18 hours ago, zmisha said:

 

Your assessment of the situation differs from how Vlad's supporters see it.
 

There are only 4 main differences:
 

1. You believe European politicians are independent, while Vlad called them "подсвинки" the day before yesterday, which translates into English as "creatures in humiliating subordination to some pig." It's not hard to guess who Vlad considers the pig. Friends aren't called that, are they?
 

2. Based on 1., you believe Russia can't influence arms supplies, while Vlad believes it's enough to intimidate the "the pig". After that, all of the pig's European subordinates immediately carried out the pig's every order.
 

3. You believe there's only one front—in Ukraine. Vlad's supporters believe there's also the second front—the front used to intimidate those whom Vlad calls "the pig" in order to limit arms supplies to Ukraine.
 

4. You analyze the situation based on the speed of the troop advance. Throw a ball slightly upward in front of you. Its speed will be minimal. But after a moment, it will reach several meters per second. It's important to consider not only speed but also acceleration.

As I've said before, Russia is already at war with the entire west, though most of the west is still in denial.

Trump mixes that up by siding with Putin though against Ukraine and NATO.

Pigs, schmigs.

5 hours ago, Jingthing said:

As I've said before, Russia is already at war with the entire west, though most of the west is still in denial.

When you say: “Russia is already at war,” you know for sure that if Putin dies tomorrow, the West will immediately win this war. 
There are no stupid people here - everyone understands this perfectly well.
Similarly, when you say "Russia is already at war with the entire West," everyone in Russia understands that, although it's true, if Washington DC capitulates, the war will end the next day. You can pretend otherwise, but in Russia, people understand this perfectly well.
Both sides in the conflict have an Achilles' heel—the hyper-centralization of power in a single decision making center.

Is Witkoff US envoy or another Russian envoy? 

 

Russia fully committed to achieving peace, says US envoy Steve Witkoff

 

https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/russia-fully-committed-to-achieving-peace-says-us-envoy-steve-witkoff-125122200034_1.html

 

 

30 minutes ago, zmisha said:

When you say: “Russia is already at war,” you know for sure that if Putin dies tomorrow, the West will immediately win this war. 
There are no stupid people here - everyone understands this perfectly well.
Similarly, when you say "Russia is already at war with the entire West," everyone in Russia understands that, although it's true, if Washington DC capitulates, the war will end the next day. You can pretend otherwise, but in Russia, people understand this perfectly well.
Both sides in the conflict have an Achilles' heel—the hyper-centralization of power in a single decision making center.

If Putin die tomorrow, the war may still continue while the West has no appetite for war with Russia. To understand that you have to look at the history and the political system of Russia and the West In particular USA. 
 

Russia has attacked numerous sovereign countries in last 30 years by other presidents besides Putin. NATO has intervened in some troubled European countries civil unrest but has not attacked any sovereign countries.
 

Russia political system of centralised, semi-presidential federation where power is heavily concentrated in the President and a weak Parliament has little push back if the President wage war.
 

US is a federal constitutional republic with power divided among 3 branches and robust checks and balances. A president can’t wage war on his own. He can’t even imposed his self interest policies. The recent approval by Congress to continue funding Ukraine rebuff Trump’s effort to defund Ukraine is a clear signal that the President can’t always have his way. 
 

Your statement t that both have centralized decision making is incorrect.