While it certainly could be that the people surrounding him do apply the madman theory at times, his behaviour can be pretty well explained by narcissism and dementia alone. It’s not like Trump is a particular smart individual with long term planning. He is as stupid as he appears, the problem is just that apparently that’s exactly on the level of a third of the USA population.
And regarding Chinese support: that applies to your own doubts in your earlier comment regarding supply lines as well. So either you think China is supporting Russia no matter what or you don’t. But please stop jumping around.
can be pretty well explained by narcissism and dementia
It can, but we are talking about the billionaires being so stupid to accept Trump a second time to destroy the reputation of the US and their source of power.
Take the ballroom. It’s a secure datacenter, but everybody keeps calling it the ballroom.
The media plays along, which means that it is all deception.
And regarding Chinese support: that applies to your own doubts in your earlier comment regarding supply lines as well. So either you think China is supporting Russia no matter what or you don’t.
What’s the contradiction? That China can’t supply Russia because it is too far away?
I am still not sure what the contradiction is. Do you mean that China cannot supply Russia because the Ukraine front is as far away from China as Gotland is from Russia?
That’s a problem. I think even the northern route doesn’t help because the US can close the Bering Strait.
I mean that first YOU say that Russia can’t attack because of missing logistics and now YOU say China will support them no matter what.
They contradict each other. Because either Russia isn’t a danger, because it doesnt have the resources, or it is a danger due to chinese supporting those ressources.
Russia not losing doesn’t imply that Russia has to conquer Gotland. Russia, even with Chinese support is no danger to Gotland apart from an all out war where China and Russia manage to conquer Europe itself. Then of course at one point they will get Gotland. But I don’t think that they can conquer it without conquering the shores and airspaces around it first.
That said, China wants Russia to not lose in Ukraine and not to win all of Europe.
or it is a danger due to chinese supporting those ressources.
Russia not losing doesn’t imply that Russia has to conquer Gotland.
There is a middle ground where China supports enough that Russia wins something in Ukraine but not enough to conquer Gotland.
If the war fully escalates then what’s the function of Gotland? There won’t be a Russian fleet. Tanks won’t reach it. I think it can be used by Nato for air defence batteries, which Russia wants to destroy. But why should Russia conquer the island on its own and how can China deliver the ships for it? Before Gotland is in danger other things have to be conquered first.
While it certainly could be that the people surrounding him do apply the madman theory at times, his behaviour can be pretty well explained by narcissism and dementia alone. It’s not like Trump is a particular smart individual with long term planning. He is as stupid as he appears, the problem is just that apparently that’s exactly on the level of a third of the USA population.
And regarding Chinese support: that applies to your own doubts in your earlier comment regarding supply lines as well. So either you think China is supporting Russia no matter what or you don’t. But please stop jumping around.
It can, but we are talking about the billionaires being so stupid to accept Trump a second time to destroy the reputation of the US and their source of power.
Take the ballroom. It’s a secure datacenter, but everybody keeps calling it the ballroom.
The media plays along, which means that it is all deception.
What’s the contradiction? That China can’t supply Russia because it is too far away?
The beginning of this comment line was you saying
If I might remind you of your own words.
I am still not sure what the contradiction is. Do you mean that China cannot supply Russia because the Ukraine front is as far away from China as Gotland is from Russia?
That’s a problem. I think even the northern route doesn’t help because the US can close the Bering Strait.
But they don’t need ships. They can use rail. The big problem for the West is that they can’t control the center of the Asian continent with ships. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
No goddammit.
I mean that first YOU say that Russia can’t attack because of missing logistics and now YOU say China will support them no matter what.
They contradict each other. Because either Russia isn’t a danger, because it doesnt have the resources, or it is a danger due to chinese supporting those ressources.
Choose a lane!
Russia not losing doesn’t imply that Russia has to conquer Gotland. Russia, even with Chinese support is no danger to Gotland apart from an all out war where China and Russia manage to conquer Europe itself. Then of course at one point they will get Gotland. But I don’t think that they can conquer it without conquering the shores and airspaces around it first.
That said, China wants Russia to not lose in Ukraine and not to win all of Europe.
You are shifting goal posts again. Nobody but you said anything about “has to”.
There is a middle ground where China supports enough that Russia wins something in Ukraine but not enough to conquer Gotland.
If the war fully escalates then what’s the function of Gotland? There won’t be a Russian fleet. Tanks won’t reach it. I think it can be used by Nato for air defence batteries, which Russia wants to destroy. But why should Russia conquer the island on its own and how can China deliver the ships for it? Before Gotland is in danger other things have to be conquered first.
I will just repeat myself at this point, but who cares:
That wasn’t the original point.
You said Russia won’t attack Gotland due to lacking ressources.
Or to quote you, again: