Nicholas II wasn't done after Russo-Japanese war loss, Alexander II wasn't done after Crimean War, Lenin wasn't done after Polish-Soviet war, Yeltsin wasn't done after First Chechen War... why would Putin be done? History of russia is full of counterexamples and them presenting as "we'll win or we'll nuke whole world" is a propaganda tactics and bluff.
Alexander II was assasinated.
Lenin implemented the red terror to ensure his grip.
Yeltsin was forced to resign to... you guessed it; Putin.
All these may not have happened directly after the loss, but it definitely swayed public opinion against them.
Attributing Nicholas II death to 12 year earlier Russo-Japanese war and not... ongoing WW1 is weird take.
> Alexander II was assasinated.
25 years later by revolutionary socialists, not some kind of revanchist.
>Lenin implemented the red terror to ensure his grip.
Actually totally reverse, Lenin then ended it with NEP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy
>Yeltsin was forced to resign to... you guessed it; Putin.
"Forced" 4 years later full of disastrous policies and, most importantly for russian state, low oil prices.
That war started in 1853, Alexander II's reign began in 1855, obviously he wasn't done since this wasn't even a war he had started...
People need to temper their hot takes on history.
Let’s not forget that until a few months ago it was literally illegal to even call this war a war in Russia. But today, it’s not just a war, it’s a defensive ear, if you go by Russian state media (a defensive war that is somehow being fought entirely on another country’s territory).
Russia figured out the magic trick to modern annexation. International law now mostly holds that you can't take land in a war, but that a country's sovereignty arises from the democratic will of the people living there. So Russia just invades under any pretense it likes, and holds "elections" where they get "the will of the people" to be whatever they tell it to be. Like joining Russia.
It's a sham, entirely, but it means they can tell their own people that they are following the law and it's everyone else that's against them.
And so now they can say "look, we did the song and dance that makes this Russian land, so we're defending 'our' people now".
Technically not true.
They've proclaimed most of these battlefield territories their own, so that is now a technically correct statement.
So, more on how it is sold to the Russian people, rather, than there being anything technically correct about it, right? Because if it's the latter, then I suppose the closes would be "internationally accepted". And, none of the currently occupied regions, including Crimea, is recognized as such.
Is Putin not done politically if RU is defeated in UA, and Crimea is liberated / annexed?
> 2. There isn't a reason for spying on these facilities if the goal is to analyze the US' ability to launch a nuclear strike. That strike would come from a submarine sitting on the ocean floor off the coast near Moscow. And there's no real countermeasures for those missiles.
It's a good point. I suppose it depends on the nature of the conflict though. Maybe you're right, that in the event of an all out nuclear war there would be no point in trying to achieve a tactical advantage – but does either side really know the exact nature of the conflict well enough to make that assumption at this point? Perhaps both sides just know conflict is likely.