This is either true or not true. Either way, not good for Putin.
Wouldn’t Putin have to prove that Ukrainians have drones that can travel undetected all the way to Moscow and blow up the Kremlin? This is typical Putin’s MO, he’s trying to mobilize more Russians, and the same time giving the world an excuse for sending missiles to Kyiv itself. This mad man has got to be stopped.
^^ What twitter does to people's ability to discuss issues.
I took this comment seriously and looked to see whether you had discussed John Quigley's historical review and analysis of Crimea's relationship with Russia that I had posted for discussion but found that you were unable to do so.
"John Quigley's historical review and analysis of Crimea's relationship with Russia" is nonexistent in the piece you posted. You're making it up. We've already been through this -
Quigley as quoted by Paul: “From the nineteenth century, Crimea was Russian, until 1954, …”
This is an example of where there’s more historical truth in a novel, than in a work touted as nonfiction.
Crimea was ruled from Russia, as part of the Czarist empire, from the 19th century, but wasn’t “Russian”. I had suggested that Paul find a way to familiarize himself with that history, but it looks like he declined to do so.
Absent from Quigley’s piece is the “how” of the presence of the Russian population. I mean that literally, he “yadda yadda yaddas” from the 19th century to Khrushchev.
Quigley and the old woman who believes everything Putin claims, in the excerpt I posted from the novel, have a lot in common.
You're confirming Mr. PVW's observation.
My quote was of Mark Kramer, who said that prior to Khrushchev's gifting of Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954 Crimea had been Russian since 1783. It's telling that neither you nor PVW have agreed to stipulate to this simple fact.
When you attempt to obfuscate that Crimea was Russian in 1954 by observing that changes of populations and borders resulted from the brutal decrees of an empire, you are logically denying the legitimacy of the population and borders of virtually every country in the world, including the United States, whose population and borders were formed by annexations, wars and the forcible movement of populations -- a process that continued long after Crimea had become part of Russia.
Do I really have to remind you -- for starters -- of the Middle Passage, the Trail of Tears and the British Transportation Act?
Paul - is Vlad annihilating a sovereign nation? Is his sending his conscripts to slaughter?
What needs to happen to make him stop. It seems like more land handover is key - right? I've asked you this from the start - where are the landlines that Vlad will be happy with. It's used to be the Donbass - but it's pretty clear he has always wanted more.
How many nazis have been wiped out and who is their current leader? This to me is very critical.
^^ What twitter does to people's ability to discuss issues.
I took this comment seriously and looked to see whether you had discussed John Quigley's historical review and analysis of Crimea's relationship with Russia that I had posted for discussion but found that you were unable to do so.
"John Quigley's historical review and analysis of Crimea's relationship with Russia" is nonexistent in the piece you posted. You're making it up. We've already been through this -
Quigley as quoted by Paul: “From the nineteenth century, Crimea was Russian, until 1954, …”
This is an example of where there’s more historical truth in a novel, than in a work touted as nonfiction.
Crimea was ruled from Russia, as part of the Czarist empire, from the 19th century, but wasn’t “Russian”. I had suggested that Paul find a way to familiarize himself with that history, but it looks like he declined to do so.
Absent from Quigley’s piece is the “how” of the presence of the Russian population. I mean that literally, he “yadda yadda yaddas” from the 19th century to Khrushchev.
Quigley and the old woman who believes everything Putin claims, in the excerpt I posted from the novel, have a lot in common.
You're confirming Mr. PVW's observation.
My quote was of Mark Kramer, who said that prior to Khrushchev's gifting of Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954 Crimea had been Russian since 1783.
No it wasn't. My post about Quigley's "yadda yadda yadda" was made before you even mentioned Kramer yesterday. It's a message board, so your incorrect claims can be easily checked by looking at the previous page.
And you're obfuscating the actual issues by simply repeating one (of many) historical facts for which you could have cited a Wikipedia page instead of Kramer (especially since you ignored all of the other historical facts he mentions and his analysis).
Do I really have to remind you -- for starters -- of the Middle Passage, the Trail of Tears and the British Transportation Act?
Careful, Paul, you don't want to make yourself vulnerable to a charge that you're doing CRT, or even worse, "going woke".
And the Middle Passage was the transport of people from Africa to the Americas, not colonization. And the British Transportation Act is even less relevant to this discussion - you may as well have mentioned Ellis Island.
Let's start at the beginning of this latest run, shall we? As reported in the NYT:
"Responding to a question from the French television station, TF1, about whether Crimea was part of Ukraine under international law, he said that Crimea was historically Russian and had been handed over to Ukraine; then he added, “Even these countries of the former Soviet Union do not have an effective status in international law, since there is no international agreement that would specify their status as sovereign countries."
And your response was "He's definitely right about Crimea."
This is clearly wrong in a number of ways. Let's start with the straightforward legal angle -- Ukraine has been an independent nation, with it borders including Crimea and the Donbas, since 1991. It's been recognized as such, and with these borders -- Poland and Canada being the first countries to officially recognize independent Ukraine in 1991, other countries soon following. Including Russia. It's a full member of the United Nations. This idea that Ukraine, Ukraine's claim to Crimea, and other independent states that were formerly part of the USSR do not have an effective status in international law is quite simply wrong as a factual matter. If you're claiming that the Chinese ambassador was "right," it must be in some metaphorical or moral sense since he is quite clearly wrong in a literal sense.
It is true that in 1954 Kurshchev redrew an internal border of the USSR so that Crimea would be in the Ukrainian SSR rather than the Russian SSR. What's unclear is why you find that significant. It does nothing to undermine Ukraine's legal claim to Crimea -- if anything, it strengthens it, making the Chinese ambassador even more wrong.
So perhaps you mean to say that Russia has some kind of moral right to Crimea? But that raises the question of how it was that Crimea was Russia's to "give" in the first place. Which raises the question of colonialism I've pointed to. Russia took Crimea by force in the 18th century, and over the next century and half displaced its original inhabitants and sent Russian settlers there. That's a pretty straightforwardly colonial project -- I don't understand how that's even disputable? It wasn't even ancient history at the time of Krushchev's "gift" -- the final deportation was in 1944.
I'm not sure what your purpose is in bringing up examples of British and American colonialism -- I guess based on your defense of Russia's treatment of Crimea, you're citing these as events you also approve of? Or you are confused and think that for some reason I'm a fan of the Trail of Tears? (not sure how anyone who's been reading my posts over the years could think so, but, as I've noted, you don't seem to be an especially close reader).
Finally, if you're arguing that the presence of Russian speakers in territory formerly controlled by the Russian empire grants contemporary Russia some claim to those lands, then it's not just Ukraine that's potentially in the cross-hairs here. The whole arc of nations from the Black Sea to the Baltic has significant Russian-speaking populations and land formerly controlled by the Russian Empire, which by the your logic means Russia has some claim to that land. This means your former argument -- that Russia posed no threat to eastern Europe, and so there was no need for them to seek NATO membership, is wrong.
This was last year. Giving Paul the benefit of the doubt that he either never saw this or forgot about it before trying to whatabout Crimea with American colonialism:
The history of Texas is interesting here because it actually mirrors in some ways Russia's actions in Ukraine. Americans moved into Mexico, then launched a revolt. These American-backed separatists had more success than the Russian-backed ones did in Donbas, and declared themselves an independent republic. Nine years later, the US brought Texas in as a new state. So it was in a way a kind of stealth annexation.
Personally, I think this was an example of unjust imperialist aggression by the United States -- not least because it was driven by slaveholders (worth noting that Mexico outlawed slavery; the American settlers brought in slaves anyway, and on declaring independence legalized slavery. During the civil war, slaveholders sent their slaves west to Texas to try and keep them in bondage; the arrival of Union Major General Gordon Granger in Galveston in June of 1865, two months after Appomattox, marked the end of slavery in Texas and is the origin of the Juneteenth holiday).
If one is appalled by U.S. imperialism, I don't see how one could possibly support Russian imperialism.
Let's refocus here. Putin launched an illegal, unjustified, unwise and unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation. He needs to be stopped. The history of how we got here is not of any immediate use unless you are like Paul Surovell and his ilk whose sole aim in life is to blame the United States for all that is wrong in the world
The United States is behind the Ukrainian attack on the Kremlin residence of Russian President Vladimir Putin, spokesman for the head of state Dmitry Peskov said."
“Attempts to disown this both in Kiev and in Washington are, of course, absolutely ridiculous. We know very well that decisions on such actions and such terrorist attacks are made not in Kiev, but in Washington. And Kiev is already doing what they tell him to do it," he said.
As Peskov added, Moscow knows that often the goals themselves are determined not by Kyiv, but by Washington. After that, the United States indicates to the Ukrainian military an object for attack, demanding that the Ukrainian Armed Forces complete the task.
If the USA had planned to bomb the Kremlin, it would have been flattened. This is Putin’s false flag propaganda, I saw a Lot of bright flash and little explosive power, even the flagpole on the roof is still intact. Russian stupidity at its best here..who’s gonna drop a bomb on the Kremlin in the middle of the night to kill Putin? Even if he was on top of the roof in broad daylight sunbathing! Just more foolishness that will take over the Twitter sphere.
The United States is behind the Ukrainian attack on the Kremlin residence of Russian President Vladimir Putin, spokesman for the head of state Dmitry Peskov said."
“Attempts to disown this both in Kiev and in Washington are, of course, absolutely ridiculous. We know very well that decisions on such actions and such terrorist attacks are made not in Kiev, but in Washington. And Kiev is already doing what they tell him to do it," he said.
As Peskov added, Moscow knows that often the goals themselves are determined not by Kyiv, but by Washington. After that, the United States indicates to the Ukrainian military an object for attack, demanding that the Ukrainian Armed Forces complete the task.
The United States is behind the Ukrainian attack on the Kremlin residence of Russian President Vladimir Putin, spokesman for the head of state Dmitry Peskov said."
“Attempts to disown this both in Kiev and in Washington are, of course, absolutely ridiculous. We know very well that decisions on such actions and such terrorist attacks are made not in Kiev, but in Washington. And Kiev is already doing what they tell him to do it," he said.
As Peskov added, Moscow knows that often the goals themselves are determined not by Kyiv, but by Washington. After that, the United States indicates to the Ukrainian military an object for attack, demanding that the Ukrainian Armed Forces complete the task.
We don't need Russia to tell us that Ukraine is a puppet of the U.S.
This was last year. Giving Paul the benefit of the doubt that he either never saw this or forgot about it before trying to whatabout Crimea with American colonialism:
The history of Texas is interesting here because it actually mirrors in some ways Russia's actions in Ukraine. Americans moved into Mexico, then launched a revolt. These American-backed separatists had more success than the Russian-backed ones did in Donbas, and declared themselves an independent republic. Nine years later, the US brought Texas in as a new state. So it was in a way a kind of stealth annexation.
Personally, I think this was an example of unjust imperialist aggression by the United States -- not least because it was driven by slaveholders (worth noting that Mexico outlawed slavery; the American settlers brought in slaves anyway, and on declaring independence legalized slavery. During the civil war, slaveholders sent their slaves west to Texas to try and keep them in bondage; the arrival of Union Major General Gordon Granger in Galveston in June of 1865, two months after Appomattox, marked the end of slavery in Texas and is the origin of the Juneteenth holiday).
If one is appalled by U.S. imperialism, I don't see how one could possibly support Russian imperialism.
I see no evidence that you're appalled by US imperialism. You won't even criticize the US occupation in Syria.
The United States is behind the Ukrainian attack on the Kremlin residence of Russian President Vladimir Putin, spokesman for the head of state Dmitry Peskov said."
“Attempts to disown this both in Kiev and in Washington are, of course, absolutely ridiculous. We know very well that decisions on such actions and such terrorist attacks are made not in Kiev, but in Washington. And Kiev is already doing what they tell him to do it," he said.
As Peskov added, Moscow knows that often the goals themselves are determined not by Kyiv, but by Washington. After that, the United States indicates to the Ukrainian military an object for attack, demanding that the Ukrainian Armed Forces complete the task.
We don't need Russia to tell us that Ukraine is a puppet of the U.S.
We have Mr. Surovell to tell us that.
Noam Chomsky confirmed that relationship and a similar one with UK.
And he said much more about the proxy war in Ukraine, citing some statistics (in bold) that will make you cranky:
At 94 years old, Noam Chomsky is as vocal as ever. In May, the American political commentator and linguist will publish his latest book, Illegitimate Authority, a collection of interviews with the political scientist CJ Polychroniou, primarily focusing on foreign policy. The interviews span a period from March 2021 to June 2022, covering in particular the prelude to and first months of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
When I spoke to Chomsky over video call from his home in Arizona, we spent most of our time discussing the war in Ukraine. The conflict marks a time of great fluctuation in the international order, which one might think would test the convictions of Chomsky, whose critical view of US foreign policy came to international prominence during the Vietnam War. His 1967 essay “The Responsibility of Intellectuals”, published in the New York Review of Books, pilloried the American intellectual class for helping to sanitise their government’s actions abroad and the atrocities committed in Vietnam. The Ukraine war is a very different conflict, however. This time, the US is supporting a sovereign country under attack by an external aggressor. Chomsky also has a family connection to the region: his father was born in what is now Ukraine, before emigrating to the US in 1913.
Watch: Noam Chomsky speaks to Ido Vock for the World Review podcast
Yet Chomsky’s world-view does not leave space for Ukrainian agency. It is the “US and Britain” who have “refused” peace negotiations in Ukraine, Chomsky tells me, in order to further their own national interests, even as the country is being “battered, devastated”. That negotiations with Russia would mean de facto abandoning millions of Ukrainians to the whims of an aggressor that has shown itself capable of extraordinary brutality, such as in Bucha and Izyum, is dismissed. “Ukraine is not a free actor; they’re dependent on what the US determines,” he says, adding that the US is supplying Kyiv with weapons simply to weaken Russia. “For the US, this is a bargain. For a fraction of the colossal military budget, the US is able to severely degrade the military forces of its only real military adversary.”
According to Chomsky, Russia is acting with restraint and moderation. He compares Russia’s way of fighting with the US’s during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, arguing that large-scale destruction of infrastructure seen in that conflict “hasn’t happened in Ukraine”. He adds: “Undoubtedly Russia could do it, presumably with conventional weapons. [Russia] could make Kyiv as unliveable as Baghdad was, could move in to attacking supply lines in western Ukraine.”
Bottom of Form
When I asked him to clarify whether he was implying that Russia is fighting more humanely in Ukraine than the US did in Iraq, Chomsky replies, “I’m not implying it, it’s obvious.” Delegations of UN inspectors had to be withdrawn once the invasion of Iraq began, he says, “because the attack was so severe and extreme… That’s the US and British style of war.” Chomsky adds: “Take a look at casualties. All I know is the official numbers… the official UN numbers are about 8,000 civilian casualties [in Ukraine]. How many civilian casualties were there when the US and Britain attacked Iraq?”
The number of foreign dignitaries who have travelled to Kyiv since the war broke out is proof of Russia’s restraint, Chomsky says, in stark contrast with Iraq. “When the US and Britain were smashing Baghdad to pieces, did any foreign leaders go to visit Baghdad? No, because when the US and Britain go to war, they go for the jugular. They destroy everything: communications, transportation, energy, shock and awe – anything that makes society function.”
Estimates of civilian deaths from the invasion of Iraq vary widely. An estimate by the Iraq Body Count project (IBC), considered one of the most comprehensive databases of deaths during the Iraq War, puts the total civilian death toll at between 186,000 and 210,000 in the 20 years since the 2003 invasion, which it says is likely an under-count. Almost 25,000 of those deaths are directly attributable to the US-led coalition and its Iraqi allies. Tens of thousands more are attributable to anti-government insurgents, including Islamic State, according to the IBC. Responsibility for more than 100,000 civilian deaths cannot be conclusively attributed.
The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has recorded 8,490 civilians killed and 14,244 injured in Ukraine since the start of Russia’s invasion 14 months ago. However, it “believes that the actual figures are considerably higher” because of poor data from areas with high civilian casualties, such as the city of Mariupol in the south. Ukrainian officials believe that tens of thousands – perhaps up to 50,000 people – died in Mariupol alone during Russia’s siege of the city in 2022.
At times, Chomsky’s ideological priors lead him to overlook facts that might contradict his narrative. For instance, Sweden and Finland, which had been officially non-aligned for 210 and 73 years, respectively, both applied to join Nato in May 2022. To most observers, the end of their decades of neutrality might seem at least tangentially related to the invasion of Ukraine three months earlier. However, Chomsky says that both countries seeking to join Nato had “nothing to do with fear of a Russian attack, which has never been even conceived”. Claims that Russia could threaten either country amount to “Western propaganda”, he adds. Instead, Chomsky argues that joining Nato gives the military industries of both Nordic countries “great new market opportunities [and] new access to advanced equipment”.
In fact, both countries explicitly cited the invasion of Ukraine as the reason behind their applications to join Nato. Moreover, within living memory, Finland fought off Soviet attempts to conquer and annex the country. The Winter War of 1939-40 against the USSR still shapes Finnish attitudes to Russia. Finland joined Nato on 4 April, while Sweden’s application continues to be held up by Turkey’s objections.
Asked what form a potential settlement to the war in Ukraine might take, Chomsky says: “First of all, Ukraine will not be a member of Nato. That’s the red line that every Russian leader has insisted on since [the former Russian president Boris] Yeltsin and [the former Soviet president Mikhail] Gorbachev.” He adds: “Ukraine gains the status of, say, Austria during the Cold War or Mexico today. Mexico can’t join a military alliance [hostile to the US]. There’s no treaty about it but it’s perfectly obvious.”
A peace agreement would involve Ukraine offering “a degree of autonomy” to the eastern Donbas region, today partially occupied by Russia. “With regard to Crimea [which was illegally annexed in 2014]… we put it off for the moment. Let it be discussed later. Those are the basic outlines of a solution under the Minsk II agreement.” The Minsk I and II agreements were signed between Ukraine and Russia in 2014 and 2015. Intended to end the conflict that began in 2014, they included military and political steps that were never implemented by Moscow. The agreements are today widely viewed in Ukraine as having paved the way for Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. “There will be no Minsk III,” as the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky curtly put it last November.
Chomsky’s criticisms of US foreign policy are not limited to Ukraine. Just as Washington provoked Russia with Nato expansion it is also “provoking China openly” over Taiwan, he tells me. “The US is carrying out a programme… to encircle China with a ring of sentinel states armed with advanced precision weapons aimed at China,” an apparent reference to American defence cooperation with countries such as Japan, South Korea and Australia.
“What is the threat from China at this point?” Chomsky asks me. “The threat is coming from the US with, of course, Britain following. [The UK] is just a lackey at this point. It’s not an independent country anymore.” Though he acknowledges that China is “not a nice country” and is violating international law in the South China Sea, he says “the talk about [war over] Taiwan is coming from the West”. Beijing, which views Taiwan as its own territory, has not ruled out an invasion and regularly conducts military exercises which simulate a blockade of the self-governing island.
Reflecting on our conversation, I came across a passage in an essay from Chomsky’s 1970 book At War with Asia. “As long as an American army of occupation remains in Vietnam, the war will continue,” he wrote. “Withdrawal of American troops must be a unilateral act, as the invasion of Vietnam by the American government was a unilateral act in the first place. Those who had been calling for ‘negotiations now’ were deluding themselves and others.” These words seem to me to be more applicable to the war in Ukraine than anything Noam Chomsky said during our conversation 53 years later.
Ido Vock is Europe correspondent at the New Statesman. His work includes analysis of political issues from various countries, including the war in Ukraine and the EU’s energy crisis
The United States is behind the Ukrainian attack on the Kremlin residence of Russian President Vladimir Putin, spokesman for the head of state Dmitry Peskov said."
“Attempts to disown this both in Kiev and in Washington are, of course, absolutely ridiculous. We know very well that decisions on such actions and such terrorist attacks are made not in Kiev, but in Washington. And Kiev is already doing what they tell him to do it," he said.
As Peskov added, Moscow knows that often the goals themselves are determined not by Kyiv, but by Washington. After that, the United States indicates to the Ukrainian military an object for attack, demanding that the Ukrainian Armed Forces complete the task.
We don't need Russia to tell us that Ukraine is a puppet of the U.S.
We have Mr. Surovell to tell us that.
Reminder of how the US-Ukraine relationship worked even before Ukraine became 100% dependent on the US:
We don't need Russia to tell us that Ukraine is a puppet of the U.S.
We have Mr. Surovell to tell us that.
Noam Chomsky confirmed that relationship and a similar one with UK.
He doesn't "confirm" it, he makes statements which are not incontestable. And, his statements don't evidence that he has any better information than anyone who would disagree with his assumptions. As even the article's author notes: "Yet Chomsky’s world-view does not leave space for Ukrainian agency."
Can you refocus your refocus and explain how you propose to stop Putin?
It will be difficult. One big problem, is that as long as he thinks that enough Americans eventually will be willing to undercut support for Ukraine, so that support for Ukraine would be withheld, he'll keep bombing cities there.
I don't think the folks you support, who are trying to make that happen, will succeed in that, Paul.
I see no evidence that you're appalled by US imperialism. You won't even criticize the US occupation in Syria.
This thread has largely been a demonstration of your inability to see things. And as for Syria, I've invited you on multiple occasions to start a thread. For whatever reason, you don't seem to be truly interested in discussing Syria.
Can you refocus your refocus and explain how you propose to stop Putin?
Look I bring this up a lot. #2 reason to invade was to denazify. But neither you or Vlad can identify the nazi leader. Therefore Vlad sees all Ukrainians as nazis and has multiple times claimed ownership of the country.
So - it's fairly hopeless at this point. You seem to have extreme faith in him - you're a big fan of the china plan - which #1 acknowledges sovereignty. So what landlines would Vlad be happy with - you're okay with ceding the 4 oblasts - what protection would we have then. What if more nazis pop up in the other oblasts that are committing genocide (which you never agreed with in the first place) on remaining Russian speaking people?
As I said - the Russian people don't deserve this - wouldn't it be nice if they actually had freedom of press and freedom to demonstrate. This is how change occurs usually with peace movements.
Peace has to start in Russia unfortunately. Vlad won't stop until he has a new world order in place - and perhaps a little more territory.
I see no evidence that you're appalled by US imperialism. You won't even criticize the US occupation in Syria.
This thread has largely been a demonstration of your inability to see things. And as for Syria, I've invited you on multiple occasions to start a thread. For whatever reason, you don't seem to be truly interested in discussing Syria.
Can you refocus your refocus and explain how you propose to stop Putin?
It will be difficult. One big problem, is that as long as he thinks that enough Americans eventually will be willing to undercut support for Ukraine, so that support for Ukraine would be withheld, he'll keep bombing cities there.
I don't think the folks you support, who are trying to make that happen, will succeed in that, Paul.
I know that you support fighting to the last Ukrainian, but my question was addressed to @tjohn. I'm sure that he'll propose something creative/s.
Can you refocus your refocus and explain how you propose to stop Putin?
Look I bring this up a lot. #2 reason to invade was to denazify. But neither you or Vlad can identify the nazi leader. Therefore Vlad sees all Ukrainians as nazis and has multiple times claimed ownership of the country.
So - it's fairly hopeless at this point. You seem to have extreme faith in him - you're a big fan of the china plan - which #1 acknowledges sovereignty. So what landlines would Vlad be happy with - you're okay with ceding the 4 oblasts - what protection would we have then. What if more nazis pop up in the other oblasts that are committing genocide (which you never agreed with in the first place) on remaining Russian speaking people?
As I said - the Russian people don't deserve this - wouldn't it be nice if they actually had freedom of press and freedom to demonstrate. This is how change occurs usually with peace movements.
Peace has to start in Russia unfortunately. Vlad won't stop until he has a new world order in place - and perhaps a little more territory.
You have to go back to the tentative agreement that Ukraine and Russia reached before it was sabotaged by the US and UK for the basis of an agreement which has been made possible by the annexations that were made possible by the US/UK/NATO decision to weaken Russia instead of reaching a deal. China's proposal provides a framework to navigate and negotiate these issues.
Here's a summary of the un-debunked evidence of the the US/UK sabotage of a negotiated settlement a year ago:
Ukraine had negotiated a tentative agreement with Russia to end the conflict in March-April 2022, but Zelensky ended the talks when Boris Johnson told him the West would not support such an agreement (which involved no NATO membership and autonomy for Donbas).
Prigozhin periodically attacks the Russian ministry of defense for not providing enough ammunition for Wagner. He went beyond that today with this graphic video. So far there have been no consequences for his outbursts. This might be different:
Also, hard to know when this video was recorded. He's possibly claiming the army is cutting off his supplies and Putin is unaware. Entirely possible given the fog of war.
Wouldn’t Putin have to prove that Ukrainians have drones that can travel undetected all the way to Moscow and blow up the Kremlin?
This is typical Putin’s MO, he’s trying to mobilize more Russians, and the same time giving the world an excuse for sending missiles to Kyiv itself.
This mad man has got to be stopped.