In news reporting, headlines aren’t neutral labels. They are the main event. They set the emotional temperature for millions who will never read beyond the first line, especially on mobile feeds where nuance is a luxury and outrage is a business model. So when a headline drops the words “we are not going to” and discards “if Europe starts,” it’s not just a shortening – it reverses the reader’s perception. The public walks away believing Putin signaled readiness to launch a war against the EU, not readiness in response to one.
I am fully aware of how obnoxiously opaque and misleading headlines tend to be in the modern media context. I do not need to be preached to about that.
My point is that Russia is demonstrably unable to achieve victory in their war with Ukraine, and that Ukraine is exhibiting an astounding level of strategic ability against Russia in retaliation for strikes against their own civilian infrastructure.
Moreover, there are absolutely zero rational or plausible scenarios in which the EU instigates a war against Russia, and claiming that the EU would even consider such a thing - outside of reacting to military action instigated by Russia - is not only nonsense, but also blatantly obvious Russophilic propaganda.
And, you know, the source OP posted is known to be a platform for RT, which is essentially Russian state media.
Nope. I think it’ll be worse than Afghanistan for Russia, because pretty much all Ukrainians speak Russian, and that’s a fascinating vector for domestic terrorism in Russia
I don’t really think the two are that comparable, since in one case they were waging a counterinsurgency against a guerilla movement that had the support of much of the people, and in this case they’re waging a conventional war to extract concessions from a government. But I guess time will tell
And, you know, the source OP posted is known to be a platform for RT, which is essentially Russian state media.
sources w clear biases are considerably more refreshing than sources that plausibly pretend that they’re unbiased despite numerous mask-off events like the new york times or npr or the guardian.
they’re talking about you. lol
I am fully aware of how obnoxiously opaque and misleading headlines tend to be in the modern media context. I do not need to be preached to about that.
My point is that Russia is demonstrably unable to achieve victory in their war with Ukraine, and that Ukraine is exhibiting an astounding level of strategic ability against Russia in retaliation for strikes against their own civilian infrastructure.
Moreover, there are absolutely zero rational or plausible scenarios in which the EU instigates a war against Russia, and claiming that the EU would even consider such a thing - outside of reacting to military action instigated by Russia - is not only nonsense, but also blatantly obvious Russophilic propaganda.
And, you know, the source OP posted is known to be a platform for RT, which is essentially Russian state media.
Do you think the Russian Federation will ever win in Ukraine?
Nope. I think it’ll be worse than Afghanistan for Russia, because pretty much all Ukrainians speak Russian, and that’s a fascinating vector for domestic terrorism in Russia
I don’t really think the two are that comparable, since in one case they were waging a counterinsurgency against a guerilla movement that had the support of much of the people, and in this case they’re waging a conventional war to extract concessions from a government. But I guess time will tell
sources w clear biases are considerably more refreshing than sources that plausibly pretend that they’re unbiased despite numerous mask-off events like the new york times or npr or the guardian.