It's not bad luck. This was planned during the Trump administration, I'm sure. There is a reason Trumpsters and Fox News are rooting for Putin.
Planned? I'm doubtful of that on the Trump side, albeit more because Trump and co seemed much more like they were actively working to please Putin throughout even if there was no overall plan. Still, withdrawing from the Open Skies Treaty, for example, was an action that just increased Russia's ability and likelihood to do this, and it was after Trump lost that the withdrawal happened.
We shouldn't have elected a doddering old fool who has lost much of what little mental capacity he once had. Too late now, though.
Don't kid yourself. Putin thinks Biden is weak. And he's right.
Helsinki. Putin KNEW Trump is both weak and wants to suck up to him, regardless.
It's no accident that Putin waited til Trump was out of office to make this move.
It's quite possible, but not likely for any reasons that reflect well on Trump.
Trump already was opposing Nord Stream II. Biden lifted those sanctions. Trump also kept oil prices down. They've gone way up under Biden.
Trump talked nice about Putin, but his actual actions were not supportive at all. Biden has been far more pro-Russian where it actually matters, regardless of what he says.
Ahh, the joys of rose colored glasses.
What specifically did Biden do to make oil prices rise?
I hear this a lot -this idea that Trump kept prices low and Biden made them go higher- but what exactly can any President actually do about the price of oil? As far as I can tell, oil prices are driven by cartels who decide how much to produce in order to maximize their profits.
Biden's done quite well compared to Trump when it comes to taking measures to restore the economy and control Covid. The big drop in prices had lots to do with covid, after all. Going further, of course, as a general truth, Republicans advocate using drilling and using more oil, while Democrats advocate reducing dependence upon oil. The former is a short term fix that's continually getting less viable as the easy and cheap to obtain oil is continually being reduced (which drives prices up at a fundamental level), the latter is a long term fix. Going a further, though, when we look at Trump himself, Trump personally did lots of things that drove oil prices up and furthered Russia's foreign policy goals.
This is one of those rare situations where "can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs" is the reasonable approach. There has to be some willingness to accept at least a few casualties in order to achieve the result. There's a reason it's called 'war' and not 'garden party'.
But the US has absolutely the best penetration bombers in the history of the world. Their casualties would probably be pretty limited.
Those strikes would almost certainly get intercepted and shot down. Stop being so squeamish.
It's hard to imagine Putin would continue in his aggression if it actually got him into a shooting war with NATO. And I think an effective interdiction bombing campaign, that actually dulled the Russian's ability to sustain the offensive and achieve their military goals on the ground, would lead pretty quickly to a general cease fire and detente where diplomacy had a chance to make a difference.
The west's biggest mistake in all of this has been trying to pretend they could get the benefits of a diplomatic approach without actually bothering to underwrite it with a credible threat of the other thing. More "cargo cult activism". Going through the motions and expecting it to count as actually doing the work.
On these things, I find myself largely in agreement with you. Going a little further, I also don't think that Russia has as much ability to actually fight as they project on an economic, equipment, or skill level. If there was a serious commitment to stop them, I think that, at very best, they would could end up with a limited Pyrrhic victory only because of being closer at hand.
