruptedly worked in government since 1991, since the very beginning of Russian Federation. He worked for all presidents, all prime ministers avoided all purges. What does it mean? It means he's a cunning political entrepreneur, great in court politics, publicity, image. You survive every single administration by maxing your political survival. And to max it you need to minimise animosity. So you never object to powerful interest groups. Serdyukov fought with interest groups and was destroyed. Shoygu was smarter than that. He launched a PR campaign presenting himself as the "saviour" from the Serdyukov's legacy. Whatever his predecessor did, was dismantled. Media cheered, people cheered, interest groups cheered. That's a very, very typical problem. Efficiency-maxing requires ruthlessness in dealing with established elites and interest groups. Meanwhile court-politics-maxing requires pondering to them and not making enemies. Serdyukov was maxing efficiency, Shoygu - court politics.

There was another issue. Shoygu is ethnic Tuvan. In such a country as Russia minority member can hardly become the supreme leader. People don't perceive him as ethnic Russian (see his palace) which means he's not dangerous for the leader and you can safely delegate him the army.

 Sergey Shoygu - "a Russian politician and General of the Army who serves as Minister of Defence of the Russian Federation."

 

[Elixir]

I have no idea how Putin comes out of this looking good even propaganda wise, without escalating military force.

The propaganda war is probably going to have to be put on hold while Pootey tries to rebuild a little credibility with his own people.
Escalating military force is going to be a lose/lose proposition, given how well that's going so far. If he goes full out and pulls an Aleppo on Kyiv, that's gonna be that for Russia.
I feel sorry for the Russian people - it's quite apparent that most of them didn't want anything to do with this mess.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Kamil Galeev on Twitter: "Why Russia will lose this war? ..." / Twitter

Why Russia will lose this war?

Much of the "realist" discourse is about accepting Putin's victory, cuz it's *guaranteed*. But how do we know it is?

I'll argue that analysts 1) overrate Russian army 2) underrate Ukrainian one 3) misunderstand Russian strategy & political goals

May be overconfident, but at the way that the war is going, I suspect that a victory for Russia is likely to be a Pyrrhic one.

If Russia wanted to layout Ukraine, they could. They have a superior military. This isn't an issue of over-rated as much as under mobilized. Additionally, the Russian Air Force hasn't been used to the extent it could be to fight an actual war. Which again, Putin underestimated the resolve of the Ukrainian Government/people and would ultimately need to fight to win, instead of Zelensky escaping leaving the capital empty for Putin to put someone in charge.

The US took over Iraq with a similar sized military because the Iraqi military didn't fight back. We'd have won, but it'd taken a much longer time. "Shock and awe" and all, but ultimately, like the Afghan military knew, in the end they'd lose, so Iraq No Mas'd. But in Ukraine, there is a lot more resolve, they figured the West had their back in many ways, and the military force being used on the ground wasn't overwhelming. They had a chance.

So Putin went to wage a "shock and awe" war campaign of fear, the bluff didn't carry, and Putin is left with a military incursion into Ukraine he can most certainly win, but the price tag isn't cheap and there'd be a great deal of blood, and economic sanctions on their banks haven't been turned to 11 yet.

 

[lpetrich]

More from Kamil Galeev:

Shoygy not only purged Serdyukov's appointees, pondered to old military establishment, stopped arguing with army suppliers about the equipment cost and quality. He also pondered to numerous feel-good-lies regarding the Russian big strategy.

Let's consider the army vs navy problem. Army vs navy had been a traditional dilemma of European powers for centuries. As a rule, you couldn't support both first class army and first class navy, you had to choose. Some powers ignored this to their demise - like 17-18th cc France. Others were more rational, like Prussia. We kinda forgot it but in the 17th c principality of Brandenburg centered in Berlin tried to play into a "global maritime power". They built a navy, established colonies in Caribbean and Africa (red). Super costly, super hubris, super stupid. Consumed tons of resources in vain. In 18th c. they reconsidered. They sold their colonies, dismantled the navy and started land-maxing. They correctly realised that if they suppress their hubris and minimise the navy (to zero), they can land-max and build the first class army. Which would then unify Germany.

Germany did get back into building colonies, but only in the late 19th cy., when it reached its maximum peacetime territorial extent.

So. Land-maxing requires minimising the naval ambition. Does Russia minimise its naval ambition? No. It feels obliged to maintain as much Soviet naval legacy as possible. Keep old ships afloat, build new ones, maintain and expand infrastructure for the ocean navy.

Here is another dilemma. Regional fleets can be effectively used in land wars. For example, Russia declared "navy manoeuvres" and then attacked Ukraine from the sea. That's cheap and effective. But keeping a regional fleet doesn't sound sexy. It's efficiency-maxing, not PR-maxing. And Russia is PR-maxing. Putin declared that the share of new ships should reach 70% by 2027. Old Soviet ships are becoming obsolete, Russia's building new ones. BUT. Major Soviet shipyards are located in Ukraine. So now Russia expands shipyard infrastructure to reach this goal. Soviet naval legacy is a curse of Russian military. USSR could afford ocean fleets with carrier strike group. Russia can't. But abandoning Soviet ambitions would require suppressing their own hubris (impossible). So they strive to maintain it. Ergo: they can't and won't land-max.

How does it reflect on this war? First, Russian invading force is small. It has LOTS of artillery ofc. But it's not numerous enough to win. Pro-Russian analysts compare their advance with Barbarossa. But unlike Wehrmacht in 1941 Russian invaders have only *ONE ECHELON OF TROUPS*. How is a Blitzkrieg organised? By echelons. First echelon is moving forward as fast as they can. Ofc this means that lots of defenders will be left in their rear. But then the second echelon comes, then third, etc. They finish defenders, occupy territory, control the supply lines.

If Russia launched a proper Barbarossa-style Blitzkrieg that would happen now - first, second, third echelons. But the second echelon didn't come. It never existed. Why? First, Russia's *not* landmaxing and thus doesn't have so much resources and infrastructure for the land war. Secondly, launching several echelons would require long arduous preparation. You need to mobilise them, move to the borders, quarter, maintain and supply. It's not that easy. It's a hard job that should have been done well in advance to wage a Blitzkrieg. And it hadn't been done.

 Blitzkrieg - "lightning war" in German - "a military doctrine in which a surprise attack using a rapid, overwhelming force concentration that may consist of armoured and motorised or mechanised infantry formations, together with close air support, has the intent to break through the opponent's lines of defense, then dislocate the defenders, unbalance the enemy by making it difficult to respond to the continuously changing front, and defeat them in a decisive Vernichtungsschlacht: battle of annihilation."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I have no idea how Putin comes out of this looking good even propaganda wise, without escalating military force.

The propaganda war is probably going to have to be put on hold while Pootey tries to rebuild a little credibility with his own people.
Escalating military force is going to be a lose/lose proposition, given how well that's going so far. If he goes full out and pulls an Aleppo on Kyiv, that's gonna be that for Russia.
I feel sorry for the Russian people - it's quite apparent that most of them didn't want anything to do with this mess.

This does lead to another significant issue, both the Russians and the Russian military. Putin is trying to sell this Nazi lie. Why? Because Ukrainians are Slavs. Russia ain't supposed to be killing Slavs. It was one of the reasons the Great War went into full steam. So Putin is trying to sell his nation that this is about repelling Nazis (I'm going to sprain my eyes with the rolling), but if that doesn't come across enough and convince enough younger Russians... like those in the military... they'll be thinking they are murdering Slavs. It might be enough for the older Russians, but the younger Russians might not be comfortable at home or on the line with killing their own people.

So military escalation could be a harder thing to accomplish. It certainly isn't impossible, but Russians killing Ukrainians... there will be issues here, it is why Putin is all about Nazis at the moment.

 

[lpetrich]

More from Kamil Galeev:

Secondly, launching several echelons would require long arduous preparation. You need to mobilise them, move to the borders, quarter, maintain and supply. It's not that easy. It's a hard job that should have been done well in advance to wage a Blitzkrieg. And it hadn't been done.

He argued earlier that Russia wants to keep its blue-water navy going, and that General Shoygu has a policy of not picking fights, even if it means not picking fights with those who crave a white elephant of a fleet - an expensive prestige item. A smaller-scale navy for regional duty would be more useful, but less prestigious. Regional duty like the Black Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Arctic Ocean, and the Sea of Okhotsk.

But an army is very useful for Russia, because it has a long land border with lots of countries that can present strong military challenges to it. That's in comparison to the US, whose neighbors are much weaker militarily.

Why Russia didn't prepare a proper Blitzkrieg? And now we come for the third and main reason. Blitzkrieg is a war strategy. Blitzkrieg is how you break & suppress the enemy who's actually fighting. Russia didn't plan it because it didn't plan a war. It planned a Special Operation. Ofc partially that's just modern discourse. After WWII traditional understanding of sovereignty as of legal right of sovereign rulers to wage offensive war died. As a result modern states never admit they're waging wars. They're waging "pacifications", "counterterrorism", etc.

Consider how all the War Departments and Ministries over the world were renamed into "Defence" in late 1940s. Everyone's defending, nobody's attacking. Why does the fighting happen then? Well, because of criminals - "bandits", "terrorists", "jihadees" or as now in Ukraine "Nazis". Modern world abolished the distinction between the enemy and the criminal, a key idea of the Roman Law. Powers do wage wars, but to do so they need to criminalise and dehumanise their enemies. Hence, all the "terrorist" discourse. In a sense Putin is going with the flow.

But on a deeper level Putin is absolutely correct. His declaration of "special operation" in Ukraine is sincere, because he didn't expect the war. He doesn't know how to do wars. For all of his life he's been organising and launching the special operations. First, as a KGB officer. Then, as St Petersburg city councillor for foreign affairs (= illegally selling Soviet warehouse stuff to the West). In 1990s he closely worked with the criminal world and he did it successfully. Here you see him with a thief-in-law, Grandpa Hassan.

Btw that's how Putin's pal Grandpa Hassan is celebrating with his close circle. It gives some idea of Putin's business partners and associates:

noting ДЕД ХАСАН: ТЫ СДЕЛАЛ ВСЕ ЧТО МОГ (ДОЛЯ ВОРОВСКАЯ) - YouTube -- (Google Translate) DED KHASAN: YOU DID ALL YOU COULD (THE SHARE'S SHARE)

 

[lpetrich]

More from Kamil Galeev:

Putin worked with violent entrepreneurs used to killing. But. He had always had the upper hand. Federal and regional governments were very much stronger than these criminal bosses who were very much replaceable. Everyone of them had dozens of henchmen who wanted to take his place. Putin waged special operations when he had much stronger position than these criminals. And he got used to that. Later Yeltsin chose him as a successor and in this capacity Putin launched a bunch of special operations to consolidate power. Again with full support of higher ups. Yeah, Putin played badass even before becoming a President. But it was easy to play a badass when he was backed up by then President and the entire apparatus of Kremlin. Huge power, no risk, no accountability.

Later he initiated conflicts each time his had to boost his popularity and tough image. Chechnya, Georgia, Syria. But neither of this was a war. Every conflict was a Special operation waged:

1) for political goals
2) against small force which had no chance to win against Russia

Putin fought only with small countries. Chechnya - 1 million people, Georgia - 4. Syria had more, but he fought with rebels, with no proper training or armaments. Also "counterterrorist" discourse allowed Russians to simply level entire cities to the ground with no consequences. Every time Putin needed to confirm his alpha status he would devastate some little country with a Special Operation. They didn't require proper preparation because they bore no existential risk to Russia or to him. Like, the fuck they're gonna do? No risk = no need to bother.

So he chose easy targets, ones that could make him seem like some conquering hero.

 

[steve_bank]

From past reporting Putin has a popular following, analogous to Trump followers. There ave been popular songs about him. He had picyures taken shirtless riding a horses. Image manipulation. He presnts himself as a simple public setvant living only on his salary.

Look at what Trump accomplished in the middle of a free press. His lies and falsehoods resonated with enough people to get elected.

Russia has no free press, and has a history of killing outspoken reporters. The saying is tell a lie long enough and it becomes truth. There are Russians who will believe Putin no matter how bad it gets.

There have been a few on camera reports of Russians opposing the war. One called Putin unhinged.

Despite obvious total failure people followed Hitler rvrn as he ordered burning Germany to burn Germany ground at the end.

Conscription in Russia (Russian: всеобщая воинская обязанность, romanized: vseobshchaya voinskaya obyazannost, translated as "universal military obligation" or "liability for military service") is a 12-month draft, which is mandatory for all male citizens age 18–27, with a number of exceptions. The mandatory term of service was reduced from two years to one year in 2007 and 2008.[1][2] Avoiding the draft is a felony under Russian criminal code and is punishable by up to 2 years of imprisonment.[3]

I'd say the big question is whether an army of constricts in an authoritarian system will actually effectively fight a determined well armed adversary. We handed Iraq freedom and democracy, they descended into civil war and political strife. When push came to shove the Afgahn army melted away.

Ukrainians are coming from abroad to fight. If they succeed they will own their freedom.

My first response was why bother. I was wrong.

 

[Hermit]

Russia's security concerns are understandable. Its security demands are not legitimate in so far as 'legitimate' means 'conforming to the law or to rules'.

Though by no means surprising, China's failure to unambiguously and in no uncertain terms condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine is astonishing. Russia is not conducting a 'forward defence', even though it attempts to portray it as such. It is an act of aggression. Taking a neutral stance in relation to it is not possible.

Yet they are taking a neutral stance and it does not even matter if you think they are right or not. Nor does it even matter if the CCP is right or not.

What matters is that China thinks they are right and they control the world supply lines of industry today. What they think matters and they are NOT allied with the west.

I agree with all of that, RVonse.

 

[Patooka]

You are very much indoctrinated just like Higgen's is. It was very convenient how you just managed to leave off what he actually wrote. The core of my response to him :

I'd dare to say "this is different". The EU, China, everyone are acting differently to this invasion.

China is NOT acting any different than one would expect and I said so. So if you have read any actual source (with any validity) that says otherwise please post it and we may all be more informed.

Otherwise, you do noting but bring everyone nearer to the frontiers of ignorance and mass stupidity.

I'm sorry RVonse, but I am very much done eviscerating the sources you provide and claim as legitimate.

 

[Patooka]

Jimmy Higgins, yes, both sides demands are ridiculous.
Basically:
You capitulate!
No, you capitulate!

Ah yes, the "both sides" argument. All I have to hear now is, "very fine people" and "what about" and I win this round of rhetorical bingo.

 

[lpetrich]

More from Kamil Galeev:

Putin decided to repeat this little trick again. Hence, not that numerous army of invasion, only one echelon of advance, etc. But Ukraine is much bigger - it has 44 million people. What was Putin thinking? Apparently he was expecting zero resistance from the Ukrainian army. Putin had a good reason to believe so. Indeed, in 2014 Russian regulars ("ихтамнеты" = "there aren't any of them there") easily destroyed Ukrainian forces in Debaltsevo and Ilovaysk. He saw that Ukrainian army is weak and he can easily route them simply sending Russian regulars.

Strategically speaking Putin fucked up. He defeated Ukraine, inflicted pain and humiliation. Anyone with an IQ above the room temperature knew the war is not over and Russians would strike again. But - Putin didn't finish Ukraine back then. He thought he'd always have a chance. What happened next was quite predictable. Inflicting a painful but not critical defeat on your enemy is risky. Yeah, they kinda became weaker. But the balance of power within them changed. Court politics maxing interest groups lost and efficiency maxing upstarts get a chance.

Formula of institutional evolution = scare + don't finish them. Napoleon smashed Prussians at Jena-Auerstedt, didn't finish them. Prussia evolved. Commodore Perry scared Japanese in 1853, but the US spiralled into Civil War and left them alone. Japan evolved.

Nothing motivates as hard as an existential threat. First, Ukrainians admitted the truth:

«I'll be frank. Today we have no army. Now we can assemble a group of 5 thousand capable soldiers max [out of 125 on paper]"

- reported minister of defence in 2014

Adolf Hitler may have gotten overconfident over 1936 - 1941 with his easy victories back then. Likewise, Japan's leaders likely thought that they would deliver the US Pacific Fleet a knockout blow when they attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941.

 

[Toni]

At this point, any plans Putin had for "next move" have likely been scrapped. He will be lucky to stay in power much longer if real economic hardship persists. Protests are growing and there appears to be a run on the banks.

That is not his style. Putin would rather die than be silenced.

I’m perfectly ok when he takes that option. So long as he goes alone.

 

[Jayjay]

The invasion has begun. Putin has demanded military forces of Ukraine at Kyiv surrender. Kyiv is some 300 miles from the Dombass breakaway republic. This is an act of war on an independent nation that in no way can threaten Russia in any major way. Putin is now a war criminal. It is obvious Pootie saw his chance to make a land grab slipping through his fingers and decided to act and to hell with the consequences. February 23, 2022. A day of infamy.

The real war criminals are the US media.

This video and the person being interviewed are also "US media". Meanwhle in Russia, there is no such second opinion. Based on Russian news there is hardly any war going on, just a minor skirmish against nazis and terrorists.

She is not mainstream media and is complaining about MSM. Do you agree with her or don't?

I agree with her that Putin is responsible for starting the war.

I reject your division of "mainstream" and other media. She's a columnist for the Washington Post, which by any reasonable definition is "MSM". The Nation is not some crackpot pamphlet either, and Democracy Now is also broadcast on linear TV and not only on Youtube. In USA, nobody is shutting down these alternative news and the government isn't telling them what words they can use. The US media is not just CNN and Fox News. The former is limited to airports and hotels, and the latter is non-existent outside US.

I don't care about situation with media in Russia. Russia is irrelevant as far as world wide media concerned. World wide media is run by US and to a lesser degree Europe.

US media is myopic and US-centered and due to its cultural influence, it tends to dictate what people are talking about. Unlike autocratic governments like Russia or China, that actively harass or shut down alternative media. That's one reason why Putin thinks he can pull this off; he doesn't have to justify his murder spree because Russian people don't hear about it on their evening news. He's been spouting anti-Ukrainian propaganda for years and lies about how they are all "nazis" and "fascists" and "drug addicts" are unchallenged in Russian mainstream media. Even people like you, who claim to get their news from internet sources, have been utterly inundated with little Hitler's talking points for years.

Are you going comment on Saakashvili post? I am not getting off of you on that.
You're going to comment on that, whether CIA agent holds you at gun point or not.

The guy from State Department and the CIA handler are arguing with the lizard person what I should say next. I'll let you know when they decide.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Fiona Hill - Putin Unwrapped.

There’s lots of danger ahead, she warned. Putin is increasingly operating emotionally and likely to use all the weapons at his disposal, including nuclear ones.

Those old historical patterns include Western businesses who fail to see how they help build a tyrant’s war chest, admirers enamored of an autocrat’s “strength” and politicians’ tendency to point fingers inward for political gain instead of working together for their nation’s security.

I think there’s been a logical, methodical plan that goes back a very long way, at least to 2007 when he put the world, and certainly Europe, on notice that Moscow would not accept the further expansion of NATO. And then within a year in 2008 NATO gave an open door to Georgia and Ukraine. It absolutely goes back to that juncture.

He is going to wipe Ukraine off the map, literally, because it doesn’t belong on his map of the “Russian world.”

And Putin’s not looking so great, he’s been rather puffy-faced. We know that he has complained about having back issues. Even if it’s not something worse than that, it could be that he’s taking high doses of steroids, or there may be something else. There seems to be an urgency for this that may be also driven by personal factors.
He may have a sense that time is marching on

But this is also a full-spectrum information war, and what happens in a Russian “all-of-society” war, you soften up the enemy. You get the Tucker Carlsons and Donald Trumps doing your job for you. The fact that Putin managed to persuade Trump that Ukraine belongs to Russia, and that Trump would be willing to give up Ukraine without any kind of fight, that’s a major success for Putin’s information war. I mean he has got swathes of the Republican Party — and not just them, some on the left, as well as on the right — masses of the U.S. public saying, “Good on you, Vladimir Putin,” or blaming NATO, or blaming the U.S. for this outcome. This is exactly what a Russian information war and psychological operation is geared towards. He’s been carefully seeding this terrain as well. We’ve been at war, for a very long time. I’ve been saying this for years.