They haven't achieved anything of note around Kyiv. — Olivier5

There's no reason to assume Kremlin ever planned to conquer Kiev a la Mariopul (whether the motivation is high to destroy Azov and symbolism is high and it's in the middle of the land bridge they want).

Of course, if they were allowed to just parade down the streets, they would have done so.

But, there's is no actual reason to assume Kremlin has ever wanted to actually conquer Kiev.

The capital is almost intact. — Olivier5

If they wanted to destroy render the capital "not intact" ... they could have easily done so from afar.

No need to invent bizarre convoluted explanations if there is a perfectly simple and good one at hand, fitting everything we know including what the Russian side itself has said and done. — Olivier5

What convoluted explanation? ... it's a pretty usual military tactic to have some manoeuvres (even most) for the purposes of occupying as much of the opposing force as possible in order to then achieve your core objectives.

Yeah, Russians didn't take Kiev, while they secured a land bridge to Crimea, their core security interest.

Their other stated goals?

No Ukraine in NATO. Check.

"Demilitarise" which the President of Finland asked Putin what that meant, which he explained it was currently ongoing; i.e. degrade Ukrainian military capacity, which blowing up bases and equipment and so on accomplishes. Russia can far easier rebuild what it has lost (and still has plenty in reserve anyways) than Ukraine can. It's also been reported, seems by Ukrainian defence ministry, that basically their entire military industry has been blown up.

"De-nazify" basically means Azov battalion, which is in Mariupol anyways, which they need for their land bridge.

"Liberation of the Dombas," is advancing daily.

These are the stated military goals as stated and explained by both Putin and Russian generals.

These were also the core goals as explained by many Western experts before the war started, what Russia may have mobilized for.

It's not "convoluted" to point out they achieved those core goals ... which manoeuvres elsewhere in the country, in particular pressure on the capital, help achieve by spreading forces and supply lines thin (and making it easier to map and blowup said supply lines).

A some 1300 km front has disadvantages to Russia, but so too Ukraine.

Since Russia can easily resupply and reinforce every part of the front by just going in and out and around within Russia, whereas Ukrainians must resupply from Poland and travel up to a 1000 km at risk of bombardment at each step of the supply line, it could be that this strategy was chosen as it has overwhelming advantage to Russia in accomplishing the core objectives.

Of course, the disadvantage of a 4 front war is there's going to be a lot of mad chaos and Ukrainians can easily penetrate lines and ambush and concentrate forces or small victories here and there, and ATGM's and Manpads definitely make life difficult. However, it's still better to have armor than not have armor, and once Russia achieves it's objectives through relentless shelling instead of armor offensives, then it can just dig in and shoulder launch missiles are of little use against a dug-in front (a waste of resources to fire a ATGM or Manpad at a trench or machine-gun nest ... and without mobility you can't really exploit punching through a line anyways).

Because they are now pulling back, objectively. — Olivier5

Sure, but pulling back because it's a debacle?

Or pulling back because they achieved their core goals through force?

Yes, at a cost, but also many goals achieved and the entire war fighting infrastructure of Ukraine has been severely degraded. It can't be rebuilt overnight.

(Not to mention the CIA was telling us yesterday the "pulling back" was a stunt and a lie and Russian ain't pulling back shit ... despite also losing and about to be routed ... any day now)

You do if you don't want to turn crazy. — Olivier5

Crazy according to whom?

There are people who have lived by themselves in the woods, sometimes for many decades.

We call them crazy, but maybe they call us crazy.

No issue with the rest of your post. — Olivier5

Glad we agree on some basics. And for sure a lot of the issues that have been discussed we don't "know". Maybe violent revolution in Russia will break out tomorrow, regardless of whether we on this forum think that's good or bad.

However, a lot of the "information war", which I don't keep mentioning is the "CIA" because I suspect the CIA, but because the literal director of the CIA goes on live television to explain the CIA's information war--which no one disputes Russia is also waging--is completely self-referential.

Why should we trust "our" information war?

Because "we're" winning the information war! And "winning" information-wars, means truth now all of a sudden.

Why is the Russian plan a debacle?

Because "our" information war tells us it is!

How do we know this information is all good?

Because spooks are intentionally leaking it to us?!? And we know "they're good" (despite several failed wars on false pretence) because they called Russian invasion, built up over a year, involving some 200 000 troops ... by a few days?

Invasion was chaotic and improvised precisely so CIA could only call it by a few days leaving Ukraine no time to just go and setup a line around the Crimea "border stop" and shell it to shit. Every plan has pros and cons: surprise invasion has the con of some conscripts that are there as part of normal run-of-the-mill training get lost in Ukraine (no one tells conscripts anything, I can promise you that).

Ok, doesn't resolve any of the questions of substance under discussion, but, as far as I can tell, this self-referential collapse of Western media is "our" fall of the Berlin wall moment.

Whether Russia be good or bad, that doesn't stop us from hurting ourselves either way.

BTW, this implies that it is absolutely not obvious to you that one has to trust some secondary sources. — Olivier5

You don't "have" to trust anyone.

And, of the people and sources you do trust, to the degree you decide to trust them, you may insist they earn it ... and likewise face the consequences of squandering that trust they earned when you find them to be lying to you, such as the consequence, in the least, that you personally trust them less.

Before the CNN article, I thought the following took the take for nonsense:

The heat, Ukraine crisis

Host: What’s behind president Zalenskyy’s move to ban 11 political parties in the country and shut down some TV stations.

Propagandist: Uh, there’s currently a war, there’s over 100 000 Russian troops, and, uh, 64 medical facilities have been bombed.

So, ah, in terms of banning things that are in the line of, ah, Russian influence. Uh, those are standard operating procedures during a war.

At this point we don’t even know how long broadcast television will remain in Ukraine, so long as those facilities are being bombed.

Host: So bottom line is you abandon democracy when you’re at war.

Propagandist: I don’t see, any pretence for that. We know that Ukraine has maintained elections throughout this 8 year war against it. Ah, and those, uh, and those elections have all been declared as, uh, as ah, fully recognised, ah, uh, by other, uh, countries. — The Heat: Ukraine Crisis

The very last minute of the clip there's this exchange.

Notice how proof that Ukraine's actions to ban political parties and press freedom is legitimate because of elections in 8 years of war ... in which it would be likewise legitimate to suppress any "Russian influence" without due process of any kind, in and around those elections ... indeed, would be just standard operating procedure to fix the vote to fix Russia fixing the vote to prevail against Russian influence.

And wouldn't anyone wanting to end the 8 year war and make peace with Russia to avoid a larger escalation of the 8 year war that just started last month, or anything the government doesn't like for that matter, be likewise presenting "Russian influence" and standard operating procedure would be to suppress or murder them? During these 8 years of so called war?

... Of course, there is some sort of internal consistency in the sense that the CIA, and other western intelligence agencies, discovery that intelligence can be used against an adversary is such a new concept to them that they simply couldn't keep this information secret as part of some covert operational doctrine ("covert" maybe a few concepts away once you've discovered "intelligence") ... so, they just had to come and tell us the god honest truth, as is their habit.

Institutions don't just suddenly change overnight! You can't ask spies to suddenly lie to us, learn Putin's wretched ways. It's unseemly.

[but for readers confused] If that harmonisation of the CNN article doesn't convince you, then the alternative is that the propaganda has become so obvious that they need "and that's why it's a good thing" article to directly instruct people to view propaganda as just "sticking it to Putin" and something that's needed, and to just categorise everything they say as true and everything Russia says as false even if they know both sides are waging an information war ... literally starting the article explaining Western spy agencies are using information as a weapon.

The problem is how do we actually conclude "Russia is bad" and "Ukraine is good" and "Western arms shipments to Ukraine even better" if we knowingly accept we're being fed propaganda and must spread it around ourselves, simultaneously believe it and also know it may not stand up to scrutiny so may not warrant belief to be active in shutting down all scrutiny in all contexts, to "help Ukraine and fight Putin" ... if we also know propaganda is by nature deceptive. If we agree to be deceived ... how do we know anything at all.

"We're playing Putin at his own game (but everything we say to the global media is, of course, absolutely true). Shh! Don't tell Putin - you're all spies now..." — Isaac

We better all keep it on the down low.

Our protectors just discovered a few weeks ago "intelligence" could be "weaponised".

What will they think of next!

It would be impossible to makeup the following article as satire.

Western spy agencies weaponize intelligence in attempt to undermine Putin

Western intelligence agencies are waging a psychological war over Ukraine directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin, an expert at the genre, who is now effectively taking a dose of his own medicine.

The United States and its allies are painting a picture of a bogged down, demoralized and dysfunctional Russian military taking disastrous losses on the battlefield, and are simultaneously conjuring a vision of growing political tension inside the Kremlin. They claim the Russian leader is isolated, poorly advised and lacking real intelligence on just how badly the war is going. [...]

The willingness of Western governments to be so open about what they are seeing inside Ukraine and Moscow has surprised even some veteran spies.

"It makes intelligence professionals, even former ones like me, nervous, because, of course, it's so ingrained in us to protect sources and methods," Steve Hall, former chief of Russia operations for the CIA, told CNN's Ana Cabrera Thursday. [...]

So what exactly are Western governments trying to do with this novel use of declassified intelligence assessments? Especially given that in many previous geopolitical crises, intelligence was kept secret by routine? [...]

Intelligence, by definition, is a murky business. The information about the Russian operations in Ukraine and the apparent isolation of Putin in Moscow only tell the outside world what the Western intelligence services want to release. There is, therefore, no way for outsiders to know whether these snapshots give the full picture or a more selective one. — CNN

But my favourite is the whole basis for the "Ministry of Truth" and that we should take everything said by the CIA at face value as "totally not an information war" and just honest truth telling is:

Then hours before the invasion actually happened, the US issued a warning that the incursion was imminent -- and was proven correct. — CNN

... Calling an "imminent invasion" (that had zero impact in terms of helping Ukraine, as too late for full mobilisation) with all the satellites and resources the CIA has, is now not only master spy craft" ... but also somehow makes all further intelligence assessment basically infallible ... but also war's a murky business? And the CIA is giving Putin a taste of his own medicine ... which, according to the CIA, Putin's medicine is lying about everything?

We've gone next level.

Well that's convenient, and you certainly have the advantage over me in that regard.

Indeed, I'll have to keep on my guard in that respect.

Which, to be honest, is often the case in discussing philosophy.

I have no idea what you are talking about. — Olivier5

You gotta read the book.

You mean, you were smart once? — Olivier5

The game is played now, the score is tallied in 300 to 1000 years.

It's not really so much about being smart, although that certainly helps, it's about the right ideas for the right moment.

And I didn't make the rules, it just so happens foundational concepts get reviewed and added to seldomly. Why? is a good foundational question to ask.

Sure thing, as long as they don't pin it on me. — Olivier5

Look, I'm just "a guy" who found at around 12—after reading all the popular physics books I could find, the complete history of WWII and Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy—Isaiah Berlin's "The Power of Ideas" .... and thought to myself, "I can play this game, nothing they can do I can't do better." Just as the motivational posters instructed me to do, you know "reach for the stars" and "follow your dreams" or whatever.

And you and I are part of that 'very short list', you think? Or are you rather saying that we are part of some universal idea exchange fair? — Olivier5

Who knows these things.

In any event, it's a handful of Chinese sages centuries from now who get to decide.

Advising people is a business. Amateurs don't advise professionals. We are all amateurs here, are we not? — Olivier5

@Benkei is a lawyer, @Isaac is a shrink of some sort, and I'm a board director of corporations.

You can of course write down the words: 'I advise Biden to do X'. That you can do. But chances are your 'advice' ain't going to get to him. Because he receives a lot of advice, from other people than you. He pays dear money and far more attention to their advice than to yours and mine. As good as it may be... — Olivier5

You underestimate the infectiousness of ideas, the complexity of the world's social network, and humanity's response to new information.

Just because it's easier today ... doesn't somehow mean there's less impact of anonymous pamphleteers than there was in the enlightenment.

Look around you: everything you see, every tool used to build it, every plan to put it in motion and connect it with other things, every unfathomably long list of goals everything you see represents, and every political and ethical framework in which anything happens in society at all, was once an idea in one person's head.

Furthermore, if you trace all these ideas that you see to their real root, the "original" and not just a variation or implementation of some pre-existing vision, the real preconditions of human
thought and activity, what will you find? That all these truly foundational ideas originated in a handful of philosophers and mathematicians.

Why are we even talking about nuclear weapons? The damned mathematicians that brought us here, and not just the prerequisite theory for the Manhattan project: But all the way back to Babylon. A relatively short list of truly revolutionary mathematical minds.

If you dig below the surface, you'll find we live in the heads of a tiny group of people, their dreams and their madness.

I have not given advice to anyone. NATO, the EU, none of the actors you mentioned is reading TPFand they have not asked for our advice. — Olivier5

Ok ... so if I understand correctly you are in favour of certain actions but are not advising those actions you're in favour of be carried out?

To be clear, I have zero problem saying I am in favour of diplomatic resolution and I do indeed advise all parties to try to reach a diplomatic resolution as soon as possible and the foundations of an enduring peace.

I advise this here, I also advised this (well, avoid war in Eastern Europe in the first place) to my government in a letter I wrote the prime minister 2 years ago. Some hapless bureaucrat wrote back.

They didn't take my advice ... but who knows, maybe they will next time. Luckily, since I live in a democratic society (at least the aristocratic population of a larger "democracy" Athenians would actually recognise) where I can affect policy, I'm able, indeed, to advise politicians and bureaucrats directly and perhaps affect their thinking for the better. What's relevant in such political action are the policies of my country, indeed sometimes with respect to the policies of other countries, but what's less relevant is internal matters of other countries that have no real external policy response to change ... except maybe nuking them.

We could still discover new sides of him, but yes, there might be some truth there. However, nobody is eternal, and no regime is eternal either. — Olivier5

This is the usual route to democratisation. Someone concentrates all or a lot of power and, what goes along with that, is that no one in the second echelon has despotic ambitions.

And, Putin as a "dictator" is a caricature; Putin still needs to work within a political system with lots of actors and even democratic process. Certainly has concentrated power, but Putin's power within Russia is simply not comparable to Kim's power with North Korea or Xi's power within China.

Also of note, Putin only started really concentrating power, and doing things like changing the constitution, when the CIA took Medvedev (a moderate) as a sign of weakness and first, to Putin's surprise, declared Georgia and Ukraine would "join NATO one day" (still waiting on that), "interpreted" a "no fly zone" (which used to mean what it sounds like: you can't fly there, but can, like, walk as that's not flying) and then set their sights on Tartus.

Medvedev negotiated the new START treaty for example ... not an escalatory action.

Also of note, following the Georgian war and escalation of tensions with the US and West in general, Putin consolidated power and replaced the second echelon with non-moderates; nevertheless, he still appointed the moderates to important positions (at least nominally), such as Medvedev to the chairman of the security council ... which is more a re-balancing of policy priorities, that still includes moderate voices, than some sort of purge. Certainly not the typical actions of a "despot", such as Sadam Hussein who had his generals executed for retreating from a unwinnable suicidal battle.

I.e. concentrating and consolidating power was a response (whether we see it as a good decision or bad) to a real external threat, which the US isn't coy about calling Russia the enemy and the "near peer competitor" that they can't leave alone and so on.

Previous to the Libya, Syria, Crimea plays (in addition to all sorts of cloak and dagger spy shit we can only guess about) ... Russia, and Putin, was literally minding their own business. Ok, maybe things can be improved there but like ... seems the same everywhere and that there are a lot worse governments, that behead people in public and shit.

In any-case, democratisation usually happens after the death or retirement of a strong man, because he surrounded himself with competent or then incompetent bureaucratic types that don't have the ambition to replace him ... so don't bother when the opportunity arises, and so they then get together and decide elections is the way they all don't die in some sequence of violent coups. And, it was mostly about having sex with women, and being killed in a coup seems contrary to that purpose.

Of course, there are exceptions like North Korea, but this has been accomplished by essentially creating a functionally king ideology, idiosyncratic to Korean culture.

Now that IS interesting. The current leadership has been saying again and again recently, in various official statements, that a desintegration of Russia or a threat on its regime could trigger a nuclear holocaust. And now you seem to be arguing the exact same talking point. — Olivier5

It's not "arguing" a "talking point".

It's an undisputed fact that people who can launch nuclear weapons ... can launch nuclear weapons.

That "it could trigger a nuclear holocaust" is not up for debate.

One can only argue they're bluffing and advocate calling their bluff.

However, even if they are bluffing, they may not be in charge anyways for long during the events you hope for, and the people that do become in charge of the the nukes turn out not to be bluffing, even if the previous custodians were.

... indeed, maybe they would be "the previous custodians" precisely because they were bluffing, and, therefore, that "mistake" shouldn't be repeated.

If I understand correctly, the idea is NOT that they could use nukes in Ukraine if things go south there, as CNN wrongly (IMO) concluded. — Olivier5

Obviously they could.

However, it's extremely unlikely for things to "go south" in the current situation.

This scenario was more in the event of direct NATO air power intervention, which most analysts agreed would be met with a nuclear escalation of some sort (from limited strike or then EMP reaching all the way to Norway). Escalate to deescalate as @ssu mentioned is Russian policy.

What I am hearing in all these recent pronouncements, including in yours, is a different message which says: If this particular regime goes down, e g. by a revolution, then the whole world might go down with it through a nuclear holocaust. — Olivier5

Yes, because it's obviously possible, and even the likely bet, because chaotic revolution and regimes collapsing rarely actually results in a smooth peaceful transition to democracy, but instead triggers a series of more and more violent coups shaking out the most extreme, most violent, most ruthless and most couiest commander to the top.

Putin, who did not gain power by a coup but rather working the Russian political system as it exists, is, in such a scenario, the devil you know and should trust to not himself cause nuclear holocaust, as if he wanted to he would have done so already.

In a violent revolution it will not be Putin in charge. The Kremlin maybe signalling not a threat, just the likely outcome of themselves no longer being in charge, which is what regime change means! For fuck sakes. Crikey.

It's not "what would you do in the event of regime change?" it's "what would the most violent and ruthless commander you know do in the event you guys are no longer in charge to stop him?"

These are obviously scenarios that should weigh on any responsible person's mind.

I suspect the real reason is more prosaic. If it is not for him to give them advice, it might be that the opposite is the case: they give him 'advice'. — Olivier5

You want a violent revolution in Russia with blood pouring in the streets?

If this then, in itself triggers WWIII and nuclear exchange, or then hundreds of nuclear warheads go missing on the black market in a chaotic unraveling of the Russian state, finding their way into the hands of every radical group and despot that can get their hands on one, are you really owning those consequences? Is it really what you want?

Or then transforms into a civil war within Russia and, guess what, the commander willing to not hesitate to use tactical nuclear weapons prevails ... and continues with that philosophy to solve whatever other regional conflict emerges ... or is concurrently happening in Ukraine and just daring NATO to launch a strategic nuclear strike in an irrational response to tactical nuclear weapons dropped on non-NATO countries? You rather that outcome? You ready to own that possibility?

Or does it just sound tough to say on the internet and you zero have affect on the situation anyways, zero choices that would actually demonstrate your moral toughness, and zero personal risk "advising" your Russian friends to "revolt"?

The only reason people are so cavalier, as one poster put it, with World War III is that either they simply don't consider that possible outcome at all and have no idea what the fuck they're talking about, or they know actual adults elsewhere will avoid things escalating to that point, based on the realist philosophies expounded here, and so there's no risk in saber rattling and demonstrating your war horny credentials on the internet meanwhile. To say later to internet friends that "you were there, ready to drop nukes on Russia to save Ukraine ... but the softies had their way."

It could be counterproductive for Putin to pressure Lukashenko to join the war even more. — ssu

Yes, we're in agreement. If anything, I think it would be more Lukashenko wanting "to jump in" and demonstrate what he can do, and Putin calming him down, seeing the wider context ... and Belarus in the fight not changing much anyways.

You are not afraid of giving them advice, and also to the Americans or the French, but you are afraid of advising the Russians. Strange that... :-) — Olivier5

This has simply not been a topic of discussion.

You have been morally condemning the Russians and advising the Ukrainians to fight the Russians, and advising NATO and EU to keep sending more arms.

You just claimed a few comments ago Russia is irrational ... so what's the point of advising an irrational party?

You literally post a letter a few comments ago, literally some 3000 comments into this discussion, that, as far as I'm aware, is the first content advising the Russians to do anything ... which is not even your writing and it directly contradicts your "opinions" repeated, but not supported, over dozens of comments.

I have zero fear advising the Russians ... I just don't see any here or around me to advise.

Bring me "The Russians" and you will see a fearless viceroy at work.

One possible way the conflict could become larger is if the fighting would have Belarus involved. — ssu

This seems unlikely for the simple fact that Belarus is not so stable internally and they add little firepower anyways compared to Russia (i.e. the risk of revolution within Belarus sparked by soldiers dying who aren't "volunteers" ... and then Russia needing to commit resources to deal with that, likely far exceeds the military benefits).

Ukraine can also far easier strike/invade Belarus than Russia, so there would be that purely military risk in an official declaration of war.

However, militaries are always searching for "experience" so likely these "volunteers" are a way to get best of both worlds for soldiers that are itching for the fight and their whole social circle concludes they got what was coming to them if they die, rather than the entire state needs to be over thrown.

There's also the fact of Belarus bordering Poland, so an official declaration of war could mean Ukraine invade Belarus on the Polish border, baiting NATO into the conflict and also severe escalation of tensions.

For the exact same list of reasons, but just the answer being the reverse, it makes more sense to bring Syria into it, which apparently has happened to some degree.

Well then, you can't really comment on Littell's letter, because it's not about what non-Russians can do. — Olivier5

I can comment, I just can't say if what he suggests to do is actually the best course of action.

Or then, if by "revolt" against authoritarianism could mean just anything effective, ok, I agree, but what's actually effective is the key question, and the general advice is the mere tautology that "Russians should do good things" ... as we all.

What I can say with more certainty is that "we in the West" haven't figured it out.

We have "democracy" ... but not over the entire political and economic system as a whole that our states effectively "rule", in our name and with our "consent": We have democracy over here and get our products and resources from tyrannies over there.

Seems more like geographically segregated aristocracy.

When you say 'we' you mean pro-Putin guys like you, or some other group? — Olivier5

We non-Russians.

Stick to what Russians themselves can do, as this is the subject of the letter. — Olivier5

I spend a lot more time thinking about what I can do, and I have spent very little time on what Russians should do.

However, history teaches us there is no straightforward path to peace and prosperity.

If radical revolutionaries were always correct in revolting ... I'm pretty sure history would teach us the revolution has already happened and everything is great now.

Hmm, indeed, maybe Russia's own history demonstrates the danger of that idea.

The reason I call myself an anarchist, and not a communist, is that I do not believe in the revolutionary moment tradition. Things seem to me far more complicated. Predictable, but complicated.

I also do not believe in capturing the state to "make people better". People are far too avid and corrupt for that.

How to make life better in Russia is not a simple question, I know little of the culture and what affect any given action may actually have, and what is actually productive and what is in fact counter productive and a mere quaint gesture for one's own emotional satisfaction (the cowards way out).

However, how to make life in Ukraine better is far easier question to answer: negotiate an end to the war.

And, negotiation is something I know far more about than how to provoke regime change in Russia via revolt in a way that results in more democracy and not something even worse.

If you want to talk about that letter, do address what is actually said in the letter, rather than other stuff that has nothing to see with it. — Olivier5

I've made it pretty clear that I don't like authoritatianism ... but, precisely due to the nature of authoritarianism that I don't like, we have very little influence over the Kremlin and Putin.

Not only do we have far more influence in more democratic countries, but, on top of that practical fact, I, personally, feel morally responsible to contribute to the policies of my own country and my country's own political organisations like the EU, than personally morally responsible for what Russians and Putin does.

If I thought life in Russia was great, I'd move there.

The West could let Ukraine into the EU tonight.

NATO could let Ukraine into NATO tonight.

These options have been ruled out, and so the choice is between diplomacy and ... maybe just letting Russia win through force if nothing short of boots on the ground and planes in the sky actually makes a difference to the outcome.

If diplomacy is the better choice, then diplomacy starts with understanding the counter-parties point of view and not just ignoring their grievances and calling them names and exaggerating their power and threat to us, while simultaneously exaggerating their mistakes and short comings.

As I've mentioned repeatedly in my exchange with @ssu, maybe the Russian lines and state will collapse tomorrow, and, if the Western media and everyone on the forum was just predicting Russia's inevitable victory, then I'd be here arguing that (even though I can't see it based on my own military experience) that "maybe" Ukraine has some military surprise and maybe things just fall apart militarily and domestically for the Russians.

We don't know. Therefore, different points of view are more useful, from my point of view, than the point of view that other points of view should be excluded because they maybe correct and pointing that out makes that view point even more likely than it already is.

We do not know the facts on the grounds, but if we want some diplomatic process then we need a sober analysis of what information we do have and what it may represent and how other people may see the same information, in particular the people we wish to negotiate with.

A month ago we were essentially promised the collapse of the Russian military, due to morale problems, and revolution in the streets of Moscow. So why negotiate with a state that will be gone tomorrow? Unless, you know, that was bullshit to egg Ukraine on into total war.

Negotiation requires risk evaluation. The Western media simply bad mouthing Russia for a month and continuously lambasting Russia for failure as they take territory ... is not, in my view, a good risk-analysis framework, and likewise essentially excluding all other points of views but just parading yes-men retired generals (who have no more facts than us!) is not a basis for critical scrutiny to assess the likelihood of what they predict.

Additionally, negotiation requires some rational model of the counter-parties decision making, otherwise it's impossible to make offers and counter offers that are likely to arrive at an agreement.

Modest reasons for optimism. Russian minister of offence has promised to decrease military activity as a gesture of good faith resulting from the discussions in Istanbul today. Let's hope they keep their word and peace talks are indeed constructive. — Benkei

Agreed.

This may also be a sign of calling out the West and Zelenskyy on the referendum idea.

If there is a referendum on Russia's demands ... and wins ... that does indeed settle the issue for basically ever.

Likewise, how does that jive with the "Russia is anti-democratic" narrative if they call for and "respect" a referendum result?

If they pull back from Kiev, and fronts stabilise, then they are now in the position of making their offer and just publicly demanding Zelenskyy hold a referendum as he said he would. Cue fireworks.

The destruction of Azov in Mariupol may also embolden anti-Azov sections of Ukrainian society.

It should also be noted that although Zelenskyy down plays Azov, it's not the case that they're best friends. There's a bunch of stories / rumours of Zelenskyy trying to reason with the Azov guys to stop the 8 year war in the East. So, not actually liking Azov is maybe some common ground between Zelenskyy's personal beliefs and the Russians, and if a lot of the Azov guys are dead, that may bring some stability to the situation as well.

But, I hope for any resolution of the destruction, however it is achieved.

Conditions do seem being put in place for a resolution, but of course it's never possible to know who is being genuine or if events (accidental or not) set escalation off again.

The letter is not mine. — Olivier5

I literally mention the author by name in my response.

However, if it's not views you agree with, then you should make that clear, that, for example, you disagree on Putin's ability to subjugate Russians all that much, as the Kremlin, military and intelligence organs of the Russian state are incompetent.

He is predicting much sufferings for Russians if they don't get rid of Mr Putin now. — Olivier5

Ok, so let's go along with this new assumption that your main concern, or at least a big concern, is the welfare of the Russian people.

Well, what can we do about it?

Won't filling Ukraine with hand held missiles just anger Putin more, and he'll then takeout that anger on Russian's contribute to more Russian suffering, not to mention the Russians blown up by said missiles?

In particular, if those hand held missiles can't beat Russia ... what reason would there be to send those weapons systems into Ukraine if it only causes Russian suffering with zero benefits to Ukrainians?

Since we've started making predictions, let us hear what Jonathan Littell predicts... It's harsh. — Olivier5

... Two years ago I wouldn't say is "starting" to do something now.

But I don't see what Jonathan Littell is actually predicting ... and you can't have it both ways, arguing that Russia has made an incompetent fool of themselves militarily and Ukraine is winning, and then the next moment argue Russia is an unstoppable juggernaught that's going to roll through all of NATO and Putin will rule us all and so we must act out of self preservation.

With a little 'if NATO made a no-fly zone, like Zalenskyy asks!, could easily dispatch with these low-moral, badly trained, terrible logistics, rubbish tank, Russians; no match for NATO!' sprinkled in here and there.

If Russian military is totally incompetent and the campaign is a disaster, I certainly have nothing to fear, personally, that Putin will "come looking for me", whether Putin eventually prevails against the Ukrainians or not.

You're a bit late to predicting this future. My wife has been warning us all of the same things for three decades. — Olivier5

Then why are you talking instead of your wife?

Someone who is able to say:

14. Service economies will collapse as credit dries up. Manufacturing will radically simplify, but countries with modest manufacturing capacity will be forced to protect their manufacturing due to over-capacity of larger manufacturing centers trying to shift production to "anything and everything that is still being bought somewhere"; the interdependence of manufacturing economies will make such policy shifts acrimonious and volatile.

15. Bottom line: isolationism as we saw in the great depression is now unavoidable, with all tools in the policy shed hemmed in and blunted by inflation.

16. World War would be great to just nationalize whole manufacturing bases and get people jobs in the business of killing people and use the nationalist furor to crush socialist agitation that's trying to help the poor, but nuclear weapons render this no longer "the go to" easy solution for capitalism's woes. It will still be tried, of course, using conflicts to get people focused on something else, but with unknown efficacy / survival of the human species. — boethius

Connected to a wider body of analysis.

Two years ago—before massive bailouts, bone throwing, and the predicted inflation when bailout money "returns"—before any of that even happened.

Does not have "opinions".

Such a person literally sees into the future.

I'm not trying to prove anything. You are. You are peddling the message that they know what they are doing. I just think they don't. — Olivier5

Sure, unsupported opinion noted

"How about becoming a neutral henhouse?" — Olivier5

The problem in your picture there, is that the bear can do and say what it wants in that scenario.

Nothing looks reasonable here, on the Russian side. It's all about war crimes, power trips, incompetence, and keeping a zombified political system alive. You are looking way too hard for rationality where it may not exist. — Olivier5

If you bother to go and understand anything about geopolitics before weighing in on a geo-political issue, then you may start to see there could be reasons for the actions of powerful institutions. Doesn't mean there aren't risks, but proving someone, much less an entire institution, is "irrational" is a large hurdle and can only be proven by disproving all rational models that could resolve apparent contradictions, not only in what someone or some institution says, but more importantly in their genuine belief (which they may not report accurately for our analytical convenience).

Only the West (basically US, EU, Australia and Canada) have imposed sanctions on Russia. Obviously China hasn't, but neither India.

The geopolitical outcome of this war is cleaving off the developing world from the western dominated system.

Only Westerners view this war as "the small, brave and intrepid Ukraine under their own steam, fighting off the haughty Russian Army".

Everyone else views this war as Russia against the West, against NATO.

A large part of the rest of the world perceives the West as the bully, and Russia is now making a stand against that bully.

It's a risk, but if Russia survives politically and economically, Putin remains in power and Russia reorients its economy and just sells its resources to China and India and other developing nations. What's going to happen?

Total collapse of the US as a super power.

US is not a military empire, it is a financial empire. US military roll in the American Empire is that it's strong enough to topple nearly any medium sized government at will. Libya talks of an African bank and gold backed African monetary policy: Libya is now a failed state.

However, this is a wack-a-mole endeavour. If Africans did just come together to shirk off neo-colonialism, then the US cannot actually go and conquer all of Africa.

So, what is Russia doing really?

It's demonstrating the US financial, covert and military threats can be beaten. It's proving to the non-Western world that there's a economic and political system that now exists that the US can't just topple over into a failed state at will.

For all governments of the world that do not perceive themselves as benefiting from the Western system, but paying tribute instead, Russia is currently demonstrating an alternative.

For example, what does China actually get with its trade with the US? It gets US treasury bills.

There is simply a logical limit to how many US treasury bills China could possibly want.

Maybe China has simply had its fill of T-bills and now wants something else, real wealth, in exchange for what it offers. Russia is making that world come true.

What people fail to take into consideration is that the ex-Soviet intelligence types may have learned something from the collapse of the Soviet Union, and see the US as having the same weaknesses: too much internal dissatisfaction, too much debt, too much propaganda, and old decrepit elites that can't adapt.

Can we really say Russia is more corrupt when it used it's wealth to build up hundreds of billions of Euro and USD and tons of gold in reserve (public wealth) ... while the West transfers trillions of USD and Euros to the investor class as no-strings-attached "payment" for crashing the financial system due to "regulatory capture". Reward for destroying the credibility and stability of financial system upon which the West's power rested ... and crony capitalism writ large, banking and mega-corporation bailouts, is the direct cause of the current inflation and Wests' weakness?

The US imposed "collectivist" lockdowns for the "common good" ... and then evicted people from their homes on an industrial scale. That's really less corrupt?

More importantly, Mr Putin himself followed your advice. Ain't you proud? — Olivier5

Is it more important?

It takes two to tango my friend.

They are in damage control mode right now, saying they didn't really cared for Kiev now that they have been repelled from there, and after having sacrificed thousands of lives to try and get there... :smirk: — Olivier5

Again, every single Western analyst, generals and academics alike, told us the Russians have not amassed a force large enough to occupy and passify all of Ukraine and that Urban combat will be a massive cost to the Russian military.

At the time, both I and @Isaac, pointed out that maybe Russia knows that and their strategy is therefore not to occupy all of Ukraine, but just blowup a significant part of their military and take a land bridge to Crimea.

Also, Russia knows about the fanatical neo-Nazis and that the CIA has been training and equipping fanatical forces just as in Syria, why would the playbook change (which, however many they are, for sure will fight an insurrection) ... so, again, maybe they therefore never intended to occupy the entire country.

If Russia simply never intended to engage in intense Urban combat to take Kiev, then just going right up to Kiev and stopping there is a good strategy: keeps focus and resources on the capital and also has immense psychological affect on leadership.

Now, would they have rather Ukraine just capitulate? Obviously. But considering they only committed less than half their forces in the initial invasion ... it's reasonable to conclude that they had a plan B of "warfare" if the less-than-half force didn't provoke complete capitulation after starting a full scale invasion.

That was already a failure to start with: no clear goals, so you have soldiers asked to sacrifice their lives for... well... everything and nothing. — Olivier5

We don't know what they think.

They may know what they think and have very clear goals.

To achieve their goals, using warfare, may include deception to keep us guessing about what they are trying to do (so that our actions are counter productive).

If the Kremlin actually wants a Schism in the West, and all Western actions have so far simply consolidated the Kremlin's power within Russia as well as the international system, then ... our policies are helping the Kremlin achieve its goals, not dissuading them nor punishing them.

Already there is inflation (thanks to the insane monetary policies), and this will make it worse. — ssu

... I seem to remember discussing inflation and it's impact on the global system a couple of years ago.

Literally 2 years ago, 17, 03, 2020:

Now that the important philosophical subject of how trades are executed on stock exchanges has been investigated, I propose we move onto the general topic of corona virus and the stock market.

My understanding of the situation is as follows:

1. Corona is causing massive disruptions to most sectors of the economy: collapse of air travel and tourism for an unknown time, closing of local restaurant and entertainment and every other "in person" businesses for an extended period, many old people dying which will put more homes on the market, disruptions to supply chains due to manufacturing shutdowns in China, and long term psychological based changes in behaviour, damage to health systems (mainly skills dying or being so traumatized that they quit during or afterwards), and all related supply industries.

2. The positions taken by central banks to paper-over the 2009 "great recession" have not been unwound.

3. There are no more tools available (nor the prospect of until now "unthought of" tools) that can encourage traders to believe the free market will be stabilized by collectivists schemes of one form or another.

4. Therefore, any market actions by regulators of central banks will simply encourage people in the know to use those actions to get out even faster (not anticipate those actions will actually work and therefore stay in).

5. Large businesses will be bailed out anyways, even if long term structural changes to the economy mean there are no viable paths back to profitability.

6. Large sectors of the US economy, such as the fracking industry, have essentially never turned a profit and are faced with an economic down turn and a Russia and Saudi price reduction to force them into bankruptcy. Bailing the fracking industry out cannot even be imagined to make sense; they may actually be left hanging due to problems elsewhere being simply too great for friends to look after each other. (but this is an analytic side-quest to maximize one's schadenfreude at the expense of fracking executives and investors, and yes, a little bit at the expense of fracking workers too; but of course, doesn't help the financial system to have a giant rotten lemon on their desks as no one drinks rotten lemonade, except the fed of course)

7. Therefore, the central banks and regulators, by monetizing one way or another, trillions in losses will cash-up the investor class and be left holding what is technically referred to as "a big bag of dog shit".

8. This cash reentering the market when things are stabilized will cause massive inflation of whatever good assets remain.

9. There are no policy tools left (I am of aware of anyways) that could counter-act this inflation (US is already in trillion dollar deficit, 1.5 trillion "plausible deniability bailout" is already started in first week of this crisis and there will be much more, interest rates are zero or negative, the deficit will go even higher, and the fed will stop reporting on their financial alchemy projects).

10. We can reasonably conclude that inflation therefore will not be controlled (i.e. controlled less than the current policy mechanisms as well as just changing the definition of "what people need" on the fly).

11. International trade will start to collapse back to "real assets" (do you have something tangible I want, do I have something tangible that you want), rather than the previous regime of debt based trade (well, debts haven't been a problem before, therefore I will continue to pretend they will never be a problem in the future).

12. Referring back to tangible assets will be a radical simplification of the current trade system (not clear if there will be markets for most of the crap currently produced).

13. Regulators will realize at this point that there is no way to reboot the system without even more inflation since they just gave most of the money to the wealthy ... and have been doing so for the last decade already (and trickle down theories obviously make no sense, so the money will sit there but ready to pounce on any assets that do start to go up in price if the governments do try to bailout the poor through small "throw them a bone" inadequate measures, as horrifying as that sounds they will be forced to face their deepest fears of needing to throw those bones).

14. Service economies will collapse as credit dries up. Manufacturing will radically simplify, but countries with modest manufacturing capacity will be forced to protect their manufacturing due to over-capacity of larger manufacturing centers trying to shift production to "anything and everything that is still being bought somewhere"; the interdependence of manufacturing economies will make such policy shifts acrimonious and volatile.

15. Bottom line: isolationism as we saw in the great depression is now unavoidable, with all tools in the policy shed hemmed in and blunted by inflation.

16. World War would be great to just nationalize whole manufacturing bases and get people jobs in the business of killing people and use the nationalist furor to crush socialist agitation that's trying to help the poor, but nuclear weapons render this no longer "the go to" easy solution for capitalism's woes. It will still be tried, of course, using conflicts to get people focused on something else, but with unknown efficacy / survival of the human species. — boethius

Policy makers in the West have gone off script a tad bit here and there, but more or less just followed my advice these past 2 years, and definitely had the end point clearly in focus (strategy is very much an eye on the prize kind of undertaking, as I've previously mentioned).

And they didn't even pay me for it!

That's just how generous of a person I am.

They did largely prop-up the fracking industry, but frackers downsized rig counts and imposed austerity on themselves. And we're all now happy they did prop up the frackers, to be able to sell far more expensive gas to Europe now that there's the predictable "brink of WWIII" and new cold war, to depress Europe's economy over the long term and remove them as a significant player on the world stage.

Already EU leaders are so weak with nearly all their previous influence removed, that Biden can just speak on their behalf; CIA doesn't even need to tell them what to say anymore.

What should be noted that the dismal performance in the start of this invasion is mainly due to the poor assumptions that Ukrainians wouldn't fight, which was an intelligence failure. — ssu

Although this could be accurate, again I feel the need to debate it.

Agreed, total capitulation is what Putin, Kremlin and the Russia military would prefer (who wouldn't).

However, if you look at events on the ground, they go uncontested from Crimea, basically the first day to take Kherson and first couple days to link up with their forces in the East. These were insanely quick manoeuvres, and achieved 2 critical strategic objectives of taking a position South-West of the Dnieper, thus requiring Ukrainians to commit a large amount of troops to guarding a long defensive line to avoid Ukraine being cut North-South ... instead of a small amount of troops if they just blew-up all the bridges or defended Kherson with urban combat resulting in a prolonged siege.

From a military perspective, these are super critical strategic objectives and achieved incredibly quickly.

You have to compare this to the "risk" situation where Ukraine blows up the bridges out of Crimea and pin down Russian forces there and then Ukrainians Eastern front is far easier to hold, Mariupol (symbol of Azov battalion, of which the destruction is a stated justification for the war, and capturing Azov guys with swastika tattoo may not play get attention in the West, but maybe a different story in Russia).

Certainly, the "best case scenario" didn't happen for the Russians, and losses have been heavy (maybe far heavier than they anticipated), but they have largely achieved what they said they set out to achieve.

It is reasonable to assume that they focused on what was most critical in planning, and likely had setup before hand capitulation of border guards, cities and so on.

Not only military objectives, but the immediate cutoff and siege of Mariupol is a critical political objective, as traps Azov brigade which simply has plenty of members with Nazi tattoos ... so capturing a bunch and prosecuting them (non-regular forces, so not not really POW's and have zero POW rights) is an immense political win. Already, there's an American journalist that has reported a woman found with a Swastika painted in blood on her stomach ... and these guys are fucking nuts, it's completely in their MO and parading captured Nazi's (from the Russian perspective) makes people's blood boil.

Now, if the Russians know they can't occupy all of Ukraine ... maybe they planned to take first day what they actually do want and can hold long term (land bridge to Crimea) ... and so maybe the other front were just to tie up Ukrainian troops in the event of large scale resistance as Russia now claims.

As for reports of "house arrest" of the intelligence chief in Russia and disappearance of department of defence ... this could easily be to play for the home audience. Obviously there have been mistakes and high costs (I'm definitely no minimising the costs, just pointing out military objectives have been achieved with those costs).

Even if they they though heavy Ukrainian resistance likely - indeed, even if they actually wanted a soft invasion, a few "failures", and bait Ukraine into total war, so reasonable offers are rejected and they can completely decimate the Ukrainian military infrastructure and economy ("help" from the West will stop the moment news cycle switches ... and it's mostly debt anyways) - Putin maybe simply upset about embarrassing losses and equipment failures and corruption coming to light (all of which is very real), and also needing to send a "signal" to the population that people "answer for mistakes".

We don't know what's actually true in the fog of war and what are viewed by the Russian military as acceptable losses to achieve objectives, what is a tactical retreat or then a rout, or what are in fact ATGM decoys or even purposefully staging losses to bait enemy counter offensives to keep them far in the East or whatever (i.e. what), and what is just straight up embarrassing failure (which is going to happen in a large scale conventional war; plenty of allied commanders had embarrassing failures in WWII).

To take one example, there's a photo of a Russian tank with egg cartons spilling from the most recent reactive tank armor. Now, such a photo could be staged for propaganda footage ... or maybe just one of the failure modes of the armor and exactly what an engineer who worked on the system would expect to see, as there's a layer of cardboard like wrapping. We don't know. However, Russian military and Putin would know, and let's assume it is just straight-up corruption of filling reactive armor with egg cartons to pocket the cash or hit quotas. Even if the war is going well: soldiers, commanders and Putin are going to be pissed about that and want people to answer for it.

Point being, we don't even really know what the facts even are -- FSB director being under house arrest could be FSB directors idea as just a good propaganda technique to signal the Russian population that "something is being done" to hold people to account for "accidentally" starting a total war with Ukraine which was the FSB directors idea to do in the first place -- and, even if we did know the facts, we don't know what narrative they fit. "Discipline" for mistakes, even if everything is going to plan overall, is still completely normal in a huge institution (only the US promotes people for disastrously starting a war on made-up pretences), and mistakes of all kinds are to be expected in a massively chaotic total war situation.

To evaluate "if things are going well or badly" or costs have been "too high", we need to know what the statistics on the ground are, actually be able to compare Russian losses to Ukrainian losses, and we'd actually need to know what Russian leadership is trying to achieve exactly (which we don't).

Drink up, the sun's going to explode one day. — frank

We are in total agreement on this one.

Good to know there's more common ground than differences. I'll be toasting to that.