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



My Dear Russian Friends, It’s Time For Your Maidan
Jonathan Littell

My dear Russian friends: some old friends, some more recent, some I only know from afar, friends in soul and spirit. Times are tough for you too. Like those of all Ukrainians, your lives, never simple, have been turned upside down. Many of you are fleeing Russia. And many of you share with me a feeling of guilt and shame about what your country is doing, in your name, to Ukraine.

Those of you who were activists had been on borrowed time for a long while and were preparing for the final attack. On March 4, I wrote to Alexander Cherkasov, a very old friend from the NGO Memorial. “I’ll tell you later, he replied laconically. After the search [that day by Russian police], we wander among the ruins. Gutted computers. Forced safes. » Others, cultural figures, artists, writers, are stunned by the sudden collapse of their fragile world. None of you like Putin and his regime of thieves and fascists; most of you hate them. But let’s be honest: with a few rare exceptions – the friends of Memorial, of the newspaper Novaya Gazeta, of the site Medusa, and a handful of others – how many of you have lifted a finger to resist this regime? Could it be that your feelings of shame and guilt are not entirely abstract? Are they also due to your long indifference to what was happening around you, to your apathy, to your passive complicity?

You didn’t want to know

It wasn’t always like this. There was a time in the 1990s when you had freedom and democracy, chaotic, even bloody, but very real. But 1991 ended the same way as 1917. Why, every time you finally make your revolution, you get so scared of the Time of Troubles that you go and hide under the petticoats of a tsar, a Stalin or Putin?

It’s true, mistakes were made. Instead of exposing the archives of the KGB, as the former East Germany did with those of the Stasi, the political police, you let yourself be distracted by the statue of Felix Dzerzhinsky and you let the KGB hunker down and then rebuild and take over the nation. When you were offered the choice between the plunder of the country or bringing back the Communists, you did not fight to impose a third choice and you accepted the plunder. In 1998 your economy collapsed: no more mass protests for social justice or against the war in Chechnya then. Survival became your primary concern.

Then you were introduced to Putin. Young, bold, aggressive, promising the destruction of terrorists and the recovery of the economy. Few of you believed it, but you voted for him anyway, or you didn't vote at all. And when he started razing Chechnya, most of you closed your eyes. I remember those years very well. I worked in the field, delivering humanitarian aid to the countless victims of his "anti-terrorist operation", criss-crossing the ruins of Grozny and so many other towns. Sometimes I would go to Moscow, party with you guys. We drank, we danced. And then, I was trying to tell you about the horrors over there. And you were like, "Jonathan, we're sick of your Chechnya." I remember those words precisely. And I was furious: “Guys, this is not my Chechnya, this is your Chechnya. This is your fucking country, not mine. I'm just a stupid stranger here. It is your government that bombs one of your cities, that kills your fellow citizens." But no, it was too complicated, too painful, you didn't want to know.

Assassinations of opponents

Then came the great Russian economic boom of the mid-2000s, fueled by soaring oil prices and some of the stolen money that Putin willed trickled down to the middle class. Many of you have made money, and even the poorest have been entitled to new apartments and better jobs. When an opponent was murdered – journalist Anna Politkovskaya [October 7, 2006], ex-KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko [died November 23, 2006], and others – you expressed your horror and shock, but it didn't go any further. When Putin, after two terms, castled with his Prime Minister, Dmitry Medvedev, you hardly noticed. When Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, most of you ignored it, or remained silent. And in the years that followed, how many of you have I passed on the ski slopes of the Georgian resort of Gudauri, or strolling through old Tbilisi, while your army occupied part of the country? Not that we here in the West have done much either. A few complaints, a few penalties; but what are gross violations of international law in comparison to oil, gas and the Russian internal market?

At the end of 2011, however, you, my Russian friends, woke up. When Putin again took over from Medvedev, many of you decided that was one dirty trick too many, and took to the streets. For six months, you filled the streets, causing the regime to falter. Then they fought back, raining down arrests and long prison sentences. And those of you who survived went home. "What could we do? I've heard that so many times, and I still hear it today. “The state is so powerful, and we are so weak". Well, look at the Ukrainians. See what they did, two years after you. Once they had occupied Maidan, in their rage against a pro-Russian president who had broken his promise to move closer to Europe, they did not go back. They set up a tent village, organized and ready to defend themselves. When the police came to dislodge them, they fought back, iron bars and Molotov cocktails in their hands. In the end, the police opened fire; but instead of fleeing, the guys from Maidan charged. Many died, but they won. It was President Viktor Yanukovych who fled, and the Ukrainians regained their democracy, the right to choose their leaders and to fire them when they did their job badly.

Maidan really did not please Putin. It was a bad example. So, while everyone was still stunned, he took over Crimea. Some of you protested that too, in vain. And so many were enthusiastic! "Wonderful! Crimea is ours!" sang an overwhelming majority of your fellow citizens, suddenly drunk with imperial glory. I'm not just talking about the poor people in the ravaged depths of the country, where vodka and potatoes are the alpha and omega of politics, but about some of you, my friends. Writers. Publishers. Intellectuals. And for the Donbass, the same. "Novorossia", the New Russia. Suddenly there was this myth, and some who until then had despised Putin and his clique came to worship it. I don't know why, we quickly stopped talking to each other. As for the others, those who have remained my friends, you have mostly kept silent. "Politics don't interest me," you would say. And you returned to literature, cinema, and Ikea catalogs.

Putin has sought to show you what happens to a people who not only dare to claim their freedom, but attempt to take it back. If you do nothing, much will be lost anyway.

Syria, you hardly noticed. Anyway, they were all terrorists, right? Daesh, or whatever. Even my Moscow editor criticized me in an interview, saying that I did not understand what was going on there. At least I had been there, I had seen, in the streets of Homs, children the age of mine being shot down like rabbits. The only Russians to have been there are those in your army who, in 2015, began bombing Aleppo and training for their next big war.

Many of you, I'm sure, know the famous words of German pastor Martin Niemöller [1892-1984]: "When they came for the Communists, I said nothing because I was not a Communist. When they came for the trade unionists, I said nothing because I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews, I said nothing because I was not Jewish. And when they came for me, there was no one left to defend me. »

How many of you have stood up for the Chechens, the Syrians, the Ukrainians? There are some, of course, but far too many of you have remained silent. Some, it is true, are raising their voices today, most from abroad, a small number from Russia, taking the risk of being sent to join Alexei Navalny in the gulag. As for the others, you understand well in which country you live. And so you get this: when Putin is done with the Ukrainians – but even more so if he proves unable, as seems likely, to subdue them – he will come looking for you, my friends.

Who will defend you?

For those who bravely came out to protest. For the thousands of you who have signed petitions, or expressed your disagreement on social media, if only by posting a black square on Instagram. The days when ten years of deprivation of liberty, or even twenty-five, were handed over for a joke are not so far away, and they are coming back, it seems. And who will defend you then? Who will be left to do it?

The Ukrainians, even more than in 2014, pose a terrifying example for Putin's regime: they demonstrate that it is possible to fight him and that, if you are smart, motivated, and brave, you can even stop him, no matter how overwhelming his superiority. Nobody in Russia knows this, it seems. But you, my friends, know what is going on. You read the foreign press on the Internet, you all have friends and even family in Ukraine. And Putin knows that you know. So beware. No more good life in exchange for your silence. Your elections are a joke, your laws, apart from the repressive ones, are not worth a damn, your last free media don't exist anymore, your economy is collapsing faster than I can write, you don't even have a credit card to buy a plane ticket anymore, if there are any flights left. Now Putin doesn't just want your silence, he wants your assent, your complicity. And if you don't give it to him, you can either leave or be crushed.

I doubt that you see any alternative, but there is one: to bring down this regime. In the present situation, everything is possible. The spark will not come from you: with the economic crisis that is hitting Russia, it will probably start in the provinces; there, when prices soar and salaries are no longer paid, all those people who voted for Putin because they wanted bread and tranquility will take to the streets. Putin knows it, and he is much more afraid of them than of the middle classes in Moscow or St. Petersburg - you, my dear friends. But if each city protests on its own, as it has already happened, it will not be difficult for him to take over. Things must be coordinated, organized. The crowd has to be transformed into a mass. You have this magic tool, the Internet, a tool that can be used in almost all circumstances.

Be smart, be strategic

Navalny's organization has been liquidated, but others can be set up, more informal, more decentralized. There are many of you, millions of you. The Moscow police can handle 100,000 people in the streets; but with 300,000, they would be overwhelmed. So they will have to call in the army, but would this army fight for Putin? After what he made them do in Ukraine, after what he did to them?

There will be great dangers, for sure. Some of you will be afraid, it is natural, it is normal. I too, in your place, would be afraid. In Syria, and today in Ukraine, Putin has tried to show you, by example, what happens to a people who dare to defy their khoziain, their master and owner, who dare not only to claim their freedom, but even try to take it back. But if you do nothing, so many will be lost anyway. And you know it. One of your sons will make a joke on a video game chat and get arrested; one of your daughters will express her outrage on the Internet and get arrested; a dear friend of yours will make a mistake and die in a damp cell under the blows of a baton. It's been happening for years, and it will continue on an ever-increasing scale. So you have no choice: if you do nothing, you see how it will end. It is time for your own Maidan. Be smart, be strategic, and make it happen.

Who told you she wasn't?

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.

My dear Russian friends: some old friends, some more recent, some I only know from afar, friends in soul and spirit. Times are tough for you too. Like those of all Ukrainians, your lives, never simple, have been turned upside down. Many of you are fleeing Russia. And many of you share with me a feeling of guilt and shame about what your country is doing, in your name, to Ukraine. — Olivier5

It's harsh, and in my opinion, very patronizing. If it is published somewhere it would make a good propaganda piece. I don't remember any letters to American friends from Iraqis.

Yup, good propaganda piece.

As long as somebody wins: looks like everyone is going to lose this time.

But I don't see what Jonathan Littell is actually predicting — boethius

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

I would say it is honest and blunt. Not the kind of boring, tasteless, manipulative or dissimulative PC op-ed one would read in your average US newspaper. So yes, you are entitled to be shocked and surprised. It's been published in Le Monde.

Municipal workers cover the statue of the Italian poet and philosopher Dante Alighieri with sandbags to protect it from shelling in Kyiv. — Olivier5

Looking at the picture, I imagined that there is someone under the flat stone that they REALLY did not want to get loose.

All the demons from Dante's Hell perhaps...

Fox news is predicting much suffering for the American people if they don't get rid of President Biden right now, however they will have to wait for elections since those are the rules, and always follow the rules, although other methods have been tried, like media manipulation and meddling.

Of course if President Biden is removed from power, guess who takes over the reigns, and who will have the entire nuclear arsenal at her disposal?

Empires come and go, I am not impressed by any of those killing machines. Maybe they meant well. Really boring me to death with their talk of greatness and then unleashing destruction on people who oppose them.

Noteworthy:

US Empire (1776-present)

Ancient Period (BC)

Egyptian Empire (3100BC to 30 BC)
Norte Chico Empire (3000-1800 BC)
Indus Valley: Empires: Harappa and Mohenjo-Darro (2550-1550 BC)
Akkadian Empire (2500-2000 BC)
Babylonian Empire (1792-1595 BC)
Ancient Chinese Empires: Shang (1751-1111 BC), Chou (1000-800 BC), etc.
Hittite Empire (1500-1200 BC)
Assyrian Empire (1244-612 BC)
Persian Empires (550 BC to 637 AD) including Achemenid Empire (550-330 BC), Sassanian Empire (224 BC-651 AD)
Carthaginian Empire (ca. 475-146 BC)
Athenian Empire (461-440 BC, 362-355 BC)
Macedonian Empire (359-323 BC)
Roman Empire (264 BC to 476 AD)
Parthian Empire (247 BC- 224 AD)

Pre-Modern Period (to 1500)

African Empires: Ethiopian Empire (ca. 50-1974), Mali Empire (ca. 1210-1490), Songhai Empire (1468-1590), Fulani Empire (ca. 1800-1903)
Mesoamerican Empires esp. Maya Empire (ca. 300-900) Teotihuacan Empire (ca. 500-750), Aztec Empire (1325-ca. 1500)
Byzantine Empire (330-1453)
Andean Empires: Huari Empire (600-800); Inca Empire (1438-1525)
Chinese Pre-Modern Empires: including T'ang Dynasty (618-906), Sung Dynasty (906-1278)
Islamic Empires esp. Umayyid/Abbasid (661-1258), Almohad (1140-1250), Almoravid (1050-1140)
Carolingian Empire (ca. 700-810)
Bulgarian Empire (802-827, 1197-1241)
Southeast Asian Empires: Khmer Empire (877-1431), Burmese Empire (1057-1287)
Novogorod Empire (882-1054)
Medieval German Empire (962-1250)
Danish Empire (1014-1035)
Indian Empires, including Chola Empire (11th cent), Empire of Mahmud of Ghazni (998-1039 AD), Mughal Empire (1526-1805)
Mongol Empire (1206-1405)
Mamluk Empire (1250-1517)
Holy Roman Empire (1254-1835)
Habsburg Empire (1452-1806)
Ottoman Empire (1453-1923)

Modern Period (after 1500)

Portuguese Empire (ca. 1450-1975)
Spanish Empire (1492-1898)
Russian Empire/USSR (1552-1991)
Swedish Empire (1560-1660)
Dutch Empire (1660-1962)
British Empire (1607-ca. 1980)
French Empire (ca. 1611- ca. 1980)
Modern Chinese Empire: esp. Ch'ing Dynasty (1644-1911)
Austrian/Austro-Hungarian Empire (ca. 1700-1918) [see also Habsburg Empire]
US Empire (1776-present)
Brazilian Empire (1822-1889)
German Empire (1871-1918, 1939-1945)
Japanese Empire (1871-1945)
Italian Empire (1889-1942)



https://archive.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/155-history/25992-empires-in-world-history.html

Of course if President Biden is removed from power, guess who takes over the reigns, and who will have the entire nuclear arsenal at her disposal? — FreeEmotion

Somebody controlled by the FSB, I would guess.

FAUX News is a lie machine BTW.

Meanwhile, I am at loss to understand the BBC news item here posted.

Ukraine has said it would adopt neutral status - one of Russia's key demands - in return for security guarantees, its negotiators have said.
Neutral status would mean Ukraine would not join any military alliances, such as Nato, or host military bases.

The proposals would also include a 15-year consultation period on the status of annexed Crimea and would come into force only in the event of a complete ceasefire, Ukraine said.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-60890199

Promises can be broken so I do not see the point except to bring a ceasfire.

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?

The letter is not mine. It was written by Franco-American writer-activist Jonathan Littell, who spent a lot of time in Russia when he was working for the NGO Action Against Hunger, and has friends there.

The letter is not about ammunition given by the west to the Ukrainians in their legitimate fight against their aggressor. It has nothing to do with it.

The letter is meant for Russians. It tells them that, if they can summon enough courage, there is in fact an alternative between fleeing and being crushed: that of fighting back. Like the Ukrainians have done.

My Dear Russian Friends, It’s Time For Your Maidan
Jonathan Littell — Olivier5

With a straight face - this entire thing was the worst piece of trash I have read since the invasion started. Imagine some Anglo piece of shit in his armchair somewhere telling you that you're not doing enough to resist a regime like Putin's. He has the temerity to wax poetic about 90s Russia when one of the most popular slogans among the Russians remains "the nineties: never again". And then he uses Maidan - a Western supported coup that took place in a basket-case nation with a barely-there state apparatus - to tut tut about ordinary Russians being unable to do the same. And throughout all this he says nothing, literally not a word, about Western support for Putin that not only helped put him into power, but has kept him there so long as the oil has flowed nicely and right up until the point he started getting too uppity on the borders. And what - does he think ordinary Russians don't know the things he writes about? The sham elections and corruption and so on? Like he's imparting some kind of news to them they they don't directly live, day to day? Oh he does end up acknowledging that they do know it, only to use that to further condescend to them from the high-horse he's strapped to. Not to mention the little nod to Navalny, a xenophobic piece of trash who is far more popular in the West than he ever has been among his homeland.

That's not a 'letter to Russian friends'. That's a letter to Westerners in order to make them feel morally superior under the guise of writing to 'Russian friends'. The patronising arrogance it exudes is noxious to high heaven. How anyone can read that without scrunching up one's face is beyond me. As the kids say, it's fucking cringe. That imperious, faux-humble tone throughout - it makes one want to throw up. This kind of 'letter' is what happens when you give a liberal with zero sense of class consciousness a pen and paper.

Can one imagine some Chinese or Iranian writer penning something similar about the West?: "oh my friends, yes, your leaders have committed mass genocide literally anywhere on Earth they have ever stepped foot, but why oh why won't you do something about it?". It's be written off as a laughable piece of wank meant only to impress some Chinese or Iranian leadership bigwigs. God, I've read so much utter, complete fuckwittery about this whole conflict since its started but this one takes the cake. Congratulations on finding the worst possible piece of English prose on Russia to have yet been vomited out into the world.

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.

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.

Somebody controlled by the FSB, I would guess. — Olivier5

Vice President Kamala Harris - FSB? I must say I never suspected. They are good.

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.

if it's not views you agree with, then you should make that clear, — boethius

Just saying, if you want to talk about that letter, do talk about what is actually said in the letter, rather than other stuff that has nothing to see with it.

The letter is not about ammunition given by the west to the Ukrainians in their legitimate fight against their aggressor. It has nothing to do with it.

The letter is meant for Russians. It tells them that, if they can summon enough courage, there is in fact an alternative between fleeing and being crushed: that of fighting back. Like the Ukrainians have done.

Now if you agree or disagree with precisely that, we can talk about iit.But i am not interested in yet another convoluted, illogical effort of yours to prove that Biden is a devil or Putin an angel. Don't take me for a ride.

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.

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

Stick to what Russians themselves can do, as this is the subject of the letter. Americans, Chinese, French, Zimbabweans, Fins, can't do much... The question is: can the Russians follow the example of the Ukrainians and revolt? What do you think?

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.

I spend a lot more time thinking about what I can do, — boethius

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

Why are you comfortable writing about what the Ukrainians should do, though, but afraid of writing about what the Russians should do? Are you Ukrainian?

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.

Alarming? Not actually, but still...

(The Guardian) The Kremlin again raised the spectre of the use of nuclear weapons in the war with Ukraine as Russian forces struggled to hold a key city in the south of the country.

Dmitry Medvedev, a former Russian president who is deputy chairman of the country’s security council, said Moscow could strike against an enemy that only used conventional weapons while Vladimir Putin’s defence minister claimed nuclear “readiness” was a priority.

Russia would only use nuclear weapons in the context of the Ukraine conflict if it were facing an "existential threat," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told CNN International Tuesday.

* * *

One possible way the conflict could become larger is if the fighting would have Belarus involved. But yet notice that here the talk is only about a "company", which could mean basically anything between 30 to 300 men (as voluntary groups aren't standard military formations). Yet I assume some would see sinister links here just with whom the Belarussian volunteers train with. Still it should be noted, that Belarus hasn't joined the fight. At least yet.

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. — boethius

I think that Ukrainian strategy hasn't been to stop the advances on the border, but defense in depth and to defend key cities. Defense in depth means to let the armoured spearheads to penetrate, wear the attacker down in depth and attack his supply lines and only defend key points like major crossings or cities. Do note the long advance that happen at the north to the eastern side of Kyiv also and also the various Ukrainian pockets. With the force levels and the size of the country, the front line can be quite sparse.

I remember also one commentator making the argument that the army responsible Crimean front came from the southern military district that has seen far more action than other armies (and hence it performance can be better).

what's actually effective is the key question — boethius

As argued in the letter, an emulation of Maidan is the answer to that. I.e. do what the Ukrainians did.

I still note that you treat Ukrainians very differently that Russians. 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... :-)

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.

but you are afraid of advising the Russians. Strange that. — Olivier5

It's the old testament Father full of thunder and lightning. You can't reason with it. You just have to sacrifice your best stuff to calm it down.

For real.