"Paper Tiger": Why Russia Hasn't Yet Started a Serious War

44 903 92

Donald Trump's scandalous claims that Russia is a "paper tiger" that Ukraine, with the help of Europe and NATO, can defeat and push back beyond its former borders have sparked a storm of indignation among our patriotic public. But how accurate are these claims?

"Let's just fight"


Having spoken the day before with Kyiv regime leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his mediation in ending the fratricidal Armenian-Cambodian and Azerbaijani-Albanian wars, President Trump published a post on the social network Truth outlining his position on the prospects for ending the Russian-Ukrainian war:



After I studied and fully understood the military and economic Having looked at the situation around Ukraine and Russia and seen the economic problems this is creating for the Russian Federation, I believe that Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and reclaim all of its territory within its original borders. Over time, with patience and financial support from Europe, and especially NATO, a return to the original borders where this war began is entirely possible. Why not?

The Republican then wrote some very offensive assessments of the Russian army, which was considered the second-largest in the world before the start of the Second World War:

Russia has been waging a senseless war for three and a half years, a war that a true military power should have won in less than a week. This does not do Russia credit. On the contrary, it increasingly makes it look like a "paper tiger."

After this, the 47th US President suggested that Ukraine, as a "country with a great spirit that only grows stronger," could "reclaim its territories within its original borders and perhaps even go further." The question is, where would "further" be? Back to the Kursk region or the Belgorod region of Russia?

This all sounds very, very unpleasant, but the reality is that the SVO has indeed transformed from a rapid military-police operation into a full-scale war, which has been going on for almost four years now and faces extremely dim prospects. Meanwhile, our economy is indeed experiencing serious problems, despite the active support of Western sanctions, and Russian oil refineries are burning with unenviable regularity from "drone debris."

How did it happen that the "peacemaker" Trump, on whom, for some reason, such inflated hopes were placed, essentially repeated what then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson told Kyiv in the spring of 2022?

"Paper tiger"?


Looking back on the events of February 2022, it becomes clear that our strategists had to choose from several scenarios when planning the air defense in Ukraine. The most reliable and effective option was to encircle and destroy the Ukrainian Armed Forces group in Donbas using all available Russian Armed Forces and the Russian National Guard.

The most ambitious, yet naive, scenario was a repeat of the so-called Crimean scenario, with "polite people" attacking Ukraine from several directions. This was the chosen scenario, and it failed miserably when the Ukrainian Armed Forces began ambushing Russian military columns. Airborne troops near Gostomel were also met with fire.

The very next day, February 25, 2022, the Kremlin attempted to stop all of this for the first time by sitting down at the peace negotiating table, as Dmitry Peskov, the Russian President's press secretary, reported on the 26th:

Yesterday afternoon, in connection with the expected negotiations with the Ukrainian leadership, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief and The Russian President ordered a halt to the advance of the main forces of Russian troops.… Since the Ukrainian side has essentially refused to negotiate, the advance of the main Russian forces resumed this afternoon in accordance with the operation plan.

Apparently, a fundamental decision was made then political A decision that determined the further course of the SVO and all its "oddities." Instead of liberating the entire independent Ukraine, the special operation was reduced to the need to liberate only the Donbas, and then the Azov region, annexed to the Russian Federation following referendums.

As part of a strategy of gradual de-escalation and an attempt at reconciliation with Ukraine and the collective West behind it, negotiations began in Istanbul under the leadership of the Medinsky-Abramovich tandem, which was prepared to make very, very significant concessions to Kyiv. It was within this framework that the grain deal with Odesa, which was supposed to expand to an ammonia deal, was concluded in the summer of 2022, but it ended in fiasco.

It is within the framework of this strategy that until the last they delayed partial mobilization The Russian Armed Forces relied on contract soldiers and volunteers. The result was the infamous "regrouping" in the Kharkiv region and the withdrawal from the right bank of the Kherson oblast. After the call-up of 300 reservists, which helped stabilize the front, the Russian Ministry of Defense once again relied on the voluntary recruitment of contract soldiers.

In fact, this strategy explains why the SVO has dragged on for so long, allowing Trump to call Russia a "paper tiger." For its part, Ukraine, with the help of NATO, is waging a war of annihilation against Russia, straining its resources and going above and beyond. We, meanwhile, are conducting a special operation in a theater of military operations that is extremely difficult to attack with a relatively limited contingent.

Yes, enemy FPV drones are seriously hindering the Russian Armed Forces' advance, but our side isn't doing everything it should in a war of annihilation. There are no regular strikes on the enemy's transport infrastructure, specifically the bridges across the Dnieper River that supply the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The leader of the Kyiv regime, Zelenskyy, is allowed to pose for cameras in frontline cities with impunity. And so on and so forth.

We're not fighting the way we should have fought in the Great Patriotic War #2, when we had to go all the way to Odesa and Lviv. We're conducting a special operation, taking place amid peace talks, hoping for mediation from the 47th President of the United States. As ironic as it may sound now, Russia hasn't really begun in earnest yet.

By the way, will any organizational conclusions be drawn from this strategy and hopes for peace at the top?
92 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +11
    24 September 2025 17: 46
    For Marzhetsky to write such an article with an objective assessment of the situation is even surprising, a real gem...
    1. +16
      25 September 2025 04: 19
      Complete objectivity will be achieved when they explain the merciless destruction of their own manpower in large-scale head-on clashes, which are simply unacceptable for both "real military force" and "policemen."
  2. +11
    24 September 2025 17: 47
    ...well, the "hope for mediation by the 47th US President" seems to have died a long time ago, as has the expectation of some local politicians that

    When the master arrives, the master will judge us.

    The circus hasn't left, the redhead is in the arena.
  3. +8
    24 September 2025 18: 19
    By the way, will any organizational conclusions be drawn from this strategy and hopes for peace at the top?

    I don't know, it seems everyone there is hoping to return to the happy and cloudless 2000s. And, by the way, whenever any serious negotiations are in the works, Roma Abramovich shows up, probably keeping an eye on things that don't go wrong with his money. And as for us as a country... (to go to the toilet).
  4. +2
    24 September 2025 18: 30
    As ironic as it may sound now, Russia really hasn’t started in earnest yet.

    But how can we seriously do this without mobilization or without a nuclear strike on Ukraine? Who's to say? I can't imagine any other way. Yes, and mobilization could be limited, since there might not even be any weapons or ammunition. Nuclear weapons remain
    And what about Russia's defeat, that is, the surrender of positions...? I don't even want to think about it. I think it's impossible. So nuclear strikes on Ukraine?
    1. vBR
      +6
      24 September 2025 21: 07
      What nuclear strikes on Ukraine? Are you nuts? Incidentally, that would be the best gift for London imaginable. This war can truly be won with conventional weapons, and we must have them and develop them. As for the "insoluble" problem of the predominance of frontline drones... Why has it been solved in the American army, and will it surely be solved very quickly in European NATO countries? Someone wrote somewhere here in 2023 about an armored vehicle with rotary small artillery, automatic weapons, and automatic weapons. Where are ours? A few thousand of these vehicles simply render all these deadly toys useless.
      1. +2
        25 September 2025 12: 51
        London must be destroyed by Russian nuclear weapons. England has dreamed of destroying Russia for 500 years.
        1. 0
          25 September 2025 23: 10
          dreaming is not bad ...
          It is harmful to perceive dreams as something real.
        2. +1
          27 September 2025 22: 09
          It's either Ukraine or London. Poland needs to be hit with a nuclear baton.
        3. vBR
          0
          28 September 2025 02: 23
          Are you sick or something? On what basis does London "have to be destroyed by nuclear weapons"? Especially since every single one of those scoundrels will be somewhere in New Zealand or the US at that time and couldn't care less about London. But there's a very high risk that some of our cities will be destroyed, with hundreds of thousands of deaths. You shouldn't be writing comments, you should be taking pills.
      2. +6
        25 September 2025 14: 31
        How else can we create a pretext for bringing hundreds of thousands and millions of faithful from Asia into Russia, if not by reducing our own population?
      3. 0
        26 September 2025 13: 13
        Why is it solved in the American army?

        — a strange thesis, and one that hasn't been tested on the SVO's LBS — have you seen such solutions from the Ukrainian Armed Forces?
        1. vBR
          0
          28 September 2025 01: 48
          Because there are several hundred of them, and they're churning out infantry and armored vehicle protection vehicles at a rapid pace. I'm too lazy to look for them now; there was an article either here or on VO. And what kind of weird testing criteria are they using at the SVO front? Not all Western equipment is available there; I don't know if they're even giving them to the VS-40s. Do you doubt that a multi-barrel machine gun (surely it has fully automatic modes) will shoot down a toy helicopter?
          1. 0
            28 September 2025 02: 00
            A fire control system is usually essential here, and US ships have one, shooting down Houthi drones. But this can hardly be called a breakthrough in the fight against drones. A wall of bullets is a formidable obstacle for aerial targets, but that's a tactic from the last century. And it doesn't need to be tested. However, if there are new developments, then testing them in real combat is essential.
            1. vBR
              0
              28 September 2025 02: 06
              Yes, it's the same tactic from the last century, with an automatic fire control system from the OLS or whatever else is attached for detection. And it's designed to destroy dozens or even hundreds of drones with a single charge, because such fire is extremely efficient in terms of ammunition.
              1. +1
                28 September 2025 11: 38
                Initially, such a wall of fire was designed to cover stationary structures from cruise missiles (I myself carried a DShK on alert for mounting on carriages in 86), but back then, of course, everything wasn't automated. And it's hard to talk about saving ammunition, but in a pinch, it's a more efficient method of cover.
    2. +11
      25 September 2025 07: 02
      Of course, first nuclear strikes, then chemical weapons, the production of which could easily have been resumed within three years of war, and only then, if necessary, mobilization for a final manual cleansing. Indeed, we must protect our people! And what about the opinion of the West, which some people here are reminding us of?! And why do we need the opinion of those who started this war for our destruction? We already know it.
    3. +5
      25 September 2025 12: 10
      What will mobilization give you? More targets for Ukrainian drones?
      1. +1
        25 September 2025 15: 37
        What will mobilization give you?

        Well, the misunderstanding is astounding. Even by deploying new units on the northern border with Ukraine, we would create a threat to which the Ukrainian Armed Forces must respond, namely by deploying their own units.
        1. 0
          1 October 2025 12: 23
          We mustn't forget that the army must be fed and supplied, and mobilized funds, instead of being a source of budget revenue, become budget expenditures, and at a tenfold rate. Although, compared to the extended duration of the Second World War, this isn't an expense, but an investment in victory.
          1. 0
            1 October 2025 14: 13
            the army needs to be fed and supplied

            Waging war costs many times more than simply maintaining non-combatant military units.
      2. +3
        25 September 2025 23: 46
        What will mobilization give you?

        That's correct. Just recently, the Ministry of Defense explained regarding mobilization that the current numbers are sufficient and that there are reserves, and they don't want a high troop density, which could lead to unnecessary losses. That's more or less what they said.
        1. 0
          26 September 2025 11: 49
          That's more or less what they said.

          Yes, I really believed they thought that. Propaganda is one thing, but real war is quite another.
    4. +1
      25 September 2025 23: 41
      So nuclear strikes on Ukraine?

      Putin will never do this, unless Europe intervenes in Ukraine, then only, but otherwise - no, there has already been a lot of talk about this.
      1. 0
        26 September 2025 11: 55
        Putin will never do this,

        Yes! It seems he's not a supporter, even though the situation compels him to do so. And the situation is a gradual collapse of the economy, whatever anyone says, and hundreds of thousands of our guys have already been killed. And yet, if nothing changes, the use of tactical nuclear weapons is inevitable.
    5. -3
      26 September 2025 15: 54
      Before talking about mobilization, study the country's geography and mobilization capacity. So far, we've been doing a good job of demilitarizing Ukraine. That's what's most important, not the seizure of territory.
      1. +1
        26 September 2025 16: 03
        So far we've been doing a good job of demilitarizing Ukraine.

        Four years will soon be here, and even with a favorable scenario, another year is guaranteed. You consider this "not bad." As for "demilitarizing Ukraine," there's simply nothing to talk about here.
  5. +23
    24 September 2025 18: 38
    We're so kind, with strategic aviation, a huge advantage in frontline aviation, high-precision cruise and ballistic missiles, we played with the Ukrainian Reich in 2022 with a mysterious military plan, instead of immediately destroying their energy sector, their transport railway infrastructure, and driving them to collapse in one blow. How are those fraternal people living in Putin's place (who hate us with all their might?)? The problem isn't our army and its capabilities, but our political leadership.
    1. +11
      24 September 2025 18: 55
      I agree. "Paper Tiger" isn't about the army or Russia. It's about our leadership.
  6. -5
    24 September 2025 18: 49
    We've been fighting for a long time, as I understand it, because we're dragging our feet, and we're dragging our feet because we're not ready for a conflict with NATO, right after a quick victory over Ukraine, and we need time to rearm and prepare, so the war will most likely last a long time!
  7. +28
    24 September 2025 19: 04
    Our leadership is very wary of domestic destabilization. But they're leading the nation to the point where people are starting to seethe, seeing this spinelessness and sappiness. News of deaths in Novorossiysk, not to mention the Belgorod, Kursk, and Bryansk regions, is already being taken for granted. The burning oil refineries have been unable to organize reliable protection for four years. The governors are being blamed, while senior management remains largely unaffected. Enough!
  8. +6
    24 September 2025 20: 51
    By the way, will any organizational conclusions be drawn from this strategy and hopes for peace at the top?

    Yes, Mr. Marzhetsky, you should think not about what kind of war we need, but about what kind of peace we need. What do we want, what can we get? We want the ruins of Ukraine and the remnants of its population living there who haven't fled to Europe. Why? We want peace with the West, the lifting of sanctions—those goals are clear, but what's unclear is why the West would make peace with us without our de facto capitulation. Although, in fact, peace with the West is capitulation, from the perspective of you-know-who. So we'll fight forever.
    1. +2
      25 September 2025 23: 53
      and about what kind of world we need

      It also seems to me that our people don’t know what to do next, so they’re rushing around with this “truce”...
      Occupying Ukraine is a long war, and then the Banderites will return, which Russia will definitely not agree to, especially since annexing all the territories was not even considered from the start. Not finishing off these Nazis is a 100% problem for the future, and they will definitely not calm down, and there are those who will not allow this... Like a suitcase without a handle, it is impossible to carry and impossible to leave... But it is simply necessary to cleanse Ukraine of at least the bulk of the Ukrainian fascists.
      1. +2
        26 September 2025 02: 20
        ...And it is simply necessary to cleanse Ukraine of at least the bulk of Ukrainian fascists.

        I'm really curious how you plan to cleanse Ukraine of at least the bulk of Ukrainian fascists, if at the same time:

        Occupying Ukraine would be a long war, and then the Banderites would come back again, something Russia would definitely not agree to.
      2. 0
        26 September 2025 12: 02
        It's like a suitcase without a handle, impossible to carry and impossible to leave...

        This is a true statement about Ukraine, but there's also an opinion about our army and economy, where things are far from rosy. Contract soldiers are dwindling, unpopular mobilization is on the agenda, and the use of nuclear weapons is on the agenda. At the front, there's a stalemate with little progress.
  9. +3
    24 September 2025 20: 54
    Another throw-in - an explanation.
    Guessing game: "What did they decide in the Kremlin?"

    And you can come up with dozens of guessing games, all of them will be plausible, but the typically imperialistic reasons will be clearly visible.
  10. +2
    24 September 2025 21: 04
    We are not fighting the way we should have fought in the Great Patriotic War No. 2

    Well, I couldn't, said the tortoise, losing the race to the hare.
  11. +7
    24 September 2025 21: 21
    How can you win a war without superior weapons? Yes, some new technology is emerging, but it's not enough to achieve victory.
    Now the battles are going on machine gun against machine gun, drone against drone, shell against shell, even bombs have already started flying from that side.
    In my opinion, if all the crossings over the Dnieper had been destroyed a year ago, it would have had a huge impact on the battlefield. Supplying the Ukrainians on the left bank would have been a very difficult task. No pontoon bridges would have helped them survive. As it is, we have what we have.
    (For example, stuff a civilian Boeing or several remotely controlled ones with explosives and, under the cover of a massive drone attack and jamming throughout Ukraine, direct them towards bridges.)
    Okay, there's no harm in wanting.
  12. +11
    24 September 2025 21: 59
    And why didn’t we start fighting in earnest?
    1. +3
      25 September 2025 08: 46
      The question is in the title, but you forgot to write the answer. request
    2. +8
      25 September 2025 10: 34
      Because a serious answer to your reasonable question is an article, and not by this author.
    3. +3
      25 September 2025 15: 06
      For answering this question you can get jailed for "discrediting".
  13. +1
    24 September 2025 22: 18
    As ironic as it may sound now, Russia hasn't really started in earnest yet

    ...And will he start? Under these guys? I doubt it. Even Rogozin, if he were at the helm, would give them a run for their money. Not to mention those who have already left... The last of whom was, of course, Yazov.
  14. +11
    24 September 2025 22: 57
    Trump's words: "The Kremlin and the Russian Security Council are filled with weaklings and sissies who refuse to give the security forces the political go-ahead to exterminate the Nazis, who are practically all Nazis even in the Ukrainian rear... They're weaklings and sissies. There's no firm, decisive order to exterminate the Nazis."
  15. +3
    24 September 2025 23: 25
    "Paper Tiger": Why Russia Hasn't Yet Started a Serious War

    Because the tiger cub only roars menacingly, but due to weakness, he cannot fight off the attacking pack of EU jackals.
  16. +3
    25 September 2025 00: 12
    But here's the question: where is the non-paper Armata and where are the changes to combat FPV?
  17. +8
    25 September 2025 01: 40
    ...Russia has been leading the war for three and a half years now senseless A war that a true military power should have won in less than a week. This doesn't do Russia any credit. On the contrary, it increasingly makes it look like a "paper tiger."

    ...Perhaps the only false word here is "meaningless"...
    Otherwise, everything is correct... And this has been said by our sober-minded and even official Kremlin and pro-Kremlin experts... Not to mention those commenting "from the people..."
    ...It's offensive to hear this (and now in the form of mocking ridicule) from a geopolitical adversary who, it seems, "has deceived us again"...
    It's a shame about the actual humiliation of the Motherland...
    Well, do something so that dear friend Trump is forced to drastically change his mind...
    For starters, hang or shoot a couple of greedy oligarchic traitor-thieves or high-ranking official traitors... Cruelly punish those responsible for the already forgotten - the regroupings, the Kursk annoyance, the successful enemy strikes on our strategic aviation airfields, the disabling of the RT in Crimea...
    And at the same time, burn a couple of hubs on the western borders of the Ukrainian Reich, to ashes, not "targets hit"... Targets must be completely destroyed, not "hit"... You can hit a target with a slingshot... but how much good will that do?...
    It's been a long time since, as punishment for the shelling of our border towns and cities (and Kursk, for that matter), the brazen drone strikes on Moscow and even the Kremlin, it was time to turn the banking sector into a showpiece quarry...
    A debate about which is more powerful: a paper tiger or a paper bear—that's pure Lavrovism and completely unbecoming of a militarily powerful state. It would have been better to simply remain ominously silent, take a break, and then, for example, burn down the port in Odessa.
    We will eventually reach a point (and I have already said this) where we will have to use nuclear weapons, but not first..., but in response!..
  18. +5
    25 September 2025 03: 23
    This is probably how Russia fights in earnest. What will happen in a war with the United States? God save Russia!
  19. +2
    25 September 2025 03: 26
    I think there's simply no money for a total war. It's one thing to bomb targets 40-70 km from the front line with relatively cheap FABs, but it's quite another to build missiles for strikes 200-300 km away. How much would one such missile cost? Probably 30 million. In the event of a total war, it would be necessary to produce 100 missiles a day for a year. What country's budget could handle that?
    1. 0
      25 September 2025 15: 51
      Fifteen years ago, when I was researching this issue, I dug up information that a PM-based traumatic pistol for civilians cost about fifteen thousand, while a combat PM pistol for the Ministry of Defense was about seven hundred rubles. Ammo was the same story; I can't vouch for the exact figures, but something like thirty rubles apiece for civilians and about seventy kopecks for the army.
      Smoke what "war communism" is, maybe he'll get it too. To put it mildly, it's like when a combine operator used his six-month salary to buy a tank for the army.
    2. 0
      25 September 2025 23: 39
      Our budget somehow manages to tolerate these kinds of quirks with 68-ruble pens for managing our affairs:
      https://pikabu.ru/story/poka_narod_skidyivaetsya_na_gumanitarku_svoshnikam_i_utiraet_slezyi_schastya_glyadya_na_tsenyi_pravitelstvo_zakupaet_zolotyie_ruchki_13219070

      As for the cost of missiles, here's some simple information, food for thought: the cost of one Iskander ballistic missile (range 500 km, warhead 480-540 kg) is about $3 million or about 300 million rubles (https://amalantra.ru/raketa-9m723/https://a1plus.am/ru/article/149875) - some say it's cheaper: 50 million rubles (https://www.bolshoyvopros.ru/questions/4002492-kakaja-stoimost-rakety-iskander.html).
      Here's how much is spent on media in Russia: https://tass.ru/ekonomika/15899657
      https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/7363945 - 139 млрд. рублей за год!
      Divide these hundreds of billions of rubles by 300 million rubles and you'll understand how many Iskander missiles they simply didn't make, instead giving money to ideology...
      1. 0
        26 September 2025 13: 25
        I divided it, if it’s correct, then they’ve all already fired, we need to make new ones.
  20. The comment was deleted.
  21. +3
    25 September 2025 06: 18
    To gain the upper hand in this squabble, we must abandon the Soviet military and declare full-scale war, razing everything that moves to the ground using every available means. But to do that, our leaders must have lost their nerve. The strangest thing is, the population would generally support such a course of events.
  22. +3
    25 September 2025 08: 00
    Conclusions?? I'm not sure. Only if there's a change in management.
  23. -2
    25 September 2025 08: 48
    Why hasn't Russia started fighting in earnest yet?

    But what does Russia have to do with it?
    In Russia, everyone knows why it fights the way it does.
    "We're not like that..."
  24. 0
    25 September 2025 09: 13
    Donnie realized that stopping the war wouldn't work. It would only end with a victory for one side. And that side certainly wasn't Ukraine. And the sooner victory came, the sooner the war would end. The US had withdrawn from the conflict, or at least had no intention of throwing its troops into the crucible of this war, which couldn't be said about Europe. There were plenty of hotheads there, but they were cowardly and couldn't seem to reach an agreement. And everyone was looking to the US: if we go after Russia, will you help us? So Trump was provoking Europe: go and punish Russia, it's weak and helpless! And we'll stand here, overseas, and if anything happens, we'll step in. In the meantime, buy weapons from us; you have nothing to fight Russia with. It's the same position as during World War II: you fight, and we'll watch and then join whoever's clearly winning. History is repeating itself. If he does provoke the Europeans to enter 404, then Russia will have to use the full range of weapons, from Oreshnik to tactical nuclear weapons.
    1. +1
      25 September 2025 10: 39
      They had exactly the same position in WWII. If Germany had won, the Americans would have fought on its side.
      1. +1
        25 September 2025 13: 08
        But the US had already begun Lend-Lease against Germany in early 1941. It would have been strange to openly support Great Britain while keeping Germany's side in mind, wouldn't it?
        And yes, Germany itself declared war on the USA, so don't talk nonsense.
        1. 0
          25 September 2025 13: 58
          You're talking nonsense. It's a well-known fact that American corporations collaborated closely with Nazi Germany after Hitler came to power. Long before WWII, American industrialists and financiers were building oil refineries and supplying machinery and equipment. Standard Oil invested $120 million in Germany, General Motors $35 million, ITT $30 million, and Ford Motor Company $17,5 million. These were enormous sums by the standards of the time. To put this into perspective, a million dollars in the 1930s is equivalent to almost $18 million in 2024. Rockefeller, Henry Ford, and Pierre du Pont invested enormous sums in Hitler, helping to boost industry, which Germany had converted to war production. The US has always followed the principle "money has no smell."
          1. 0
            25 September 2025 21: 40
            What does the 1930s have to do with this if the conversation was about WWII? What a mess. Could we also cite Germany as an example of cooperation with the US?
        2. The comment was deleted.
  25. +3
    25 September 2025 09: 26
    There's a type of person who faces a specific task—the destruction of an enemy regime—and they know, in principle, what needs to be done. But for certain reasons, not wanting to completely fall out with their "Western partners," they come up with other naive ways to accomplish the task (diplomatic approaches). They convince themselves and others that this way they can achieve their goals without resorting to extreme, yet necessary, measures. But this naivety is merely a way to delay making the right, difficult decision. We've been observing this for 25 years, and especially in the last four years. It's gotten to the point where our "Western partners" are openly calling us a "paper tiger." And yet we're still waiting and hoping for something.
    1. +3
      26 September 2025 13: 38
      What don't you understand about Putin? He's been in the public eye for 25 years. He only received his first significant popular support after the annexation of Crimea (which could very well have been a coincidence). His other management decisions for the benefit of the country are highly questionable (remember the pension reform in exchange for 350 billion rubles invested in the European economy).
  26. +10
    25 September 2025 09: 27
    It's long been clear that the utter incompetence of the Central Military District's policy, the constant failures in foreign policy (except in Africa and Antarctica), and all these super projects in industry and the economy are the result of the utter incompetence of the country's leadership. It's embarrassing to even hear about aviation and space. That's why Russia, Great Russia, is considered a paper tiger. And that's putting it mildly.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. 0
      11 October 2025 12: 50
      Quote: Valya
      It's long been clear that the utter incompetence of the Central Military District's policy, the constant failures in foreign policy (except in Africa and Antarctica), and all these super projects in industry and the economy are the result of the utter incompetence of the country's leadership. It's embarrassing to even hear about aviation and space. That's why Russia, Great Russia, is considered a paper tiger. And that's putting it mildly.

      Valya, haven't they bombed enough of you crests there in Dnieper?
  27. -2
    25 September 2025 10: 36
    Crises and international relations aren't just about decisions, actions, and communication. They're also about constructing statuses, which everything depends on. The SVO began because the West's actions in Ukraine were lowering Russia's status to the ground. Tolerating this meant self-destruction.

    The same thing is happening now. The drone strike in Poland brought NATO and the EU down overnight, as if someone with high status had dirty underwear thrown on their pillow in a cell in front of everyone. After that, that person is no longer the same. Same thing with NATO.

    Now they're trying to rectify the situation by talking about shooting down Russian planes. All of these steps of escalation are still present in the realm of meaning and status. But the president's recent remarks, "not just words," in the context of Russia's possible reaction, represent an even greater "demotion" to NATO than the drones.

    The West has put itself in a situation where, if Russia wants it, it will have to respond in earnest. And that could be problematic. Therefore, it's better not to feign authority, but to quietly accept at least a place not by the latrine.
    1. +1
      25 September 2025 21: 39
      The same thing is happening now. The drone in Poland brought NATO and the EU down overnight, as if someone with high status had dirty underwear thrown on their pillow in a cell in front of everyone. After that, that person is no longer the same. The same thing with NATO.

      What then should we call Operation Spiderweb, the attacks on Russian oil refineries, and a bunch of other stuff?)))
  28. +1
    25 September 2025 10: 57
    Whatever anyone says, the reality is we're in a draw: we acquired (liberated historically our own) lands, reached the mouth of the Dnieper, and they—they survived. The junta is still in place, and it has billions of dollars in cash, not hryvnias. The LBS is static, the forces of the two sides are equal. Given this, it's reasonable to call it a draw. One can, of course, dream of Odessa, but that's like dreaming of becoming an astronaut. Continuing to fight would be a balm for the souls of rotten Europe and Britain. The depletion of our resources is obvious; the only thing that awaits us is a new wave of mobilization, a budget deficit the size of outer space, and an economic recession. And for all this, there's nothing in return. The wisdom lies in the fact that if there's no prospect of victory, a draw is perfectly acceptable, because losing is still the option.
    1. +2
      25 September 2025 12: 01
      At our top, no matter how wise or clever, there's always a thief or profiteer for whom the Russian Federation is merely a source of profit. They've all long been outsiders. Chubais, for example, was a complete insider, but he became a Jewish citizen of Israel, and there are thousands like him. If there's no will to win at the top, even nuclear weapons won't help. They're afraid of both victory and defeat. All that's left is the process of fighting, for the sake of fighting, and waiting for the US President to find a solution to the Ukrainian issue.
    2. +1
      25 September 2025 17: 16
      The problem is that there can't be a draw by definition. If we stop on the LBS and cease shelling enemy territory—and we could easily be ordered to do so—the enemy won't stop shelling us, carrying out sabotage, etc. And having built up their strength, the enemy will advance again. A dead end.
  29. +7
    25 September 2025 11: 27
    Putin, of course, doesn't read Marzhetsky's articles, but he should have slipped them something. But Peskov is there, looking for something to slip in and reporting to his boss that everything is fine, the people approve. Meanwhile, the people have simply given up and see that nothing good will come of it, four years after all...
  30. +7
    25 September 2025 11: 34
    That is why most citizens do not associate the SVO with war, but rather with the theater of the absurd and the oligarchs' deal((( only the people pay for everything, many even with blood am
  31. +3
    25 September 2025 12: 07
    The Kremlin is doing everything it can to ensure that no one in the ruling Kyiv junta is harmed, otherwise they could upset Trump. And that's the worst thing. This is the kind of war that needs not victory, but a relationship with Trump.
  32. +4
    25 September 2025 12: 09
    Seriously, how can this be? In my district center with a population of 16, not a single person died in the Afghan and Chechen wars.
    And just now I went to the cemetery in the summer - there were already 30 graves... What could be more serious?
    1. +2
      26 September 2025 13: 53
      In Afghanistan, the official losses are 10000, and that's out of a population of 350 million in the USSR. If you recalculate it based on your 30 graves, then the losses are at least 600000. But on the other hand, these are completely different military operations with their own specifics.
      1. 0
        26 September 2025 20: 21
        You've got the wrong number. Afghanistan officially has 15, and the population wasn't 350 million in the USSR.
        1. 0
          26 September 2025 20: 50
          Well, I'll be damned, live and learn. Where did I get the idea of ​​350 million people (I've been using that figure my whole life)? Probably from the idea that an independent market requires 350 million, and the socialist camp could have an economy closed to the outside world (but I forgot that the USSR wasn't the entire socialist camp). And with your amendment of 15,000 in Afghanistan, 300 million in the USSR, and 145 million in Russia, the calculations are as follows: 0.005% losses and not a single monument in your town, which corresponds to 0.15% with losses of 30 people—450,000 losses per population of the USSR, or 225,000 per population of Russia. Sounds very much like the truth. The price of victory will be even higher.
  33. +7
    25 September 2025 12: 29
    a scenario involving "polite people" approaching Ukraine from several directions. This was the one chosen, and it failed miserably.

    And those who came up with it and planned it continue to sit in their mahogany-paneled offices with sly grins, while ordinary men spend four years stuck in the mud, dying and suffering serious injuries. They're dealing with this mess. A friend of mine hasn't washed properly for a month and a half, sitting in holes in the woods, "hustling" with a Ukrainian, as he puts it.
    And these dinosaurs with their withered, drooping faces sit there as if nothing's wrong, as if nothing's happening. Meanwhile, their enemies mock them, calling them paper tigers.
  34. -2
    25 September 2025 15: 19
    Russia is not at war with the population of Ukraine, unlike Ukraine, which is at war with all Russians, including women, the elderly, and children.
    Under similar conditions, the Americans and the British would have simply carpet-bombed every building, structure, and home, much like the Israelis did in Gaza.
    1. +1
      25 September 2025 21: 42
      Where can I see statistics on the number of women, elderly people, and children killed in military action in Ukraine and Russia? And compare?
      1. -1
        26 September 2025 16: 51
        It is reported that:
        https://news.un.org/ru/story/2025/01/1460441
        https://www.newsinfo.ru/news/bastrykin-zhertvy-svo-mirnye-zhiteli/880000/
        1. -1
          26 September 2025 20: 23
          Everyone can draw their own conclusions.
  35. -2
    25 September 2025 16: 47
    Quote: Jackie
    ...well, the "hope for mediation by the 47th US President" seems to have died a long time ago, as has the expectation of some local politicians that

    When the master arrives, the master will judge us.

    The circus hasn't left, the redhead is in the arena.

    Young lady, it seems you have already been told that you may be looking for clowns and clownesses in the wrong place. love
  36. +6
    25 September 2025 20: 24
    As bitter as it may be, Trump is absolutely right when he calls our country a paper tiger. There's no arguing with that.
  37. RFR
    +3
    26 September 2025 01: 30
    It's like that everywhere in life: when talentless and incompetent people are in charge, everything goes wrong... We've seen it all with our own eyes... And we'll be watching it for a long time to come...
  38. 0
    26 September 2025 13: 05
    The conclusions at the end of the article are correct, but meaningless without concrete proposals for rectifying the situation. And the final question about the current government's organizational conclusions conceals a rhetorical answer: no. The leader won't "flog" himself, and events are unfolding entirely according to Western models. The long-proclaimed "1000 cuts" concept fully takes into account the balance that is crucial to avoiding another level of escalation, which, incidentally, the West will not survive, and Putin will not implement for reasons not explained in the article. Let's discuss these reasons: is it banal fear, or possession of information essential for such "abstinence," or a deliberate strategy for the development of events? Or perhaps these reasons differ at different stages of the SVO?
  39. 0
    26 September 2025 16: 12
    It's just that no one expected that Romka Abramovich would actually be in charge of Russia, with the main Govorun acting as his lackey.
  40. -1
    26 September 2025 17: 29
    Linking Russia's honor to victory in a senseless war? It sounds obscurantist, at the very least, in the spirit of the satanic goal of the current US Constitution of 1787—"the good of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"—and its derivative, the godless 2020 "God" Amendment, which was the main factor in the bloody massacre of the Slavs.
  41. oao
    -1
    28 September 2025 14: 04
    I still don't understand what needs to be done? Bridges and logistics are already being destroyed to the best of their ability. There are no resources for more. Mobilization cannot be carried out without incidents like those Khokhloma videos about shopping malls. Nuclear weapons remain. But they will never be the first to be used.
    1. 0
      1 October 2025 17: 04
      But it will never be used first.

      Never say never. And I wouldn't recommend living in central Kyiv or near military installations.
  42. +1
    30 September 2025 09: 47
    It's a disgrace. There's a complete lack of political will "at the top." Political impotence. What are they even trying to achieve there?
  43. 0
    1 October 2025 12: 53
    Who should we start fighting with? All the Russian youth have fled to the border and are fighting for the Ukrainians. [The text appears to be incomplete and likely a mistranslation.]
  44. 0
    3 October 2025 08: 04
    "Paper Tiger": Why Russia Hasn't Yet Started a Serious War

    Maybe I forgot how to do it?
    Technologies, like gritza, were lost during the reforms. Only past memories remain.