In other news:

Ukrainian Astronomers Discover ‘Exocomets’ around Another Star
By Briley Lewis on April 14, 2022

Astronomers from the Main Astronomical Observatory (MAO) of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine in Kyiv recently published a discovery of five new exocomets—comets orbiting a star other than the sun—in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics, using data from the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS). They also independently confirmed a handful of exocomets that were previously detected by other researchers.

The use of nukes against Ukraine is still incredibly unlikely to lead to a strategic nuclear exchange with NATO. — boethius

A tactical nuke would however put them in a position where they have nothing left in terms of diplomacy with the west. Russia would solidify its existence as a criminal nation and they would probably not be able to heal any diplomatic ties for a very very long time. It's basically the nail in the coffin for Russia as a nation, slowly disintegrating down into a nation that's falling behind on any front. In 20 years, the world will have moved past them in every way, probably putting up defensive systems around the nation to block any attempts of nukes going out of it while the technological advancements outside of Russia will make them look like the stone age.

Many here argue for each nation to be responsible for their own development, that it's each and every independent nation's right to develop however they want. That also means that actions stretching outside of a nation can have consequences; that becoming an isolated nation is part of the internal development each independent nation is responsible for. No one is to blame for Russia's failures and how they're now treated. The rest of the world can choose however they want to interact with Russia and if they don't want to interact with them, then Russia has no right to demand anything.

However the outcome of this conflict may be, there will be no way for Russia to "heal" even if the war ends as long as the top people, including Putin stays in power. As long as they are there, Russia will be isolated. The only way back for Russia would be to conduct a total reform of government, to show the world that they're not the crazy asswipes they are now. They brought this on themselves.

However, if Ukrainians do "win" and push the Russians back to their borders then certainly everyone would agree that's failure, and nukes would be the only thing left at that point. — boethius

Ukraine might continue to fight as long as there's material support from the west. They had massive morale going into defending their country and being able to push back the big bear Russia this much would seriously have boosted their morale even further, combined with the anger of the war crimes.

I don't think Ukraine will settle easily, they want justice for Russia's crimes and they might fight until every single Russian in Ukraine is killed, captured, or sent home.

Untrue.

Lot's of conventional military options still available.

The use of nukes against Ukraine is still incredibly unlikely to lead to a strategic nuclear exchange with NATO. — boethius

Tactical nukes won't be the same as regular nuclear weapons.

But the problem is that their regular efforts have been pathetically bad so far. Even when all the experts said that the battle for the eastern region would be more conventional mechanical warfare in open areas and that Russia has the advantage, we haven't even seen that yet.

They continue to fail because they're stupid. Only stupid armies dig trenches in the Red forest. This kind of stupidity is obviously more widespread than just those soldiers and leaders in Chornobyl. And they can't use air superiority because of their inability to use high-tech GPS missiles, so the pilots need to drop down under 5000 meters in order to strike at visible range, which is dangerous because of ground troop MANPADS.

So all they have is maybe bunker busters and large long-range missiles that do massive damage. But that could lead to such devastation that Ukraine needs to retaliate in order to stop it, meaning firing at a much larger scale into Russian territory, especially to take out those launch sites.

The thing is that the conventional military options from Russia should have been seen by now, but they aren't, because it would risk diluting the entire Russian army to the point where the nation is seriously undefended. The Russian army is stupid, low on morale have worn out old tech (some drones found were fueled by a DIY water bottle because they didn't have the actual tanks), they are pretty pathetic and there's little for them to do but just brute force try with what they have.

The only thing that is a large risk is that they blow Kyiv up with a nuke right before May 9th to spin some bullshit story that they "had to". But if they do, the rest of the world will do everything in their power to destroy Russia, and rightfully so (not talking about nukes, but about other means, including extreme isolated economical means).

They may not see it that way, nor care. US used Nukes against Japan and Russia could use the exact same reasoning of needing nukes to save the lives of their soldiers. — boethius

The consequences of the nukes in Japan should not be understated. It wasn't trivial, it was world-defining and there weren't any political or existential consequences imagined before the bombings as there were after the bombings. Historical context is very important here.

If anyone in the world were to nuke a city today, that nation would be in such serious trouble that they might as well nuke themselves in the process. Russia won't care, of course, but it would solidify their isolation to the point where I think not even China would feel comfortable dealing with them. Russia would become persona non grata everywhere and that's all fine and good in their opinion... until it isn't.

People forget that the reason such consequences didn't happen for the US was that there were no protocols, no modern international law or any such things in place as we have them today. The world changed for the better after world war II to prevent such acts to happen again with the US very much at the helm of such preventative acts. The reason they still have nukes is for the same reason anyone has them, as a deterrent.

Russia on the other hand doesn't talk about nukes in the same way, they have them as actual military options. So it's an ocean between how Russia handles nukes and how the US handles nukes, regardless of the US being the only nation who previously used them before. The argument that "because they used them before, everyone else is innocent and the US is always the guilty one", in this context, is a ridiculous logic that has nothing to do with Russia's actions right now.

The use of nukes post the use in Hiroshima/Nagasaki is an extremely different matter than in a world that had never seen those consequences. The disregard of such historical context makes it impossible to discuss these things in a modern context and it becomes a ridiculous circle jerk of changing perspectives based on a "pick and choose" historical reference rhetoric. The fact is that no one in their right mind would use nukes today, the US would never use nukes as an offensive measure because the consequences would be so extreme that even if it doesn't lead to nuclear war, the political fallout would be suicide for the US if they did and they absolutely know it. Russia however, does not have the same mindset as they have nuclear arms as actual military options, not just as a deterrent, its part of their war machine in another way.

Russia's reasoning doesn't matter, only their actions do. And if they use nukes, they can sit there and think that they're on top of the world, but their nation will become an isolated cesspool of decades-old technology in a nation just living through survival of national food supply and rusting cars with no actual progress.

The Russian people will care when their nation is in the gutter, at least the people will care when they realize what they could have had if not for the fat and rich elite in the Kremlin fucking their nation up so hard. This is how revolutions happen and if things go down this route, there will be civil war in Russia.

Unclear. As has been discussed at length, only the West is angry with Russia and no one else seems to care about it. If anything the large majority of the world feels satisfactory schadenfreude that the reckless and cynical warring ways of the West is coming home to roost (regardless of "who started it"). — boethius

But this isn't true, the majority is against Russia's invasion, as seen through UN's votes.

141 of the 193 member states voted for the resolution, 35 abstained and five voted against

The way you describe what "the rest of the world" feels are your own feelings not reflected in the real world. And the risks to Europe is there because we live next door to Russia so it's fully reasonable that a nation on the other side of the world won't care, but so far the global condemning of Russia's actions are very consistent anyway.

And if they use nukes they're done. There will be harsh diplomatic consequences for nations who support Russia if they nuked a major city. Even if they just use tactical nukes on military objectives, it would be a diplomatic nightmare for nations turning to Russia.

And who would want to? They have nothing but oil really, look at their export variety. When the world moves on from oil dependency, what would Russia really have? I mean, we're talking about decades of economical progress, it took this long for Russia to get on their feet after the soviet union fell and the sanctions and economic collapse they see now has thrown them back 30 years. If the sanctions keep in place and no one wants to work there as a career choice, and people in Russia rather move out of the country if they want to work in anything other than farming, then the coming 30 years won't see an economic heal that we've seen previously since the early 90s. That will also happen during 30 years of progress in the west.

Russia will be a shithole if things stay in place and any nuke from them would be the nail in the coffin. If they aren't aware of this, that's their stupid hubris talking, the same hubris that put them in the embarrassing position they're in right now.

and he is not the suicidal type. — Olivier5

That's up for debate though... never doubt a lunatic.

In other news:

Ukrainian Astronomers Discover ‘Exocomets’ around Another Star
By Briley Lewis on April 14, 2022

Astronomers from the Main Astronomical Observatory (MAO) of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine in Kyiv recently published a discovery of five new exocomets—comets orbiting a star other than the sun—in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics, using data from the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS). They also independently confirmed a handful of exocomets that were previously detected by other researchers. — Olivier5

I thought Ukraine "was being destroyed"? How on earth can they do this while being destroyed? :sweat:

this isn't true, the majority is against Russia's invasion, as seen through UN's votes.

141 of the 193 member states voted for the resolution, 35 abstained and five voted against — Christoffer

By population that amounts to just over half the world abstaining. Funny how readily you forget the grossly disproportionate power Western countries have in the UN.

Evidence some Ukrainian women raped before being killed, say doctors
Forensic specialists carrying out autopsies north of Kyiv say they ‘still have hundreds of bodies to examine’

Lorenzo Tondo and Isobel Koshiw in Kyiv
Mon 25 Apr 2022 07.13 EDT

Forensic doctors carrying out postmortem examinations on bodies in mass graves north of Kyiv say they have found evidence some women were raped before being killed by Russian forces.

“We already have a few cases which suggest that these women had been raped before being shot to death,” said Vladyslav Perovskyi, a Ukrainian forensic doctor who with a team of coroners has carried out dozens of autopsies on residents from Bucha, Irpin and Borodianka who died during Russia’s month-long occupation of the area.

“We can’t give more details as my colleagues are still collecting the data and we still have hundreds of bodies to examine,” he said.

Perovskyi’s team has been examining about 15 bodies a day, many of them mutilated. “There are many burnt bodies, and heavily disfigured bodies that are just impossible to identify,” he said. “The face could be smashed into pieces, you can’t put it back together, sometimes there’s no head at all.”

By population that amounts to just over half the world abstaining. Funny how readily you forget the grossly disproportionate power Western countries have in the UN. — Isaac

But population means nothing as a pure number without any context and 141 nations voted for the resolution, 35 abstained, and 5 against. Only the five nations that voted against can really be positioned to be fully against. The abstainers could have voted because they weren't fully on board with the consequences and fallout of this war or the actions against Russia.

But I guess you would stretch things to fit your narrative of things, that's what you keep mr doing professor expert. Just because you don't believe in democracy or education and such things doesn't mean the world shapes around your opinions.

and he is not the suicidal type.
— Olivier5

That's up for debate though... never doubt a lunatic. — Christoffer

We shall see... IMO, all these talks about nukes are just more blah blah, designed to scare opponents and placate supporters. The latter are growing nervous with the string of humiliations suffered by their heros on the battlefield.

We shall see... IMO, this talk about nukes is just blah, designed to scare opponents and placate supporters. — Olivier5

Obviously, they want to scare off any further help for Ukraine because they are losing. All military-strategic experts pointed out that they needed to create a corridor as soon as possible between Russia and Crimea and push out Ukrainian soldiers from cutting off that line and that Russia could easily do that with regular mechanical warfare... but they still haven't so either they don't have the means to do it or they just demonstrate the same level of incompetence and stupidity that they've shown so far in their strategic efforts.

I agree. The Russians are looking for an escape from the mess they created, and this talk of WW3 is a form of 'nuclear escapism'.

It's gonna be interesting to see what the post-war status of Russia would be. Let's say they make some bullshit up, withdraw their troops and present a "victory" on May 9th. Even if some sanctions are lifted, Russia has created a bad taste in the mouth of everyone who previously did business with Russia. Even if sanctions are lifted, many will not want to do business with them. And what about Facebook and websites deemed "extremist" in Russia, that will probably stick.

I see little opening for Russia to be anything other than a new North Korea, even if the war ends. I wonder how long it will take before the population has had enough. Even the pro-Putin soviet-hags and old farts who see their boys come home in coffins seem to be on the critical side against Kremlin. While the young in the major cities seem to hope that the end of the war will make things return to normal, only to realize that nope, there's no such thing as normal anymore, which might lead them to leave as the last highly educated people to do so since there's no real academic or engineering future in a nation like Russia, as long as it's not about making future war crime weapons, which they might not be able to do as there's little import of tech that can support it compared to tech that could counter it being developed outside of Russia.

Russia will be a mess, all thanks to Putin and his minion's bullshit. Hopefully, the Russian people will wake up to that reality soon and do something about it.

:up:

I see little opening for Russia to be anything other than a new North Korea, even if the war ends. — Christoffer

A North Korea with vast oil reserves, though. It makes an important difference. It's also a much larger country than NK, and can't be isolated the same way as small NK. My take is that Russia will remain an important country in this world no matter what happens.

A North Korea with vast oil reserves, though. It makes an important difference. It's also a much larger country than NK, and can't be isolated the same way as small NK. My take is that Russia will remain an important country in this world no matter what happens. — Olivier5

At the same time, the reports of climate change show a much worse outlook than previously thought, so the need to move away from oil needs to happen sooner. This war might even be good for the work against rapid climate change since it rips the band-aid off politicians with too much crap for brains. Now there's an incentive to actually move away from oil that's not about that climate change that's too complicated for their tiny capitalist brains, and instead, they will see it as a prosperous economic change for the better when cutting oil ties with Russia.

This extreme cut from oil supplies and increase in oil prices is exactly what is needed to push the climate solutions, that needed a push, into fruition.

Regardless, Russia will not be able to survive on oil alone and they have little else of value except for some minerals that could be found elsewhere if needed. At least, that would be a diplomatic card to pull in the future, if Russia goes down into the cutter economically, the world can demand them to remove their stupid leaders, dismantle nukes, and only then they will give them transactions for their minerals. This would, however, demand that Russia really tanks its economy, far beyond what we've seen recently.

the world can demand them to remove their stupid leaders, dismantle nukes, and only then they will give them transactions for their minerals — Christoffer

I don't know, seems to me it's not the way the world works. For one, 'the world' doesn't act as one, in a coordinated manner. For two, the world is addicted to oil and there will always be buyers for it. E g. the Chinese will buy Russian oil, at a discount. Other folks too, including in the West, if the price is right.

What my crystal ball tells me is that nobody is immortal, and thus there will be a time after Mr Putin. This would IMO be a good time to reassess the relationship between NATO/EU and Russia.

If Russia is "being the bully" and has no legitimate grievances in Ukraine that justify, at least from some arguably Western (aka. the truth) normative perspective, then the reason for using nuclear weapons to intimidate other neighbour's to maintain bully credibility is so high that the use of nuclear weapons by Russia is essentially inevitable at this point if the premises of the rhetoric are true. — boethius

Russian nuclear weapons will basically halt any incursions into Russia proper by Ukraine. Putin doesn't have to keep large formations on his side of the border. What he does have to do is to keep his Air Defence on alert and security at a heightened level to prevent sabotage. Ukraine can and has used already tactical artillery missiles to attack targets inside Russia.

And Russian nuclear weapons have already done what they were supposed to do: have Joe Biden declare that under no circumstances US troops won't be deployed to Ukraine and NATO aircraft won't create a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

That's the power of nuclear weapons.

A tactical nuke would however put them in a position where they have nothing left in terms of diplomacy with the west. — Christoffer

You assume Russia needs diplomacy with the West.

... and that the current situation is the West handing out fig leaves or something?

Russia would solidify its existence as a criminal nation and they would probably not be able to heal any diplomatic ties for a very very long time. — Christoffer

According to "us", the West ... which, see point above, they may not care about nor their strategic partners such as China, India and co.

It's basically the nail in the coffin for Russia as a nation, slowly disintegrating down into a nation that's falling behind on any front. In 20 years, the world will have moved past them in every way, probably putting up defensive systems around the nation to block any attempts of nukes going out of it while the technological advancements outside of Russia will make them look like the stone age. — Christoffer

We're already discussed at length that affect of sanctions largely depends on the sentiment of the ordinary Russian, which as far as we know has consolidated around support for the war, as well as substitutes of all critical equipment and services from China, which as far as we know covers everything.

Many here argue for each nation to be responsible for their own development, that it's each and every independent nation's right to develop however they want. That also means that actions stretching outside of a nation can have consequences; that becoming an isolated nation is part of the internal development each independent nation is responsible for. No one is to blame for Russia's failures and how they're now treated. The rest of the world can choose however they want to interact with Russia and if they don't want to interact with them, then Russia has no right to demand anything. — Christoffer

I don't disagree with this.

Ukraine might continue to fight as long as there's material support from the west. They had massive morale going into defending their country and being able to push back the big bear Russia this much would seriously have boosted their morale even further, combined with the anger of the war crimes.

I don't think Ukraine will settle easily, they want justice for Russia's crimes and they might fight until every single Russian in Ukraine is killed, captured, or sent home. — Christoffer

"Morale" does not in itself win battles or wars.

... If you're suggesting settlement (peace terms) is the only possible resolution of the war (as nearly all wars end), then the optimum time to settle was in the early days, leveraging exactly that morale you mention to fanatically engage in chaotic total war.

Russia's reasoning doesn't matter, only their actions do. And if they use nukes, they can sit there and think that they're on top of the world, but their nation will become an isolated cesspool of decades-old technology in a nation just living through survival of national food supply and rusting cars with no actual progress. — Christoffer

Sure, maybe.

Tactical nukes won't be the same as regular nuclear weapons. — Christoffer

A tactical nuclear weapon is a regular nuclear weapon, only of smaller yield and delivery vehicle for use in battle, such as a cruise missile or even artillery shell. The word tactical simply connotes the design purpose to be aid in the winning of battles.

A strategic nuclear weapon, is an extension of as strategic bombing ... with simply a lot bigger bomb, and is not designed to win battles--delivery vehicles, such as ICBM's, may have minimum ranges of thousands of kilometres and minimum yields so large that there is no plausible battle situation where it would make sense to use--and are designed to change strategic economic factors like "cities existing".

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but this is just a quick note for people who wonder what the difference between tactical and strategic comes from. The criticism of bombing cities to rubble far from the front lines was met with the rebuttal "it's strategic", and that nomenclature has stuck.

They continue to fail because they're stupid. Only stupid armies dig trenches in the Red forest. — Christoffer

If you put soldiers nearly anywhere they will start building trenches. It's unlikely this was some "battle plan" coming down from the top.

I honestly fail to see the Russian actions as "stupid". They may fail, now or then later as you say, but the decisions are clearly well thought out and not stupid. Ukraine has embarrassing failures as well, such as letting Russia capture "bio labs".

The consequences of the nukes in Japan should not be understated. It wasn't trivial, it was world-defining and there weren't any political or existential consequences imagined before the bombings as there were after the bombings. Historical context is very important here. — Christoffer

I did not say the use of nuclear weapons in Japan was trivial. It was, more than anything, the events that started the cold war that defined nearly the rest of the century.

However, the point of this example is that there can be a context in which ordinary people support the use of nuclear weapons. The justification of the use of nuclear weapons on Japan was to save American lives, and, faced with a equally fanatical enemy willing to fight to the death (for good reasons or bad) it may at some point make as much sense to Russians to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine for the same reasoning.

I am not saying that context currently exists, only it could be far closer than it seems.

But this isn't true, the majority is against Russia's invasion, as seen through UN's votes. — Christoffer

@Isaac already pointed out the face-value flaw in that metric.

However, more relevant metrics would be trade relations and sanctions and diplomatic pressure and sending arms to Ukraine all of which is a "West" thing. I.e. metrics of caring that actually matter and are not essentially symbolic due to Russia's security council veto in the UN.

Russian nuclear weapons will basically halt any incursions into Russia proper by Ukraine. Putin doesn't have to keep large formations on his side of the border. — ssu

Exactly, in terms of military logic, it makes enormous amounts of sense, not only vis-a-vis Ukraine if they ever did successfully counter attack, but of any other bordering country to Russia ... would obviously think twice.

The Kremlin may also be start to be feeling there's a target on their back as we enter into ecological collapse, that they have what countries will be craving: arable land, water and energy ... and more than they had before.

There is now only political factors, in my opinion, preventing the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Political factors which seems less and less relevant as time goes by as far as I can see.

And Russian nuclear weapons have already done what they were supposed to do: have Joe Biden declare that under no circumstances US troops won't be deployed to Ukraine and NATO aircraft won't create a no-fly zone over Ukraine. — ssu

Agreed, standing up to a bully is only "heroic" if the bully can be beaten in a Hollywood style coming of age movie.

The truly powerful take what they want and are idolised for it.

... Take our friends the Americans ...

Greece is different. But one should note that it was the Greek leaders that opted eagerly to follow the advice of Wall Street bankers to create the problems at the first place. And this just underlines that every country actually has it's set of problems and possibilities. There's of course similarities, but you cannot bunch the states together. — ssu

Yes, those very same bankers that then threatened the EU that a default would have a cascading effect, basically blackmailing the EU into bailing out Greece instead of letting it default. In the long run, Greece pays more. It was just a temporary relief in interest.

The combination of debt and corruption is one that will leave a country floundering in debt for decades. Which is my prediction for Ukraine irrespective of the outcome of this war.



Here's a picture what the world thinks about this war. In green countries with sanctions against Russia. In blue, Russia. In grey the rest.

It's gonna be interesting to see what the post-war status of Russia would be. Let's say they make some bullshit up, withdraw their troops and present a "victory" on May 9th. — Christoffer

I'm not so sure this conflict will end in a few days. Too much is put on some date.

I think this will be something like the Russo-Japanese war for Russia. A fiasco that will result in political turmoil in Russia.

It's going to be interesting to see if Putin actually visits his troops. Yeltsin visited Russian troops during the Chechen War ...once, very briefly and looked extremely uncomfortable doing it. If he is fit enough to do it.

Exactly, in terms of military logic, it makes enormous amounts of sense, not only vis-a-vis Ukraine if they ever did successfully counter attack, but of any other bordering country to Russia ... would obviously think twice. — boethius

Which just tells the obvious to any sane person: nobody will attack Russia. NATO won't attack Russia, the US won't attack Russia. It's just all a lie Putin has invented to give a reason for his totalitarian dictatorship and why any political opposition is violently opposed.

You could argue that Western Russophobes and anti-Russian hawks have Russia just where they want it to be bleeding off it's military capabilities. In fact, even John Mersheimer has said this. But this didn't happen because of some hawks (which at least you don't find many in the Republican party anymore). Putin chose to escalate a war, make the full invasion of Ukraine.

The combination of debt and corruption is one that will leave a country floundering in debt for decades. Which is my prediction for Ukraine irrespective of the outcome of this war. — Benkei

It's a possibility. Of course the whole argument for Zelensky's victory was to oppose that. At least it was a better option than Americans voting for... Trump. And if Ukraine wants to join the EU, it has to change.

Yet we don't know how long this war will last and what the outcome of it will be. Wars can have unexpected turns. I remember few years ago many were writing of the Assad regime. Didn't go that way. In fact, this war can be far longer and far bloodier than anybody estimated. We can soon be in similar death toll as we saw in Yugoslavia.

Sorry for my very brief reply earlier, it was too early and I only skimmed it. I read it better now. No, I mean, what you say is undoubtedly true. And nations will use any excuse they can find to justify the craziest of all acts, as history has shown us many times.

The one hope we have left, in terms of having some sense of security and calm, is the belief that they must know better than others, what the consequences of such an act would entail.

Right now, this could be mere barking. But there's no way to see this conflict without putting nuclear weapons very high in the list of concerns. If this was a war between two non-nuclear countries, it would be hard to imagine it would get nearly a 5th of the coverage it currently gets.

Good analysis.

Right now, this could be mere barking. But there's no way to see this conflict without putting nuclear weapons very high in the list of concerns. If this was a war between two non-nuclear countries, it would be hard to imagine it would get nearly a 5th of the coverage it currently gets. — Manuel

And yet, nuclear powers have lost wars against seemingly weaker enemies before -- e.g. the US in Korea and Vietnam, the USSR in Afghanistan -- without ever resorting to nuclear weapons.

Yes, the thing about how MAD works is that a preemptive strike would require a massive saturation of fire to avoid having launch sources taken out by the other side. But having the chance to launch all one's missiles does not stop other people firing before they are hit.

Lavrov is not referring to the possible use of tactical nukes because that would signal a loss of confidence in the methods already being employed to defeat Ukraine which are going swimmingly by his account.

Russian casualties in Ukraine. Mediazona investigation
https://zona.media/translate/2022/04/25/bodycount_eng

Lavrov is not referring to the possible use of tactical nukes because that would signal a loss of confidence in the methods already being employed to defeat Ukraine which are going swimmingly by his account. — Paine

Good point.

Recently news media and analysts have been discussing a reported comment made by some Russian general about Russia's goals in the next phase of the war, which, according to him, consist of taking Donbas and southern Ukraine all the way to Transnistria (a Russian-controlled breakaway border region of Moldova). While many took this to be the new official direction, it's not at all clear whose position this general was expressing and why. Gen. Minnekaev serves in a large military district, but he does not participate in the "special operation," his position has nothing to do with military planning, and he does not commonly give public statements. He made his apparently unsolicited comment at a meeting with local business representatives. Was he just sharing his personal opinion of what Russia should be doing?

These veteran investigators of Russian security services think so. In a recent article on a Russian-language site Andrei Soldatov and Irina Borogan report on the prevailing attitudes among their contacts in the FSB (the successor of the KGB) and the army. It seems that officers are not happy with the direction the war has taken, and they even criticize Putin himself (in private, mostly). But they don't oppose the war - on the contrary, they want more of it. They are disappointed that the initial push to take Kiev was abandoned. One widely shared video recorded by a veteran special forces officer with a popular Youtube channel urges Putin to wage a total war with airstrikes targeting all of Ukraine's infrastructure. "Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich, please make up your mind: are we fighting a war or jerking off?"

This response from the Russian military reminds me of how the U.S. decided not to wipe out populations in Vietnam they were capable of doing at the time. And there are those who insisted that reluctance, in that regard, was the cause of defeat.

The Westmoreland cost / benefit analysis was given a shot in blood and dollars. Is there a parallel in the present situation?

Sure, though nukes were very much considered in Vietnam.

The situation is a bit different. It's the unconscious comfort of thinking that it couldn't possibility happen.

In a sane world, one would be assured.

So when do we think Biden will award Putin the presidential medal of freedom for allowing the US empire to keep its head above water for a few more years? Two months? Three?