TMx

[TMx @TmxTmx02]

@S1776D @camille_moscow « Trust the Plan » n’est pas une analyse géopolitique. Les États-Unis ont énormément de cartes, évidemment. Mais la Russie, la Chine et les autres puissances aussi ont leurs propres cartes, intérêts et capacités de réaction. Personne ne joue seul sur l’échiquier

[TMx @TmxTmx02]

@anfrase The strategic point is stronger than the sovereignty slogan. The Kurils help seal the Sea of Okhotsk, where Russia protects part of its ballistic-missile submarine force. For Moscow, those islands are not decorative territory; they are part of a nuclear-security perimeter.

[TMx @TmxTmx02]

@cyprien_ronze That is not weakness. That is the last remaining adult brain cell in the room trying to stop Twitter generals from speedrunning a global catastrophe

[TMx @TmxTmx02]

@CameliaAB1 @Raggi965 Russian politicians saying things about Europe proves hostility, not an intention to invade Europe. European politicians also discuss defeating, and economically crippling Russia. If rhetoric alone proved invasion plans, both sides would already be preparing to conquer each other

[TMx @TmxTmx02]

@CameliaAB1 If Ukrainian soldiers are genuinely Romania's defenders, the logical question is awkward: why aren't Romanian soldiers fighting alongside them? Because Bucharest understands the distinction perfectly well

[TMx @TmxTmx02]

@Marston1889 The tragedy is that Ukraine is the battlefield, not the only player. Washington, Moscow and Europe calculate strategy; Ukrainians absorb much of the physical cost. Sofa generals can demand “more escalation” indefinitely because their own cities aren't the arena

[TMx @TmxTmx02]

@Blue_Caerulean @itsdaniryan This sofa-war fantasy always freezes the opponent in place. NATO enters, closes the sky, shoots at Russian forces and Russia politely watches like a statue.

Real wars have reactions, counter-reactions and escalation ladders. That's precisely why NATO avoided a no-fly zone

[TMx @TmxTmx02]

@vasilina_orlova If violating the post-WWII order is the issue, where was this outrage when Ukraine deployed troops as part of the coalition in occupied Iraq? Principles lose credibility when they're applied selectively

[TMx @TmxTmx02]

@vasilina_orlova You're confusing international law with geopolitical reality. Great powers have revised borders, recognized breakaway territories and intervened militarily long before Ukraine

[TMx @TmxTmx02]

@SimplyonWorld You present history as if only one actor had agency. Georgia, Russia, NATO and the U.S. all made decisions that shaped the outcome

[TMx @TmxTmx02]

@SimplyonWorld your argument assumes deterrence only works in one direction. Great powers also react to changes in the balance of power. treating NATO expansion as strategically irrelevant while assuming Russia would simply accept it is not a realistic reading of how states behave

[TMx @TmxTmx02]

@dusiaoyb @fmr_porto @IuliiaMendel If your benchmark is an unofficial timeline repeated by the media, then you're measuring the war against a narrative, not against Russia's publicly stated objectives

[TMx @TmxTmx02]

@dusiaoyb @fmr_porto @IuliiaMendel "Russia gets weaker every day" has been repeated since 2022. Yet the war continues, Russia still controls significant territory, and both sides continue mobilizing resources. Reality is clearly more complex than your slogan. that's the uggly reality

[TMx @TmxTmx02]

@dusiaoyb @fmr_porto @IuliiaMendel Ukraine has agency, but it doesn't have strategic autonomy. When your budget, intelligence, air defense and much of military equipment depend on external partners, the outcome inevitably depends on the broader balance between the major powers involved

[TMx @TmxTmx02]

@dusiaoyb @fmr_porto @IuliiaMendel That's exactly the problem: you've turned a complex war into a binary choice, "victory or disappearance." Real wars rarely end that way. Most end with compromises neither side wanted at the start

[TMx @TmxTmx02]

@dusiaoyb @fmr_porto @IuliiaMendel continuing the war gives Ukraine a chance to improve its position. It also gives Russia more time to exploit its advantages in manpower, industry and attrition. Strategy is about weighing both possibilities, not pretending only one exists.

[TMx @TmxTmx02]

@dusiaoyb @IuliiaMendel The moment an argument begins with "shut up" and ends with "GFY," it usually means the reasoning in the middle is weak. Replace the insults with evidence, and discuss strategy instead of emotions

[TMx @TmxTmx02]

@Tweet4AnnaNAFO History lesson: when you mention WWI, WWII or the Cold War, you're talking about the Russian Empire or the USSR not today's Russian Federation. Ukraine was part of that state. Cherry-picking history without that context is more propaganda than analysis

[TMx @TmxTmx02]

@ukraine_map The uncomfortable reality is that Ukraine is not the center of U.S. grand strategy. Washington's resources are finite and its commitments are global. Every administration will ultimately prioritize what it believes serves American national interests over Ukrainian preferences

[TMx @TmxTmx02]

@ukraine_map Every time reality disappoints, a new "if only" appears. If only more tanks. If only more missiles. If only more sanctions. If only another president. At some point, maybe the problem isn't the missing wonder weapon ,it's the fantasy that one existed.