You are too emotionally invested in this conflict to have a conversation with,
Likewise.
you are so deluded you can think of no rational reason why Russia would invade Ukraine and remain in that conflict despite there being quite literally centuries of analysis on the subject matter.
If you claim that the rationality of Russian leadership's behavior is unquestionable, well, how can this be discussed with you?
There is nothing to be said to you and nothing to gain from entertaining your idea that Russia is ran by idiots who only make bad moves because they're stupid.
Yet we have a quite decisive proof that Russian leadership makes major mistakes, as evidenced by an ongoing major world event.
Be it stupidity, greed, delusion or miscalculation, they do make bad moves sometimes, and there has to be a reason for the bad moves.
International relations seeks to understand the logic behind nation states and it is widely accepted in that space that states are rational actors with few to no exceptions, they make strategic choices to further goals and a nuanced calculus goes into every decision.
That's the theory. Yet there are countless examples of them not doing so in reality, and we don't live in theory...
Including the state leadership themselves having divergent interests with what one could consider state interests, or how different cliques and cultures may have slightly different ideas on what is and isn't rational.
So no I'm not the one who is delusional it is you who is high on one sided propaganda and can not accept that wars happen in the real world for complex reasons. You /want/ Russia to be retarded and to attack NATO
Again, this is not something *i want*, this is dogma you want to push on me despite recent events showing Russia looking at some quite different patterns of action. Ever heard about hybrid warfare?
And remember when Russia did a fucking nerve gas attack on the territory of a NATO country and nuclear power?
Again, you are insisting on everyone taking some theories you like at face value despite some Russian decisions from the recent decade having made some very clear holes in those theories.
Such an act would be downright unthinkable to western countries and many others living up to the "rational actor" standard, due to the incredibly high risk and escalation potential, while not even having that good reason for it, yet Russia did it, and i can think of a small bunch of other countries that would also at least consider similar moves.
So, consider this as a hint as to how to calibrate the predicted "risk sensitiveness" of Russian leadership, because it clearly is not the same as yours.
while its weak because it would result in your nations historical enemy being crushed finally, but that doesn't mean its the kind of choice an actual nation state would make.
Your fanfiction of how i see the Russian conflict and why is cute, but its also fucking dumb, please stop writing it. 1 out of 10 mindreading, you should definitely ask your instructor for your money back.
But then again, you seem to be out of date with the whole hybrid warfare thing, so you may be imagining that if people say Russia will pick fights with NATO members, they mean something like 2022 Ukraine, while people who aren't out of date expect something more like Russia trying to pull something more like 2014 Ukraine except in Baltics.
