And not just average people who have other jobs, but the very people whose job it is to gather intelligence and make sense of it, like Isa Yusibov mentioned:
The basic error in the West is that they attribute rationality to Kremlin leaders.
They're wrong. Kremlin leaders can perfectly _MIMIC_ rational thought, but that's not the same.
Their lead ideology is imperialism and their modus operandi is sabotage, bluff and opportunism.
2/
Behind their imperialism is a sense of cultural superiority based on 'greatness', the country is great, so if over time they were able to dominate it all, they themselves must necessarily be great as well.
Do Russians themselves believe this?
3/
They don't.
But it's their 'civil religion' as anthropologists call this. They may be atheist, nihilists, Russian Orthodox... but in public life they're culturally superior or just plainly superior or 'perfect' even if they know this isn't true.
How is this reconciled?
4/
And that is where lying as part of public reality comes in.
They somehow know Russian superiority isn't true, but lying about it is culturally allowed - even prescribed. And forced by law. Speaking the truth gets you in the Gulag. Thus, lying is intrinsic to Russian culture. 5/
That - in a nutshell - is the correct way to look at Russia.
So, if at any moment the Kremlin sees an opportunity to attack NATO even while this plan is rationally a really bad idea, they still will do so if it follows from - or fits with - Russian ideology of greatness.
6/6
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
People are very much interested in how cheaply Ukraine is able to kill Shaheds.
Everyone sees that Ukraine kills them in high numbers.
Does taking them out cost more than it costs Russia to make them?
1/
The answer is no. Ukraine destroys the Shaheds at a fraction of Russia's cost to build one.
Let's break it down:
Russia produces the simplest Shaheds for around 15.000 USD.
Ukraine shoots down 80% of them with plain air defence machine guns.
At what cost?
2/
Ukraine shoots Shaheds down with air defense machine guns (very effectively and very cheaply). 12.7 mm (.50) rounds as bought by governments are well under 1 USD. A few bursts = a few hundred dollars.
1. Russia's size is a typical structural weakness. They have such a large territory that to defend it all, you need insane amounts of air defence.
Ukraine can hit whatever they like.
Maybe in a roundabout way, but they can.
1/
2. Their leaders are delusional and paranoid, they lack in reality testing, they probably don't get to hear the truth from their commanders.
2/
3. The Russian army is thoroughly corrupt. Soldier's salaries flow into the commander's pockets. The dead are not acknowledged, so the money keeps flowing. The anonymous dead go into landfills by the thousands. Supposedly "Missing In Action" so as not to pay their families.
For those who insist that Soviet successes in space were essentially Russian... let's remember Sergei Korolev.
He designed the GIRD-9 and 10 rockets, the R1 (that became the Scud), the R7 that put the Sputnik and Yuri Gagarin into orbit.
1/
Korolev went on to design the N1 rocket that would take the Luna moonlander to the moon. Tragically, he died two weeks before it landed on the moon.
His space rockets were a great success and became famous under the name of Soyuz.
2/
Korolev's Soyuz design, which name nowadays applies to both the modular capsule and the rocket itself, is still being used. The one with the lower number of rocket motors is called Vostok. It is the most successfull rocket design in history with over 1700 launches.
Trump thinks about trade in a very 2-dimensional way, in terms of trade deficit or trade surplus with single trade partners.
So in this picture he thinks the red countries are the bad guys while green ones are good.
But is that real?
1/
It's not real.
In the example of Canada/US we see that the US buys crude oil from Canada. Why? Because when you calculate both transport and price it is most profitable for American companies to do so.
Does offering the most profitable option make Canada a bad guy?
No.
2/
That's how trade works. Canada helps US refineries make the most profit and both shareholders profit and the American public profits.
The US could do more shale gas, shale oil and fracking, but oil companies aren't silly. They calculated that option: profit will go down.
Current US politicians are blind to the historical division of tasks within NATO. The US after WW2 saw itself as the 'managing director' (so to speak) of NATO.
Other NATO members offered military details for projects that the US deemed necessary.
1/
Other NATO countries don't even have the software to organise a coordinated military operation.
Fighter jet squadrons to the Middle East? OK. Or covertly listening in to Russian nuclear subs? OK. Protecting merchant shipping in the Atlantic, the Red Sea? OK.
2/
Watching russian hackers and reading their screens as they were hacking into US servers? OK.
We offered these pieces of the overall military puzzle and the US was all too happy to keep things that way.
3/
150 years ago, guano and similar fertiliser used to be mined from Peru and Chile. Later on it was produced using natural gas (producing lots of CO2) by countries like Russia that have an abundance of gas.
But that's going to change.
1/
Natural gas based fertiliser has certain disadvantages:
1. It's the chemical process that produces the most CO2 of all - all things being equal, we'd prefer a process that produces less of it;
2. In the case of Russia: we'd like less of that as well.
Why?
[,,]
2/
Because Russia abuses its power everywhere.
3. It's centrally produces and needs a lot of oil to be transported to faraway countries where it is needed. Actually, the numbers are staggering. The CO2 produced in transporting fertiliser can multply the price 4 to 5-fold.