Why then are we being stuck with obscene price rises? — Natherton

The biggest reason is the money printing. If you create so much money, then prices finally rise.

It's the systematic flaw in our financial system based on having ever more debt.

The more I think of it, the more impossible the situation seems for Putin. I don't see how he can come back from this if he keeps committing more.

By sheer force of numbers, Russia can certainly eventually occupy Ukraine, but it appears it will take a significant amount of time, potentially months now that the war is beginning to settle into more solid fronts, and most of Russia combat power has been deployed without a collapse of the Ukranian military. The Ukranian AA is still up, as evidence by videos from today of more Russian aircraft being shot down. The Ukranian forces have developed defensive positions and rapid collapse no longer seems like a threat.

Despite high casualties, Ukraine's combined forces still number in the hundreds of thousands. While significantly out gunned in terms of hardware, their 465,000 strong active and reserve components can overcome this disadvantage to some degree in urban areas, particularly so long as Russia continues to lose aircraft in attacks and supply lines to the cities aren't cut.

With the conflict heading towards the end of its second week, Russia has taken just one significant city, and not only failed to take Kharkiv, right along its border, but sustained heavy losses in a major counter offensive there.

While the Russian military has significantly fewer logistics personnel per each soldier in a combat role than the US, it is still a ratio of less than 1:1. Casualties for Russia appear to be somewhere in the range of 5-10,000 already (granted, some deserters may return). They appear to be rapidly burning through their initial deployment.

Leaks indicate this, as does Russian consideration of using unreliable forces from their ostensible vassals that have just recently undergone revolts against their Russian-backed autocratic leadership. Now they are starting to recruit in Syria, another sign of desperation.

The heavy shelling of residential areas in the mostly ethnic Russian city of Kharkiv is indicative of commanders who do not feel they have enough combat forces to press into the city with infantry, likely fearing that heavy losses may collapse the front. There is other evidence to support this, such as the suicidal raid into the city by special forces that resulted in the units' destruction, and the successful Ukranian counter offensive in the area which video evidence shows taking out 38 vehicles, including many large troop carriers, supporting their claims of having inflicted 1,600-2,000 casualties in that single operation (this might be an exaggeration because many may have simply dismounted and fled in a route, and be useable in the near future; the videos don't show many KIA, unlike the videos of the special forces sent into Kharkiv, who seem to be largely KIA, and there were no videos of a large scale surrender of that size).

Here is the main point: to date, the Ukrainians have given every indication that they will reject a Russian puppet government and that resistance will continue even if Russia secures an eventual victory over Ukraine's conventional military forces. The government in Kyiv is supporting this notion by arming civilians, preparing IEDs, etc. To be sure, these are in part, simply propaganda efforts, a way to signal to Russia the high costs of occupation. However, the resistance to date makes insurgency seem increasingly likely.

Russia cannot afford an insurgency in a nation the size of Ukraine. Even if their goal is limited to the eastern parts of the country, and newly discovered gas fields, it is hard to imagine how they secure it. Their force already seems inadequate for the initial defeat of the Ukranian military. It is far too small for proper COIN operations.

For comparison, Vietnam had a 16% smaller population in 1965 than Ukraine's current population. In order to counter the VC, the US had to deploy 550,000 soldiers, supported by an additional 50,000 allied forces (mostly Korean). Backing them up were 820,000 South Vietnamese soldiers, so 1.42 million men at arms. They were only policing half the country. The technological gap between the VC and the US armed forces was significantly larger than that between the Ukrainians and Russians.

While US leadership paid a hefty political price for involvement in Vietnam, the Russian public is likely to have far graver doubts about this war. First, the invasion has a poor justification, and it came as a shock to the public. It is framed as a liberation and peacekeeping operation, which does not jive with images coming out of Ukraine: civilians taking up arms and shelled apartment complexes. The countries are neighbors with a shared culture; family ties stretch across the border. Resentment will build up far quicker.

Additionally, while the US was involved in horrific events in Vietnam, and air campaigns that killed countless civilians, the large bulk of the major atrocities of the war were committed by the South Vietnamese army or the VC itself. US citizens could rationalize that the bloodshed would continue, and perhaps intensify if the US withdrew (e.g., when the VC was able to take Huế, the result was widespread massacre and rape of civilians by the communists). In an insurgency in Ukraine, any attempt to "take the gloves of" will reflect directly on the Russian invaders.

The internet, and the ease with which video can be shared, even within states with significant censorship, will also make controlling public opinion harder. The fifteen-year prison sentences announced for sharing "fake news about the security operation," (e.g., sharing videos of Russian combat loses, or interviews with demoralized soldiers), seem like an act of desperation. Russia can shutter its last independent TV networks (it has), but it is too modernized to shut down the internet without major economic repercussions. At the same time, the Russian economy is far worse off than the America's in the 1960, and public anger can't be discharged in elections by voting in a new party.

Point being, it is unclear to me how Putin can hope to occupy Ukraine long term if there is continued resistance. The force required would necessitate calling up essentially all of their reserve forces and a wave of conscription. Russia has 3.45 million men aged 20-24. During the Vietnam War, the US had more than twice as many men in that age bracket (7.5 million). A draft will hit more families, more substantially if similar troop levels are required by the Russians.

Morale and combat readiness is likely to grow even worse as Russia is forced to call up reserves with more distance from military service, or rely on freshly trained conscripts. Historically, older men called out of the reserves are significantly more likely to mutiny. Their deaths also leave families without a breadwinner.

This will also put pressure on Russia to attempt to use the militaries of its ostensible vassals, Belarus and Kazakhstan. However, that move comes with huge political risks. Belarus and Kazakhstan have both seen recent, large-scale revolts against their leadership. Putin may not have the leverage to call on Kazakh forces at all. He could almost certainly force Lukashanko to commit troops (he already has his military working logistics for the invasion, and crossing over the border), but mutiny seems highly likely if they are forced into the current meat grinder.

Already Belarus has seen protests, clashes with riot police, and partisans hacking, and fire-bombing railways so that Russian forces can't use them. Belarusian expats are serving as volunteers in Ukraine right now. As the war drags on longer and Russia looks more bogged down, the risk of revolts spreading become more likely.

But how can Putin get out of this?

Perhaps he will take a more logical approach. He will focus on securing the gas fields in the east and a smaller area around his new "republics," declare victory, and end the war. This seems increasingly politically difficult though, as KIA counts mount. He has to justify a foolhardy, surprise war, and all those killed, for what will then look more explicitly like a resource grab (Ukraine will not have been "liberated."). As the Russians double down on more outlandish propaganda, we now hear of CIA plutonium shipments to Kyiv, bioweapons being engineered, etc., it becomes harder for them to back into a face-saving peace that leaves an independent Ukraine. Partition is an option, but a new Western Ukraine would become a haven for insurgents. Pushing to the border with NATO has its own major risks too though, and the population further west will be even more hostile to Russia.

Backing down would critically damage Putin's reputation at a time when he might already be being second guessed due to his illness, and his irrational decision to go to war. This might lead him to keep doubling down on the war even as the costs pile up; particularly if unrest spreads and he has to "liberate" Belarus down the road.

Barring a crafty propaganda move, declaring "victory" with limited aims, or a rapid shift in the tide of the war and a collapse in Ukranian morale and confidence, both of which look increasingly unlikely, it appears Putin will face a very severe crisis. This could become a huge security threat if instability spreads to Russia, but it seems like an inevitability at this point barring some drastic shift in the current trajectory of the conflict. And while a quick shift in leadership could offer Russian elites a way out of the Ukranian debacle, Putin has organized the state to make it almost impossible to remove him without force, making a coup and potential internal struggle more likely if he eventually gets to a place where his position is no longer tenable.

On a related note, Tuesday marks the 105th anniversary of the February Revolution (which might mark renewed protests in Russia and Belarus). The anniversary of a revolt led by mutinous soldiers who were angry at having their lives squandered in a pointless war, and citizens facing a massive economic crisis. I wonder if Putin thinks of Tsar Nicholas at all from his glimmering mansion?

But how can Putin get out of this? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Depends on what happens when he takes out Zelensky. A resistance will need a leader.

Maybe Putin thought Zelensky would flee the country and Ukraine would surrender sooner than this.

Perhaps he will take a more logical approach. He will focus on securing the gas fields in the east and a smaller area around his new "republics," declare victory, and end the war. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think this is a real possibility. What surprises me is that the "Putin is mad" camp cannot talk about strategy. If Putin has made a strategic error, and is rational, then we have to talk about strategy. As an aside, if the Russian population supports Putin then it is indeed a Russian military operation.

Maybe form a buffer region to prevent shelling of the east? How did George W. Bush liberate Iraq, and more importantly, liberate the US from the Iraqi threat? By destroying the country. That's is a criminal option, but an option nevertheless.

Nazism may be alive and well, and I do not see anyone talking the effort to criminalize it, UN agreements notwithstanding. There may be wisdom in letting them show identify themselves instead of forcing them underground, I do not know.

He almost certainly thought that. He was high on his own propaganda. The Russian forces did not come in ready for heavy resistance. They came in with downright suicidal VDV raids deep into enemy territory with no SEAD and no ground support follow up. The logistics were also not in place for a long war, as evidenced by all the stalled vehicles and the fact that the bulk of the siege forces meant for Kyiv have still yet to cover their two-hour drive after a week.

Zelensky's death could be a game changer if it leads to infighting. If there is other competent leadership, making him a martyr might just make things worse for Putin, as he was not without his detractors before, and a new wartime leader could have less baggage. I also don't think he would take too much of a blow to popularity if he stayed in the city until encirclement seemed inevitable and then retreated to Liviv with the explicit purpose of continuing the war even if Kyiv falls.

The shift in tactics, "taking the gloves off" also seems more likely to keep a resistance going regardless of what happens to Zelensky. Relying heavily on indirect fire in an urban area that is supposed to be filled with "your" civilians also shows a total loss of control of the battle space, as does having your general officers killed by sniper fire or having battalion commanders captured and paraded out.

If his strategic goal was just those areas, he would have simply recognized Donetsk and Luhansk and done a smaller operation to secure those regions. Instead, he launched most of his forces at Kyiv. He chose an operation with a footprint large enough that it would commit him to a much larger war.

He obviously thought the resistance would collapse, hence the idiotic attack plan. They now have 8 separate lines of attack, which is resulting in their supply lines being extremely vulnerable and subject to attack. The offensive is already stalled, with strong salients developing. The air force is MIA for some unknown reason, and when aircraft are used, it they are being shot down. Rather than focus on a consolidated strategic goal, they decided to show off with multiple different advances they lack the logistics to support and the comms to coordinate (hell, even within one column they lack effective comms, hence two generals and two colonels being killed after they had to go to the front to get directions to their troops).

News from Sputnik (Official Russian Propaganda Channel )

Sputnik Exclusive: DPR Leader Says Situation in Donbass Comparable to NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia

LIVE UPDATES: Over 163,000 People Evacuated From Areas of Russia's Spec Op in Ukraine

and RT (Official Russian Propaganda Channel)

US drafts plan for government-in-exile, guerrilla war in Ukraine – reports

How is this good news for Russians? They know the 'military operation' is ongoing, know that it has been going on for several days, and of course they now people are getting killed and injured on all sides.

Once you start restricting news, you lose credibility, no matter what country you are in. Maybe not in the West.

I could stop criticizing the Russian Military for a few days, no problem. I don't think I have done it here. The question is why the West has banned Russian channels, is it not prohibiting criticism of the military of the West? Or to be specific, Joe Biden, and Boris Johnson?

Should he have just focused on Kiev instead of surrounding the whole country?

He should have not started a war. But if he was going to, sure, it would have made sense to try the "swiftly topple the government with a huge show of force," idea they used. However, once it clearly wasn't going to work, a two-pronged offensive from around Kharkiv, and up from Crimea seems to make more sense. Then you can push towards Dnipro, with smaller forces supporting from the "republics" and attempt to encircle defenders in the south. You could bipass the cities to try to encircle the army, instead of getting bogged down in urban street fighting, where your hardware advantage counts for less, and where collateral damage will result in a greater risk of future insurgency.

This area is also more ethnically Russian and your best bet for winning hearts and minds (provided you aren't shelling apartments).

Save the "invade from Belarus" trick until after you've dealt the Ukranian military a decent defeat and made them burn through AA resources. It isn't fooling anyone, Western intelligence can see your movements on satellites. Just keep a small presence of low combat effectiveness reserves parked on the border, forcing Ukraine to waste forces guarding against a potential attack.

Only after that initial success do you push on Kiev. If they still are holding out well, begin further moves up north of Kharkiv looking for smaller encirclements (Russian doctrine is heavily focused on encirclements so this should be what your troops know).

Tell your troops they are going into a war. Yeah, you need opsec, but telling them they are going out on drills and then shoving them into combat is how you get the droves of abandoned vehicles we're seeing right now. Don't trick conscripts into "signing up" to become volunteers and then shove them into combat roles. Don't shell civilian corridors, let people leave so you can deal with urban areas without (as much) collateral damage. If your whole plan relies on a quick war, not prolonged sieges, what possible benefit is it to trap civilians in the cities you are besieging? Yeah, they will eat through supplies quicker with the civilians there, but the whole point is that you're not trying for a long siege.

And stop throwing the VDV into unsupported raids. You'd almost think a leader there must be suspected of planning a coup with how they are throwing them away.

That's my armchair general take anyhow.

Grand strategy wise, I actually don't think this makes a conflict over Taiwan more likely. Xi will see how badly this backfired and reassess the risks of embarking on that sort of adventurism. Especially since America may be tearing itself apart again in 2024 if it once again has two presidential candidates declaring victory. This time, there appears to be a much higher potential for one party to use state legislatures or control of the House and Senate to overturn the election (even if Trump wins outright, he'll still probably lose the popular vote by 4-5%, leading to more discontent). Trump certainly seems to be planning to run, and if he loses, he will almost certainly claim a rigged election again. China's position relative to the US is only improving for now, politically and economically.

It might accelerate the reclamation of the Russian Far East though. Booted out of SWIFT, Russian financial institutions are turning to a Chinese alternative. Russia is buying tons of Yuan. Russia will likely become more amenable to payments for oil in Yuan as sanctions make using USD harder. With sanctions likely to stay, Russia's non-petrol exports will have their main market in Russia.

The Russian Far East is down below 7 million Russian citizens. The number of Chinese living there in 2000? 28,000. In 2014? 800,000. Today? We don't know because it is a sore spot for Russia, but it is probably on the way to 1/6th the population. Of that Russian population, about a million are indigenous to the area or Mongolian, with closer historical ties to China.

China still maintains in official documents that the treaties through which Russia acquired that land in the mid-1800s are illegal. Much of the Russian Far East was a part of various Chinese dynasties, off and on from 500 AD to 1850 AD, a fact they like to bring up. I doubt there will be any moves towards making the area part of China, at least not any time soon (unless Russia really collapses from this), but they wield a lot of soft power there, which will only grow now. Long term, if a decent majority of the population becomes ethnic Han, perhaps we will see a move towards "independence."

China is also making moves in Central Asia, pulling those states into its orbit (and out of Russia's). This will certainly accelerate that process. Russia is too big and too culturally different to become a true Chinese satellite, but it could be accelerating on that trajectory with long term isolation and economic decline.

Long term, around 2100, I wouldn't be totally shocked by these borders. Mandate of heaven indeed.

Long term, around 2100, I wouldn't be totally shocked by these borders. Mandate of heaven indeed. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Bear in mind this is a Mercator projection.

Bear in mind this is a Mercator projection. — Changeling

Good point.

The use of information in war. Or mis-information. What is the actual size of Russia, Ukraine, China and the United States? This never makes it to any of the news channels and expert heads?

Let's see. Take a moment to confirm these sizes: the Mercator projection served well in brainwashing the public (washing is supposed to make things cleaner by the way):

Ukraine is bigger than what is shown on the standard map of the world (Mercator projection)
USA is more than half the size of Russia
China is one and a half times the size of the USA.

Check for yourself: https://thetruesize.com

The word Justification is used a lot.

Here is the definition:

Definition of justification


1

a: the act or an instance of justifying something : VINDICATION
arguments offered in justification of their choice

b: an acceptable reason for doing something : something that justifies an act or way of behaving
could provide no justification for his decision — Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Are we talking about 1 (a) or (b) ? Acceptable in terms of, for example, the UN Charter?

Strange and unusual:

Russia Releases Bizarre Video of Space Station Breaking Apart (Mar 5, 2022)

Strange and unproductive: — jorndoe

Ukraine is bigger than what is shown on the standard map of the world (Mercator projection)
USA is more than half the size of Russia
China is one and a half times the size of the USA. — FreeEmotion

That is funny stuff. The three greatest producers of mediocrity always comparing their dick sizes. I must admit, watching China, Russia and US terrorize the world is really getting tiresome.

Should he have just focused on Kiev instead of surrounding the whole country? — frank

I heard that was the original plan, but there is a nice sandwich shop in Odesa that he really wanted.

On Putin's to-do list?

☐ Prominent Russians join protests against Ukraine war amid 1,800 arrests (Feb 25, 2022)
☐ A few members of the Russian Parliament speak out against the war. (Feb 28, 2022)
☐ Ukraine: Russian opposition to the invasion is giving Putin cause for alarm (Mar 4, 2022)

☐ More than 4,300 people arrested at anti-war protests across Russia (Mar 6, 2022)

Individuals crossed off the list:

☑ Alexander Litvinenko (Nov 23, 2006), and then more testing was implemented at airports
☑ Here’s a list of Putin critics who've ended up dead (Mar 11, 2016)

Some crossed off the list a while back:

☑ Putin pulls plug on last critical TV channel (Jun 23, 2003)
☑ Russia's Last Independent TV Station Broadcasts 'Swan Lake' in Nod to History Before Going Dark (Mar 4, 2022)

I guess Ukraine is in progress. :fire:

Putin pushes a propaganda narrative to justify his actions, there's no reality to that narrative. Why can't people understand this? — Christoffer

Because it's categorically not true. There is a Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine. There's an even bigger far-right problem, and a bigger still nationalist/racist problem.

The fact that Putin's lying about it being the reason for his invasion does not make it cease to exist.

The fact that Putin's lying about it being the reason for his invasion does not make it best we never mention it and actively suppress all such talk.

What it does mean is that it might represent a good diplomatic lever in any peace negotiations. Being his stated aim (diplomatically), we have to be seen to be addressing it (diplomatically), for him to be able to back down.

That's the entire point of all this discussion.

In your blind polemicism you're triggered by every mention of the word 'Neo-Nazi' to assume the person is agreeing with Putin. We're talking about the process of a diplomatic route to peace. I know for warmongers like you that's an anathema, but others prefer to advocate stopping the death and destruction as quickly as possible by whatever means.

And which of the conflicts would reject my hypothesis? — ssu

Your hypothesis begs its own question. You simply assume that the exhaustion precedes the peace talks and not that the progress of peace talks precedes the exhaustion.

Peace talk, involves everything from sit down discussions to back-channel whispers and progress from virtually day one of war.

If you seriously think wars are fought only with soldiers and then negotiators brought in at the end when everyone's tired you're more naïve than I thought.

Likewise if you think peace talks have to create a lasting state of harmony to work. A day's ceasefire is a huge humanitarian win.

But it's not about your hypothesis (which is nothing but a tautology "peace talks work when either side prefer peace to war" - well duh!). It's about your rejection of them as a tool. Almost every peace talk ever has started from a position of taking both side's grievances seriously, its a diplomatic exercise, not a court of law. Those that haven't have failed.

> What it does mean is that it might represent a good diplomatic lever in any peace negotiations.

It depends on how relevant is the lever. And the claim "There is a Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine" needs to be proven.

I found a study from July 2016 ("The Far Right in the Conflict between Russia and Ukraine" by Vyacheslav LIKHACHEV), claiming:
From the very beginning, the armed conflict that broke out in the Donbass in the spring of 2014 drew in right-wing radicals, on the Ukrainian as well as on the Russian side. Organised ultra-nationalist groups and individual activists established their own units of volunteers or joined existing ones. The ideology, political traditions and general track record of these right- wing extremists meant that it was both natural and inevitable that they would take an active part in the conflict. Yet the role of right-wing radicals on both sides has on the whole been exaggerated in the media and in public discussion. This article demonstrates that Russia’s use of right-wing radicals on the side of the “separatists” in Donetsk and Lugansk provinces had greater military and political repercussions than the involvement of Ukrainian far-right groups in the “anti-terrorist operation”. The general course of the conflict, meanwhile, caused the importance of far right- groups on both sides to decline.

Not to mention how the Ukrainian Jewish community reacted to the "denazification claims about Ukraine by Putin.

the claim "There is a Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine" needs to be proven. — neomac

From your article...

the role of right-wing radicals on both sides has on the whole been exaggerated — neomac

Russia’s use of right-wing radicals on the side of the “separatists” in Donetsk and Lugansk provinces had greater military and political repercussions than the involvement of Ukrainian far-right groups — neomac

How can a problem which doesn't exist be exaggerated? How can the Russians cause more military and political repercussions than something which doesn't exist?

How can a problem which doesn't exist be exaggerated? How can the Russians cause more military and political repercussions than something which doesn't exist? — Isaac

I didn't talk about existence, but about relevance on a negotiation table as you seemed interested to discuss.

I didn't talk about existence — neomac

Oh. You said

the claim "There is a Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine" needs to be proven. — neomac

That claim begins "There is..." It's a claim directly regarding the existence of something. It's very confusing for you to then deny you're talking about existence.

Perhaps you could clarify. How does "the claim "There is a Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine" needs to be proven." have any bearing on "relevance on a negotiation table". I'm not seeing the link.

☐ Prominent Russians join protests against Ukraine war amid 1,800 arrests (Feb 25, 2022)
☐ A few members of the Russian Parliament speak out against the war. (Feb 28, 2022)
☐ Ukraine: Russian opposition to the invasion is giving Putin cause for alarm (Mar 4, 2022)

☐ More than 4,300 people arrested at anti-war protests across Russia (Mar 6, 2022)

Individuals crossed off the list:

☑ Alexander Litvinenko (Nov 23, 2006), and then more testing was implemented at airports
☑ Here’s a list of Putin critics who've ended up dead (Mar 11, 2016)

Some crossed off the list a while back:

☑ Putin pulls plug on last critical TV channel (Jun 23, 2003)
☑ Russia's Last Independent TV Station Broadcasts 'Swan Lake' in Nod to History Before Going Dark (Mar 4, 2022) — jorndoe

Protests are good. That means democracy (or whatever they have over there in Russia) is alive if not unwell. I fully support protests. Anti-war protests, anti "Justified War" protests. I also oppose violence which will again bring up the question of justification. Not sure why people are arrested - does it mean that protests are effective? This is also good. They arrest protesters in the U.S.A. as well, unless of course the protesters pose no threat and are wasting their time. Maybe Putin will stop the war.

Alexander Litvinenko.

Who was he?

Alexander Valterovich Litvinenko[a] (30 August 1962[2] or 4 December 1962[3] – 23 November 2006) was a British-naturalised Russian defector and former officer of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) who specialised in tackling organized crime.

In November 1998, Litvinenko and several other FSB officers publicly accused their superiors of ordering the assassination of the Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky. Litvinenko was arrested the following March on charges of exceeding the authority of his position. He was acquitted in November 1999 but re-arrested before the charges were again dismissed in 2000. He fled with his family to London and was granted asylum in the United Kingdom, where he worked as a journalist, writer and consultant for the British intelligence services. — Wikipedia

So he was a consultant for the British intelligence services. Whom did this episode benefit?
The first act listed was gross insubordination (unless pro-Western actions have a special exclusion) and the second action - switching sides - you tell me what that means in terms of morality.

As for the list

"]The Washington DC medical examiner's office has just confirmed that former Russian press minister Mikhail Lesin died of "blunt force trauma to the head."
Lesin, who founded the English-language television network Russia Today (RT) was found dead in a Washington, DC, hotel room in November 2015. — Business Insider

The Daily Beast reports that before his death, Lesin was considering making a deal with the FBI to protect himself from corruption charges — Wikipedia

.

Making a deal with the FBI indeed. Did that deal go wrong? Who knows?

Former Russian Press Minister and founder of RT. When RT is banned as Russia's propaganda arm, or Putin's propaganda channel, the founder of RT is somehow an enemy of Putin. How did it come about? Did he change sides like Litvinenko? Or was someone upset with RT? I know they are now.

I am not impressed with any arguments justifying murder. Killing people is a crime. That said, giving a list of dead people who were once or forever part of the Russian power apparatus as 'people suspected of' how does the URL put it "list-of-people-putin-is-suspected-of-assassinating-2016-3" smacks of propaganda.

So a list of people shot dead, killed by contract killers, is listed as Putin's work. It really practices the 'innocent until proved guilty' concept. If solving crimes is so easy, for journalists to find the killers of innocent people: politicians, activists, former Russian officials, then maybe they should head the KGB.

Obviously, this is not the case, there must be other suspects. How about over-zealous Putin supporters? How about people in the government who considered them traitors? That has never occurred to these people. Have some imagination.

In my opinion, as an uninformed man on the street, the death of these enemies of Putin causes much more doubt about Putin's character than whatever they would have said and done if they were alive. Which leads me to suspect, since suspicion is free from reason, that these people were matryed to embarrass Putin and attempt to destroy him. Good strategy, except that it is murder.

I am all for propaganda, especially unsophisticated propaganda which reveals which side they are on. I know RT and Sputnik always have a pro-Putin stance, except for those things which can be fact checked. With other news channels, mixing the truth with propaganda makes for muddy waters: there are no two sides to the story because stories are simply swept under the carpet.

And stop throwing the VDV into unsupported raids. You'd almost think a leader there must be suspected of planning a coup with how they are throwing them away. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Thanks for all the info and great insight. I could not understand this bit. What did you mean by "unsupported raids", and "throwing away"?

@Christoffer,@ssu

I've a question (might ask @frank too given his reading on Putin) - two in fact.

1. What harm will it do to Putin if he loses the war in Ukraine as a consequence of NATO/US/ Europe assistance? How will such a situation harm his grip on power, rather than simply cement the 'bulwark against the west' narrative which keeps him there?

2. Why do you think Putin bothered with all the 'denazifying' and 'resist NATO expansion' pretexts? If he's the mad tyrant you say he is, why not just declare war on Ukraine for the glory of Russia and shoot anyone who disagrees?

Because it's categorically not true. There is a Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine. There's an even bigger far-right problem, and a bigger still nationalist/racist problem. — Isaac

Bigger than what? The US? What about all other nations with far-right problems, especially in Europe? This is Putin's narrative getting to your head, making Ukraine worse than any other nation with a far-right problem. Not to mention all connections Putin and Russia have to far-right movements in other nations. Since everyone knows he's a strategist, it's kind of logical that he helps push far-right movements in other nations in order to then say there's a neo-nazi problem he's fighting.

The fact that Putin's lying about it being the reason for his invasion does not make it cease to exist.

The fact that Putin's lying about it being the reason for his invasion does not make it best we never mention it and actively suppress all such talk. — Isaac

There's no reason to talk about a problem in a country where the entire infrastructure and living conditions are war. "The problem" that Putin help you bloat up does not exist right now since it's a problem to fix in a country that does not have war. When there's civilians lying in the streets after a bombing leveled several blocks, it doesn't really matter that one of those houses had a gathering of neo-nazis before the war.

It's like sitting in a house after it burned down saying: "Just because it is like it is doesn't mean we can ignore the plumbing problem we had before the fire."

What it does mean is that it might represent a good diplomatic lever in any peace negotiations. Being his stated aim (diplomatically), we have to be seen to be addressing it (diplomatically), for him to be able to back down. — Isaac

There's no diplomacy around his propaganda reasons. You cannot sit down in peace talks and use made-up reasons for a ceasefire since that's not the reason he's in Ukraine. You cannot bargain with reasons that even he himself knows are untrue.

It's like your mouth speaks of his reasons not being true, but your mind seems to have bought the propaganda anyway. How do you use made-up ideas when everyone around the table of peace talks knows it's all bullshit? It's not the general public that's in those meetings, they all know it's bullshit. Putin uses these reasons as a way to never answer to his real reasons, it's a mantra whenever he gets criticized.

But even if it's met, it's a problem that is impossible to meet. How do you establish that the "neo-nazis" are gone? Do you show him the dismantled bodies of children in a block bombed to rubble and say: "your neo-nazi problem is gone now, you bombed them to bits"?

Likewise if you think peace talks have to create a lasting state of harmony to work. A day's ceasefire is a huge humanitarian win. — Isaac

Putin doesn't give a shit. While you're writing here, there's been agreed upon humanitarian corridors that were supposed to help civilians flee cities currently being under siege. But Russian troops keep firing at the civilians. They agree on a ceasefire until the civilians are gone, then instantly starts shooting at them.

It's like you don't see what's going on here, like you are blind to the brutality of Putin and the unreliability of dealing with him diplomatically. He doesn't fucking care, and it's proven by what is directly happening between the diplomacy and events in Ukraine.

He's conducting war in the same way as dictators did before the age of internet. Making sham diplomacy meetings and peace talk while bombing civilians to pieces. This worked in the past since it kept the international public in the dark while trying to achieve the real objectives in the war. Only after a war had ended did human rights violations and war crimes become known and then the objective of the war was either failed or gained while proving the aggressor guilty became harder since most evidence was gone. Right now, when it's so easy for information to get out of Ukraine, it becomes much harder to conduct these sham diplomacy strategies and I think this is the failure for Putin.

He didn't calculate how information spreads today and this is why he's now so dedicated to shutting down everything in Russia in order to control the flow of information at least in a place he has control over. Otherwise, we would have seen him shutting down Facebook and information outlets in Russia right at the start of the invasion in order to control the flow. He didn't do that and only did it after protests and criticism appeared, something he might have thought would be something to deal with later.

In your blind polemicism you're triggered by every mention of the word 'Neo-Nazi' to assume the person is agreeing with Putin. We're talking about the process of a diplomatic route to peace. I know for warmongers like you that's an anathema, but others prefer to advocate stopping the death and destruction as quickly as possible by whatever means. — Isaac

Putin doesn't care about any of that. If you think you can sit down in a peace talk with his delegation and use his propaganda reasons as "leverage" he would just laugh behind your back. It's gullible and naive to think you can meet his bullshit as foundations for a ceasefire like that. Just look at how he fell back to his "standard" propaganda whenever people like Macron called him and tried to talk sense into him. He doesn't care, he just states the reasons and never discusses it as any valid point.

Because he knows he could keep using that reason as it's an extremely vague point that can never be proven "solved". He could keep using the neo-nazi angle at every corner of this war because there will never be a point when anyone can say "now that the house of nazis has been leveled, the neo-nazis are gone and the denazification is complete".

If you want to get people to act according to your propaganda, basically act by your will. Use a truth (there are neo-nazi groups in Ukraine, just like in most nations of the west) and bloat it up to a propaganda reason for war (denazification of Ukraine). Because of this choice, you have a reason for the war that can never be "finished". So you can use it throughout the war as a stated reason for the war in a way that can never be proven a success or a failure until you choose what outcome fits your need. All while the truth you built the propaganda on muddies the waters of diplomacy and the general public view on the war since some gullible and naive people will look at the truth-part, connect it to the stated reasons and not be able to deconstruct what is truth and what is propaganda.

You can see this everywhere. People who are unable to see past the propaganda, who are unable to see how that propaganda works, are used and who even think they understand that Putin uses propaganda, but still fall for it, just as it seems in your case.

You can't use bullshit reasons as a foundation for peace talks, and you can't meet unquantifiable demands as leverage for a ceasefire, and you can't enter a ceasefire if the aggressor keeps breaking it killing civilians.

Bigger than what? The US? What about all other nations with far-right problems, especially in Europe? This is Putin's narrative getting to your head, making Ukraine worse than any other nation with a far-right problem. — Christoffer

Where have I said anything about Ukraine being a bigger problem than anywhere else?

Not to mention all connections Putin and Russia have to far-right movements in other nations. — Christoffer

What's that got to do with whether there's a neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine?

There's no reason to talk about a problem in a country where the entire infrastructure and living conditions are war. — Christoffer

I've literally been outlining exactly the reason for talking about it. If you don't agree, then your reasons for disagreeing are what we should discuss. Just saying "No" isn't much of a discussion.

There's no diplomacy around his propaganda reasons. You cannot sit down in peace talks and use made-up reasons for a ceasefire since that's not the reason he's in Ukraine. You cannot bargain with reasons that even he himself knows are untrue. — Christoffer

Of course you can. Diplomats do it all the time. All politicians lie, it's the narratives that get them into power and keep them there. It's the basic stuff of politics.

How do you use made-up ideas when everyone around the table of peace talks knows it's all bullshit? — Christoffer

It isn't bullshit. There is a Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine. This is the distinction you keep failing to see. Putin using it as a justification for war is bullshit. It being worse in Ukraine than most other places is bullshit. It existing at all is not bullshit, so it can be used as a negotiation lever.

But even if it's met, it's a problem that is impossible to meet. — Christoffer

Not at all. Offer to share intelligence on them, ask Russia to identity the perpetrators, involve Russia security in joint surveillance... There's lots of ways to call his bluff.

Putin doesn't care about any of that. — Christoffer

Relates to my questions above...