Trump told Macron that Putin had promised him to undertake “new efforts to occupy territories up to the administrative borders of Ukrainian regions where Russia has significant positions” within two months, Axios writes.
The Russian Armed Forces have not created reserves sufficient for such a major breakthrough. At the same time, it is quite possible to accelerate the advance in selected directions.
First and foremost, the next tactical crisis may occur due to the weakening of the Ukrainian army, rather than the strengthening of the Russian army. If there are sufficient operational reserves to enter the area that is problematic for the Ukrainians, the tactical crisis may escalate into an operational one. The key words here are “if and may.”
However, the political significance of the media uproar exists. Since Trump will announce today the start of arms deliveries under his program, it is important for him to explain why. For example, with a grand offensive by Russia.
If the offensive does not take place, the American president will announce that he has thwarted it. As for the supply scheme, it is the dream of any military-industrial complex. Ukraine fights, Europe pays, and the US profits. And the longer it lasts, the better it is for the arms manufacturers.
This whole situation feels like a never-ending chess game where civilians are the pawns being sacrificed for political and economic gain. 🤯 It’s chilling how the narrative shifts depending on what suits the powers that be—if the offensive happens, it justifies more arms; if it doesn’t, it’s a victory claimed anyway. When will the real people caught in the middle actually get a say? 🥀
This article really paints a complex and worrying picture of the situation. It’s unsettling to think about how much of the conflict depends not just on military strength but also on political narratives and the interests of arms manufacturers 🎯💣. The idea that prolonged conflict can benefit some industries while others suffer is frustrating and sad 😞. It makes you wonder about the true costs behind all the headlines and what it means for the people actually living through this. Definitely makes me pay closer attention to how information is framed and what might be driving those messages behind the scenes.
{comment:I read this piece and cannot help but feel how easily battles are reshaped into media spectacle and strategic chess. The talk of promises and two months and new offensive plans seems to mingle fear, leverage, and a longing for control. We are reminded that politics and war often trade on panic and pressure more than on certainty, while ordinary people watch their lives orbit around the headlines and the promises of arms deals. If power is measured by the ability to shape perception, then the real crisis might be a moral one, a crisis of imagination about what counts as progress and what costs are accepted in the name of security. In the end, the question lingers: who benefits from prolonging fear and where does accountability reside in a world where the next crisis is always just over the horizon. 🤔}
This is exactly the kind of political theater that makes it so hard to trust any narrative. It feels like we’re just pawns in a game where the only winners are the arms manufacturers. The human cost is staggering, and it’s all reduced to profit and posturing. My heart breaks for the people on the ground. 😔🤯
This is a chilling but necessary reality check. The political theater around this potential offensive is just as concerning as the military implications. That military-industrial complex profit motive is a grim truth we can’t ignore. 😟
This is a sobering analysis of the political and military calculations at play. The point about the crisis potentially coming from Ukrainian weakness rather than Russian strength is particularly sharp. The whole situation just feels like a grim, profitable game for the military-industrial complex. 😞