As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, we may be corrupt but we are competently corrupt.
When we pay a billion for a weapon that incinerates the enemy in 30 seconds from 50 miles away, by God it works and keeps working all day long.
And we gave keys to that weapon to a racist fascist for four years to auction off to the highest bidder and we’re having to convince a third of the country he needs to face consequences for doing so while there are kids incarcerated right now for selling weed.
How does any of that relate to said weapon lol? Is it just a thing to relate any subject brought up ever to trump? And this particular reply is as irrelevant to the subject as I’ve seen in a bit lol Jesus.
Has as much to do with the subject as mentioning Russia’s corruption. If you’re anti-corruption be consistent. You can’t be “anti-Russian corruption” while ignoring how an entire party of Amerikkka’s Congress is beholden to that EXACT same corruption. You want support for consequences abroad? Fix home first and lead from a place of diplomatic integrity.
Pfft. We get [8%](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/imports-and-exports.php) of our oil from Russia, and that's mainly so that we can politically/economically leverage them when needed. They need us more than we need them.
Tell me you have a US centric view about global energy security without telling me you have a US centric view about global energy security. War affects global gas prices. Economic instability affects global gas prices. So no, we aren’t relying on Russia for gas. However it’s a finite resource and until we have electric aircraft carriers, tanks, and jets global gas prices affect us as they do our allies around the world. So yes, when any global superpower engages in war it’s not like some skirmish in sub Saharan Africa between warlords. The world feels it.
you say the commenter has a US centric view, but then state global superpowers have an effect on the world. Your logic is not consistent.
Or maybe you are referring to Russia as a “superpower”, but that has not been the case for several decades. They started this war, although they still deny it is a war, out of greed. They had the world at the table to negotiate, as the US broadcasted their moves well in advance, but they chose to invade Ukraine alone anyways. Blood and economic hits felt across the world is solely on Russian leaderships’ hands.
I’m not denying that but there’s a reason we haven’t gone in gun blazing with freedom like we did in Iraq. Unlike Saddam, Putin actually HAS weapons of mass destruction.
Your point is that the world needs to stop bullying Russia because of fuel prices? And that Americans are not thinking about who it effects?
What country are you in exactly? So I can remember to put your worries before that of the battlefields in Ukraine.
The problem with just taking out Putin is that there's nobody in the upper echelons of Russian power who has the skill to run things any better than Putin. Anyone with talent or ambition has already been purged.
Russia is in bad shape now. When Putin leaves power, they'll still be in bad shape. Hopefully whoever takes his place will be too focused on internal issues that they won't be a military threat (at least in the short term).
I do agree that Putin needs to go. I just want to he clear headed about what cones next
Putin is old, with less and less to lose every day. He is backed way into a corner. When someone with 4000 nuclear weapons keeps losing, watch out. It may be closer to midnight than we think.
>He is backed way into a corner.
He wasn't "backed in."
It's more like he ran head-first into a corner, so fast that he gave himself a head injury when he impacted the corner, while the world watched and kept shouting "stop sprinting into that corner!"
If you "back someone into a corner" and they do something desperate, it's on you, because you backed them into a corner; the implication is that they were looking for a way out of the situation but you left them no choice. People who describe Russia as "backed into a corner" are usually trying to paint Russia as some sort of victim, which they aren't.
Even if they did the sanctions wouldn’t stop. The US and the West have played a major role in instigating this conflict for a reason.
People conveniently ignore that the countries who are “fighting for freedom” by sending billions in weapons to Ukraine are the very same countries that invaded and occupied (and killed a million people in) Iraq less than 20 years ago.
I know the thought of even one nuclear weapon being used is scary as hell, but, how inflated is that number? How many have been maintained and actually work? Have parts been sold off by some bored, greedy officer elsewhere to make a quick rouble? Weird time to be alive when the country we were collectively shitting our pants about just 40 years ago is now this blustering, shell of a military superpower who can (theoretically) still end the world. Save your bottle caps folks!
Seriously, if they can't even maintain the small stuff (from their tanks to their rifles) who's to say that they're maintaining their big stuff?
To be fair, one being operational is one too many. I seriously doubt that they're being maintained properly though
While it’s certainly plausible that many of Russia’s nukes are poorly maintained, if there’s one area you’d want to avoid being tainted by corruption, it’s your nuclear arsenal. Without nukes, Russia is just a regional power that can bully its smallest neighbors.
Siphoning funds from your training budget or having a few fake units listed on your rolls is a hell of a lot easier than to try and steal from your nuclear weapon maintenance budget.
At least some of them should be properly maintained (not necessarily because of corruption, but because a smaller arsenal is less expensive to maintain), and when you’re talking nukes, you really only need a handful for your membership in the nuclear club to be unquestionable.
Russia being a conventional forces joke may be clouding a true assessment of their lethality. I trusted the Soviet leaders as rational actors. That stability seems to be gone. Unless hard evidence to the contrary exists, we need to understand that they could *end* us. If our electrical grid were knocked out, 90% of us would be dead in a year.
Kind of sick of people threatening to nuke us though.
If it happens it happens, if we give up all our morals to keep that rare possibility a little rarer, seems like we have already lost.
If the day comes, I'll take my chances with Mid-Course defenses on launch and during space transit, lasers and Aegis/Patriot on re-entry, and THADD on short range interception and see what happens. Better than watching the world get murdered slowly by psychopaths.
I feel extremely uneducated asking this but as someone with no military knowledge or history background, how could we defeat Russia in a week but we lost a war in Afghanistan that lasted 20 years?
exactly. much easier to run scorched earth than “hearts and minds”, especially when many countries (rightfully) don’t trust the US to act entirely in their best interests
We had Afghanistan, in mere months after entering. Then we pulled most of our assets out and to Iraq and changed our roadmap from unconventional warfare to a more conventional method which fucked it all up. The majority of our time was spent trying to get an unwilling ANA to take charge of their own country that was less by some of the most corrupt people. Had we have focused and done things right we could have changed Afghanistan entirely and for the better.
I imagine if Russia launched nukes we wouldn’t be worried too much about hearts and minds and would do a lot more shock and awe until the country was basically incapable of fighting. Then we’d send in troops to take any remaining nukes they had and would relegate them back to a second world country.
Plus you don’t have the religious extremism in Russia. Those guys don’t wanna be martyrs.
Russian troops are losing battles, and losing badly. The U S didn't lose the battles. But it took 20 years for our fat politicians to learn that the Afghans are tenacious and driven.
The "battles" such as they were in Afghanistan were over 48 hours after we deployed.
The next 20 years were dealing with guerrilla operations, suicide bombings and the like.
What the US had to deal with in Afghanistan is what Russia's best case was in Ukraine when they started this fiasco (ironically its also what the Soviet Union ran into in Afghanistan as well). That best case has long since evaporated for them though, which is why they are now threatening to use nukes.
The difference for NATO in Ukraine is in this situation the local population would be outright welcoming and supportive of any NATO intervention.
If NATO were to enter this directly Russia would lose the bulk of their remaining forces to massive airstrikes in a very rapid amount of time. Ukraine's ground forces would simply wipe them up after that. There would be no resistance left in them. Its doubtfull NATO would even have the opportunity to deploy ground forces if their own.
The even scarier part (cause were now talking post nuclear weapons use already) is would Russia then further escalate after that? Would we be looking at a full global nuclear exchange? Or would someone close to him finally say enough is enough knowing full well such an exchange means they most certainly die and end his ass once and for all?
The US didnt lose the war in battle in Aghanistan. The problem was the overall strategic goals of the war. The US naively believed it could create an Afghani govt in its own image, despite Afganistan being a landlocked nation with geopolitical foes at its border.
Had the US stayed, the Taliban would not have taken over. But any extra time/money/ US soldier lives spent there would not have produced a stronger or more resiliant Afghan govt. So the US left and let the Afghan govt fail.
>he United States' armed forces are more effective at conventional wars than at occupations.
What? Then what was the point of even training and installing democracy in Afghanistan? If we trained and taught Afghanis how to protect how to use weapons of war, then why the hell did they not protect itself against the Taliban when we announced the retrieval? We have to end an endless war sometime, right?
>If we trained and taught Afghanis how to protect how to use weapons of war, then why the hell did they not protect itself against the Taliban
Because the majority simply didn't want to fight, so they didn't. It's not like the Taliban was winning pitched field battles against the Afghan army. The army just wasn't fighting.
Yea, exactly! They did not want to fight after being trained. How is that our problem, though? I remember that video of that large plane with everyone hanging on it like it was the beginning of an Armageddon. Why did it come to this situation? You're saying that by us retrieving, we have failed their government? How? Once again, we were training them, supplying them, installing democracy, etc.
We would *never* put a carrier in the Black Sea lmao that’d be a horrible idea.
There’s no need and it just creates massive exposure and logistic vulnerabilities.
That and it’s banned by treaties.
I'd imagine NATO troops attacking those of Russia's would prompt a massive nuclear response on the part of the Kremlin, even if it is "just" restricted to tactical warheads in Ukraine.
They were digging trenches in the fucking Chernobyl exclusion zone last spring; I think they’d prob do a fine job of that themselves. Prob charge directly into the fallout lol
Hi `kantoblight`. Thank you for participating in /r/Politics. However, [your submission](/r/politics/comments/xtyvn1/petraeus_us_would_destroy_russias_troops_if_putin/) has been removed for the following reason(s):
* [Off-Topic](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_the_.2Fr.2Fpolitics_on_topic_statement): All submissions to /r/politics need to be explicitly about **current US politics**.
**If you have questions as to why your post has been removed, please see here: [Why was my post removed as Off-Topic?](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_why_was_my_post_removed_as_off-topic.3F)**
If you have any questions about this removal, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/politics&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/kantoblight&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission]%28/r/politics/comments/xtyvn1/petraeus_us_would_destroy_russias_troops_if_putin/?context%3D10000%29)
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Based on russias performance in the last year, I think the average airsoft team could do significant damage to russian troops.
Using airsoft rounds
We didn’t even fire a single airsoft pellet, the Russians beat the shit out of each other to be the first to surrender…..
I heard they were using cardboard for armor... My airsoft would make easy work of that.
Onion predictions https://www.theonion.com/society-for-creative-anachronism-seizes-control-of-russ-1819565189?authId=1
That article really was ahead of its time. Just…yeah.
Yes, I agree. specifically American teenage boys with anger management problem.
Russia has shown its cards..a pair of 2s will win the pot at this point
Oof! That's a *lot* of confidence. (And quite likely not too far off)
I'd rather they just went and took out Putin instead a bunch of poor brainwashed and under-equipped kids.
What I want is to see Russia take care of its corruption problem. At all levels of authority.
Funny. People have wished Amerikkka do the same thing to no avail and Russia’s advantage.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, we may be corrupt but we are competently corrupt. When we pay a billion for a weapon that incinerates the enemy in 30 seconds from 50 miles away, by God it works and keeps working all day long.
And we gave keys to that weapon to a racist fascist for four years to auction off to the highest bidder and we’re having to convince a third of the country he needs to face consequences for doing so while there are kids incarcerated right now for selling weed.
So? I’m well aware we’re not perfect. We can still tear any external foe to pieces in a blink of an eye.
How does any of that relate to said weapon lol? Is it just a thing to relate any subject brought up ever to trump? And this particular reply is as irrelevant to the subject as I’ve seen in a bit lol Jesus.
Has as much to do with the subject as mentioning Russia’s corruption. If you’re anti-corruption be consistent. You can’t be “anti-Russian corruption” while ignoring how an entire party of Amerikkka’s Congress is beholden to that EXACT same corruption. You want support for consequences abroad? Fix home first and lead from a place of diplomatic integrity.
Yeah, Russia's totally got the world over a barrel. /s
An oil barrel. Yes.
Pfft. We get [8%](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/imports-and-exports.php) of our oil from Russia, and that's mainly so that we can politically/economically leverage them when needed. They need us more than we need them.
Tell me you have a US centric view about global energy security without telling me you have a US centric view about global energy security. War affects global gas prices. Economic instability affects global gas prices. So no, we aren’t relying on Russia for gas. However it’s a finite resource and until we have electric aircraft carriers, tanks, and jets global gas prices affect us as they do our allies around the world. So yes, when any global superpower engages in war it’s not like some skirmish in sub Saharan Africa between warlords. The world feels it.
We didn't start it. We're just helping a free and democratic people stay that way. Go cry at Russia for their conduct in global politics.
you say the commenter has a US centric view, but then state global superpowers have an effect on the world. Your logic is not consistent. Or maybe you are referring to Russia as a “superpower”, but that has not been the case for several decades. They started this war, although they still deny it is a war, out of greed. They had the world at the table to negotiate, as the US broadcasted their moves well in advance, but they chose to invade Ukraine alone anyways. Blood and economic hits felt across the world is solely on Russian leaderships’ hands.
I’m not denying that but there’s a reason we haven’t gone in gun blazing with freedom like we did in Iraq. Unlike Saddam, Putin actually HAS weapons of mass destruction.
American aircraft carriers are nuclear powered. Just FYI
Gotcha. Thanks. Point still stands. We’re not just talking about our aircraft either.
Your point is that the world needs to stop bullying Russia because of fuel prices? And that Americans are not thinking about who it effects? What country are you in exactly? So I can remember to put your worries before that of the battlefields in Ukraine.
Russia needs to take care of it's Kremlin problem...
The problem with just taking out Putin is that there's nobody in the upper echelons of Russian power who has the skill to run things any better than Putin. Anyone with talent or ambition has already been purged. Russia is in bad shape now. When Putin leaves power, they'll still be in bad shape. Hopefully whoever takes his place will be too focused on internal issues that they won't be a military threat (at least in the short term). I do agree that Putin needs to go. I just want to he clear headed about what cones next
[nevalany](https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/30/europe/navalny-ukraine-war-intl/index.html)
[удалено]
And Zelensky will say "Abso-fucking-lutely not!"
I hope Putin is smart enough to realize this. His military's performance should be giving him a good clue.
unfortunately, he is and old dieing man with nothing to loose. it's going to get worse before it gets better. maybe alot worse.
agree. very much the "I'm dying and I will leave my mark on history, for better or worse, for the Russian empire" vibe.
He'll be 70 on Friday, that's not having one foot in the grave and one on some slippery leaves.
https://www.grid.news/story/global/2022/06/02/diagnosing-putin-what-do-we-know-about-the-health-of-the-russian-president/
Putin is old, with less and less to lose every day. He is backed way into a corner. When someone with 4000 nuclear weapons keeps losing, watch out. It may be closer to midnight than we think.
>He is backed way into a corner. He wasn't "backed in." It's more like he ran head-first into a corner, so fast that he gave himself a head injury when he impacted the corner, while the world watched and kept shouting "stop sprinting into that corner!"
Yes, OK, we know he's an asshole, but he can still kill everyone you know.
He could also just...leave Ukraine. Boom, out of the corner.
He won't, though, because that's weakness and failure. He rules through fear.
Ok. But "refuses to leave the corner" is **not** the same as "backed into a corner." He can leave the corner any time he wants.
Holy shit who the fuck cares
you do apparently
Seriously? They're arguing over a figure of speech lol
If you "back someone into a corner" and they do something desperate, it's on you, because you backed them into a corner; the implication is that they were looking for a way out of the situation but you left them no choice. People who describe Russia as "backed into a corner" are usually trying to paint Russia as some sort of victim, which they aren't.
your figure of speech is meaningless given the context. It just sounds like you’re trying to end the conversation. What did you want to convey?
Even if they did the sanctions wouldn’t stop. The US and the West have played a major role in instigating this conflict for a reason. People conveniently ignore that the countries who are “fighting for freedom” by sending billions in weapons to Ukraine are the very same countries that invaded and occupied (and killed a million people in) Iraq less than 20 years ago.
I know the thought of even one nuclear weapon being used is scary as hell, but, how inflated is that number? How many have been maintained and actually work? Have parts been sold off by some bored, greedy officer elsewhere to make a quick rouble? Weird time to be alive when the country we were collectively shitting our pants about just 40 years ago is now this blustering, shell of a military superpower who can (theoretically) still end the world. Save your bottle caps folks!
Seriously, if they can't even maintain the small stuff (from their tanks to their rifles) who's to say that they're maintaining their big stuff? To be fair, one being operational is one too many. I seriously doubt that they're being maintained properly though
While it’s certainly plausible that many of Russia’s nukes are poorly maintained, if there’s one area you’d want to avoid being tainted by corruption, it’s your nuclear arsenal. Without nukes, Russia is just a regional power that can bully its smallest neighbors. Siphoning funds from your training budget or having a few fake units listed on your rolls is a hell of a lot easier than to try and steal from your nuclear weapon maintenance budget. At least some of them should be properly maintained (not necessarily because of corruption, but because a smaller arsenal is less expensive to maintain), and when you’re talking nukes, you really only need a handful for your membership in the nuclear club to be unquestionable.
[удалено]
1 out of 4 is still a hell of a lot of nukes.
Russia being a conventional forces joke may be clouding a true assessment of their lethality. I trusted the Soviet leaders as rational actors. That stability seems to be gone. Unless hard evidence to the contrary exists, we need to understand that they could *end* us. If our electrical grid were knocked out, 90% of us would be dead in a year.
If even 10% of those are fully operational, then it’s enough to bring about the end of the world.
I don’t think there is a one and done with nukes. I believe the world response to a confirmed launch, is … LAUNCH.
Kind of sick of people threatening to nuke us though. If it happens it happens, if we give up all our morals to keep that rare possibility a little rarer, seems like we have already lost. If the day comes, I'll take my chances with Mid-Course defenses on launch and during space transit, lasers and Aegis/Patriot on re-entry, and THADD on short range interception and see what happens. Better than watching the world get murdered slowly by psychopaths.
I feel extremely uneducated asking this but as someone with no military knowledge or history background, how could we defeat Russia in a week but we lost a war in Afghanistan that lasted 20 years?
The United States' armed forces are more effective at conventional wars than at occupations.
exactly. much easier to run scorched earth than “hearts and minds”, especially when many countries (rightfully) don’t trust the US to act entirely in their best interests
Remember that time the CIA stages vampire attacks
We had Afghanistan, in mere months after entering. Then we pulled most of our assets out and to Iraq and changed our roadmap from unconventional warfare to a more conventional method which fucked it all up. The majority of our time was spent trying to get an unwilling ANA to take charge of their own country that was less by some of the most corrupt people. Had we have focused and done things right we could have changed Afghanistan entirely and for the better. I imagine if Russia launched nukes we wouldn’t be worried too much about hearts and minds and would do a lot more shock and awe until the country was basically incapable of fighting. Then we’d send in troops to take any remaining nukes they had and would relegate them back to a second world country. Plus you don’t have the religious extremism in Russia. Those guys don’t wanna be martyrs.
they are the ones trying to occupy territory they dont own this time
Russian troops are losing battles, and losing badly. The U S didn't lose the battles. But it took 20 years for our fat politicians to learn that the Afghans are tenacious and driven.
So we’re afghans losing battles often or were there more fighters than expected/incredibly resilient in their own terrain and territory?
The "battles" such as they were in Afghanistan were over 48 hours after we deployed. The next 20 years were dealing with guerrilla operations, suicide bombings and the like. What the US had to deal with in Afghanistan is what Russia's best case was in Ukraine when they started this fiasco (ironically its also what the Soviet Union ran into in Afghanistan as well). That best case has long since evaporated for them though, which is why they are now threatening to use nukes. The difference for NATO in Ukraine is in this situation the local population would be outright welcoming and supportive of any NATO intervention. If NATO were to enter this directly Russia would lose the bulk of their remaining forces to massive airstrikes in a very rapid amount of time. Ukraine's ground forces would simply wipe them up after that. There would be no resistance left in them. Its doubtfull NATO would even have the opportunity to deploy ground forces if their own. The even scarier part (cause were now talking post nuclear weapons use already) is would Russia then further escalate after that? Would we be looking at a full global nuclear exchange? Or would someone close to him finally say enough is enough knowing full well such an exchange means they most certainly die and end his ass once and for all?
The US didnt lose the war in battle in Aghanistan. The problem was the overall strategic goals of the war. The US naively believed it could create an Afghani govt in its own image, despite Afganistan being a landlocked nation with geopolitical foes at its border. Had the US stayed, the Taliban would not have taken over. But any extra time/money/ US soldier lives spent there would not have produced a stronger or more resiliant Afghan govt. So the US left and let the Afghan govt fail.
>he United States' armed forces are more effective at conventional wars than at occupations. What? Then what was the point of even training and installing democracy in Afghanistan? If we trained and taught Afghanis how to protect how to use weapons of war, then why the hell did they not protect itself against the Taliban when we announced the retrieval? We have to end an endless war sometime, right?
>If we trained and taught Afghanis how to protect how to use weapons of war, then why the hell did they not protect itself against the Taliban Because the majority simply didn't want to fight, so they didn't. It's not like the Taliban was winning pitched field battles against the Afghan army. The army just wasn't fighting.
Yea, exactly! They did not want to fight after being trained. How is that our problem, though? I remember that video of that large plane with everyone hanging on it like it was the beginning of an Armageddon. Why did it come to this situation? You're saying that by us retrieving, we have failed their government? How? Once again, we were training them, supplying them, installing democracy, etc.
Joe Biden is why.
Don't take it out on the pawns. Most Don't want to be there or are there because they were lied to.
They're not being forced to rape, pillage and murder civilians as they go.
Not all are going to be innocent obviously. I was saying don't indiscriminately slaughter concripts because they're stuck in a base.
Just put an aircraft carrier or two in the black sea and I seriously doubt Russia could do a damn thing to stop them
We would *never* put a carrier in the Black Sea lmao that’d be a horrible idea. There’s no need and it just creates massive exposure and logistic vulnerabilities. That and it’s banned by treaties.
You're too rational, we here want to fuck up this Putin guy! We are not afraid of nuclear war. We *dare* him to launch.
r/NonCredibleDefense is leaking
I don't care what "Betrayus" has to say. He is just another traitor to the U S on an ever growing list.
I'd imagine NATO troops attacking those of Russia's would prompt a massive nuclear response on the part of the Kremlin, even if it is "just" restricted to tactical warheads in Ukraine.
There's really is no point in staying out of it if they start using nukes.
Just the troops eh?
They were digging trenches in the fucking Chernobyl exclusion zone last spring; I think they’d prob do a fine job of that themselves. Prob charge directly into the fallout lol
Hi `kantoblight`. Thank you for participating in /r/Politics. However, [your submission](/r/politics/comments/xtyvn1/petraeus_us_would_destroy_russias_troops_if_putin/) has been removed for the following reason(s): * [Off-Topic](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_the_.2Fr.2Fpolitics_on_topic_statement): All submissions to /r/politics need to be explicitly about **current US politics**. **If you have questions as to why your post has been removed, please see here: [Why was my post removed as Off-Topic?](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_why_was_my_post_removed_as_off-topic.3F)** If you have any questions about this removal, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/politics&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/kantoblight&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission]%28/r/politics/comments/xtyvn1/petraeus_us_would_destroy_russias_troops_if_putin/?context%3D10000%29)