Which line? The current one all around the East of Ukraine?

However, to cut Ukraine in half North-South is still 700 Kilometres. — boethius

I was talking about the line between the Ukrainian and the Russian lines. You do have the "front" stretched quite long now in Ukraine.

From what I can tell, the South-West front has simply been moving at it's logistical pace, while the North-West front has been slowly getting through the Urban areas around Kiev, which is the hard part.

Of course, it's always possible the Ukraine finds some way to stop these pincers joining in the middle. They do have a lot of ATGM's and intelligence from the US. — boethius

Let's see how it develops then. And let's be honest here: the Western intelligence has been very good.

I simply don't see a counter tactic available to Ukraine, but, of course maybe they have one. — boethius

The initiative is still with the Russians. But if the continue inflicting similar damage to Russia as they have done now, that's really good for them

True, but NATO wants to wage war with super minimal losses, which is only possible with overwhelming force. — boethius

That's not a counterargument. Everybody would desire overwhelming force to minimize owns losses and maximize the losses of the enemy. Short war means less casualties.

However, all these questions about the Russians also apply to the Ukrainians — boethius

Well, they aren't invading anybody, hence when they have logistical problems, they can have peace all around them.

Maybe they've been bogged down and just incompetent and disorganized as the Western Media keeps saying, or maybe they've been tying up Ukrainian forces with chaotic skirmishing all over the East of Ukraine, while establishing the forward operating bases and logistical plan to close the North and South pincers — boethius

OK.

Let's just pause here for a moment.

When have you seen footage of American troops pillaging a supermarket to get food? When have you heard about British troops going from door to door asking for food from the people because their army is totally incapable of giving them rations?

Sorry, but this is really the typical Russian clusterfuck, just like the first Chechen war was. All that authoritarianism and corruption leads to stupidities like this. There simply is no hiding of it. Or to put it another way around, the Ukrainian/NATO propaganda isn't so omnipotent to theatrically portray these difficulties. This was a far too large military operation to perform for the Russian army, that it could succeed with flying colors as it did with the annexation of Crimea.

Yeah, despite it all, the Russian army can lay punches and isn't down for the count. But that this has been a really military "bordello", as we Finns put it, is the truth. No way to hide that.

Questions:

- Will Belarus stay out of this disaster of a military campaign?

- Will Putin escalate to de-escalate?

As far as I can tell, Putin and those in Russia that support his cause were hoping that they would A) be able to occupy Ukraine without much resistance and/or B) the West/NATO (as well as other countries wouldn't take much notice of the invasion. — dclements

..which tells what kind of a clusterfuck and a brainfart this "special military operation" has been.

, I think it makes China's realize it's plan of invading Taiwan and taking it through military force any time in the near future a more complex and difficult endeavor then they were hoping for. — dclements

China has a frontline seat into looking how the US and the West respond to these kinds of actions. And what ought to be noted that Taiwan (or the Republic of China) is for the US a Major non-NATO Ally. That means it will respond far more aggressively to defend Taiwan than with Ukraine.

I could be wrong but also Taiwan's army is a bit more prepared for an invasion than Ukraine was when Russia attacked — dclements

If you mean when Russia attacked in 2014, yes. If you refer to the current "special military operation", then I'm not so sure.

Although I don't read most posts on this thread, I see that our useful idiot support group, having exhausted the neo-Nazi theme for now, has jumped onto the latest Russian propaganda talking point: Ukrainian bioweapons. — SophistiCat

The bioweapons thing is comical. The public profoundly misunderstands CBRN, what weapons actually exist, why and under what circumstances they would be useful in military operations, and existing mechanism for deploying said weapons. The whole plot idea makes no sense. — Count Timothy von Icarus

:100:

If the Russians have been basically just keeping the Ukraine forces in the East to setup this moment ... seems to me there's no a race in time against the pincers closing for all those brigades to the East of the pincers to retreat West. — boethius

Here comes very apparent the problem that Russia has now: that "front line" drawn to the map is what? 1300 kilometers or so? In the map (on page 84) there are drawn 16 Russian divisions or equivalent, which would be something similar to that 190 000 - 200 000 figure of Russian forces. But that is "way thin" when you think of it. There are huge gaps in between.

Here's actually a map published by the UK Defense ministry before the invasion in February, then dubbed as information warfare. At least they got very good intel as we now can see.



Let's just compare this to a similar large scale ground war which had similar large formations. Operation Desert Storm:



The US deployed nearly 700 000 troops into the war and the Alliance had a strength of over 900 000 of which ground forces were over 600 000 troops, hence three times the size of Putin "Special Military Operation". In the map below the US & Coalition Divisions consist of a far larger force than Russia has deployed in Ukraine. Yet note the scale! From the town of Nisab, in the West to Kuwait City it is 317 km. The distance from Kharkiv to Mariupol is a little bit longer. 330km or so.

And the Invasion of Iraq in 2003? Again twice as many American troops than Putin's "Special Military Operation". And Iraq is a smaller country with large uninhabited areas with a smaller population.

The simple fact is that in many places in Ukraine there is no "front line". That Russian are attacked in columns is because the distances are so great. Above all, the real problem with deep operations is that the Russian logistics are dependent on rail:

Russian army logistics forces are not designed for a large-scale ground offensive far from their railroads. Inside maneuver units, Russian sustainment units are a size lower than their Western counterparts. Only brigades have an equivalent logistics capability, but it’s not an exact comparison. - No other European nation uses railroads to the extent that the Russian army does. Part of the reason is that Russia is so vast — over 6,000 miles from one end to the other.

Then the supply without rail: trucks. We've already seen that Russia has to use civilian trucks and that Ukrainian forces have targeted supply trucks. And there is a reason for this:

The Russian army does not have enough trucks to meet its logistic requirement more than 90 miles beyond supply dumps. To reach a 180-mile range, the Russian army would have to double truck allocation to 400 trucks for each of the material-technical support brigades.

In fact, the Russian way of fighting, using massive firepower of the artillery, depends a lot on the supply:

The Russian army makes heavy use of tube and rocket artillery fire, and rocket ammunition is very bulky. Although each army is different, there are usually 56 to 90 multiple launch rocket system launchers in an army. Replenishing each launcher takes up the entire bed of the truck. If the combined arms army fired a single volley, it would require 56 to 90 trucks just to replenish rocket ammunition. That is about a half of a dry cargo truck force in the material-technical support brigade just to replace one volley of rockets. There is also between six to nine tube artillery battalions, nine air defense artillery battalions, 12 mechanized and recon battalions, three to five tank battalions, mortars, anti-tank missiles, and small arms ammunition — not to mention, food, engineering, medical supplies, and so on. Those requirements are harder to estimate, but the potential resupply requirements are substantial. The Russian army force needs a lot of trucks just for ammunition and dry cargo replenishment.

And this is why some Ukrainian cities that the Russian forces are attempting to secure will have lulls in the fighting. Russia simply has to stock the ammo and equipment for some days, perhaps talk about cease-fires and humanitarian corridors, before they make the next attack. Rapid breakthroughs and rapid movement is now unlikely. And when the Ukrainian armed forces haven't been destroyed in two weeks, it's really going to take a long time to destroy them now.

All the above just how absolute disaster this plan was and how it's not all so evident that one or the other side will prevail.

So far the Aljezera map seems to be most accurate and useful (with distinctions of zones and operations). — boethius

The local National Defense University publishes a map with the assumed units in both sides. Unfortunately in Finnish. This picture of the situation in 10.3.2022 in the evening:


Interestingly it shows 16 Ukrainian brigades. The red round ones are the Donbas voluntary units. More "volunteers" are coming from the Middle East to fight on the Russian side, whereas some estimates put the size of the volunteers in the Western side at 20 000. What is notable that you have "international brigades" just like in the Spanish Civil War.

This is why I'm hoping for a Russian revolution. Clearly, there are enough people in Russia who don't want the current form of government. — Christoffer

The thing is that when the Soviet Union collapsed, there wasn't a revolution. Actually the Soviet leaders could make a controlled crash without everything going to hell as in the case of Yugoslavia. It would be like the Governors of the States that make up the United State would meet and agree "Yeah, let's get rid of this whole Federal thing." Now we are having those wars. Let's hope that we don't end up with Russian Civil War 2.

Yet the classic imperialism that Putin is so dearly advocating will only end if the country experiences and absolute catastrophy. This hopefully might happen.


But then again, who knows what the future will bring us.

Doesn't it depend on the dictator? Putin was slexiochosen because he was corrupt and so would protect Yeltsin. If he dies in office, couldn't there be a reset where Russia becomes less corrupt? — frank

I think it can. Many seem to have lost hope in this. The fact is that it takes decades for corruption to be erased as it's more part of the culture. Or simply such a horrible disaster that people agree that the past has to be forgotten and a totally new society has to be created. Like happened in post-war Japan or Germany.

A dictator cannot do everything. He isn't omnipotent. And dictators have this urge to control issues with special decrees, personally made laws and of micromanagement. To portray themselves as the leader "who makes things done". This creates an environment where actually corruption prospers. For example Hitler's Germany was quite corrupt.

I don't see any complication there except of your making. — Isaac

Bosnia, Serbia (not Kosovo), Libya and Afghanistan didn't have nuclear weapons. (Libya had a program, which was a joke, didn't go anywhere). None of these countries were CIS countries allied with Russia. Had Putin been not so hostile towards it's neighbors, likely he could have emerged as a person of reason and sanity in this crazy World. It would be sitting in the G8 with it's friends Germany and France and there would be absolutely no talk of joining NATO in my country. We would be extremely happy with our non-NATO member stance.

When the Baltic states joined NATO, there were not even planned any kind of Article 5. defense for the Baltic States. One NATO member thought it was too provocative to even have plans to defend the Baltic States. There were no NATO exercises in the Baltics. Estonia was basically reprimanded for sticking with something as obsolete as conscription and area defence strategy. Basically the armed forces were not for repelling a possible Russian attack

Russia has no less a reason to fear being attacked than America does. If America has legitimate concerns about where its bases should be located then so does Russia. — Isaac

Having security concerns are really a bit different from attacking other countries.

There simply isn't any justification or logical reasoning to attack a country when the action has the totally opposite effect on your security situation than you want. It has been totally counterproductive. It's all been totally counterproductive.

It would be like the Chinese would lose their marbles and started harassing US allies in the Pacific perhaps by starting to sink Japanese, South Korea or Australian ships. You really think that would benefit the Chinese? That it would cow US allies not to have strong ties with the US? Of course not!

What China can do (and is doing) is to develop it's armed forces and try to improve it's economy (as it has done). And just let the US talk about the "Chinese threat". As the were talking about the "threat" of Japan taking the dominant economic position in the World earlier.

Most nations have said that if Russia start using bioweapons, the response will be much harder on Russia. And of course, if they do it, if Putin actually use bioweapons on civilians in Ukraine I wonder what the response will be from the Putin/Russia apologists. — Christoffer

Use of biological weapons is really stupid. As if they could be contained. At least with chemical weapons you can observe where the wind is blowing. Usually you end up killing your own troops, just like the Japanese did during WW2:

At least 12 large-scale bioweapon field trials were carried out, and at least 11 Chinese cities attacked with biological agents. An attack on Changde in 1941 reportedly led to approximately 10,000 biological casualties and 1,700 deaths among ill-prepared Japanese troops, in most cases due to cholera.

Oops.

But perhaps Putin will try to wreck the Ukrainian harvest and blame it on the US.

Right. So Russia does have a strategic interest in the advance of NATO (their neighbours). Your denial of this is how this whole thing started. — Isaac

Seems that you have been gone a long time for some strawman argument, in thinking I'm denying something. Or then simply haven't read what I say (or perhaps it's been in the exchanges with others I guess).

In order to keep that countries do not want to join NATO, perhaps the issue would be then not to annex territories from them and make speeches how "artificial" their country is. (Oh I think I know what you will say: but we aren't talking about Russia, I don't care a fuck about Russia or something like that...)

I've said that there would have been a multitude ways for Russia leave NATO in the "new NATO" figuration thinking about out-of-theatre operations like Afghanistan and Libya and have had Western Europe make it's armed forces even smaller. It made that absolutely worse possible decision annexing territory of neighboring countries, which only reinforced the Eastern members that they were totally justified in their fears of an imperialist Russia. And that's now clear to even the Western NATO members, which as like the US didn't understand this when the Russo-Georgian war happened and desperately tried to "reset" the relations with Russia.

A good source to start with is I found this Candian artillery youtuber — boethius

The guy Matsimus has surprisingly good videos and good video material.

Negative self reference.

Just ask yourself, how many paradoxes involve this. Starting from Russell's paradox.

Then why do America have strategic interests? You keep dodging the question. — Isaac

You keep dodging the answer. Or failing to understand it.

Every country has strategic interest in their neighbors. Yet how to promote those interests is always limited. And military intervention is usually the last thing. Only annexing territory is even more threatening as you then the country doesn't even respect the borders. The US just cannot walz into Mexico and occupy the country, even if we say Mexico is in the "sphere of influence" of the US. If a country disintegrates totally and cannot perform the tasks of a sovereign country, only then it's usual that the neighbors get nervous and at least look after their citizens in the country. Before that, it's usually the UN that gets involved.

Why have America got a missile base in Poland if no-one is going to attack NATO on account of their nuclear weapons? — Isaac

It's called deterrence. Look, nuclear weapons are not meant to be used. But they perform a crucial role. And so does everything in an armed forces, when that armed forces is for deterrence. And that's what armies ought to do: have training exercises, keep their equipment ready, and have the generals retire to their golfclubs after a career made in peace-time exercises. That's what the Swiss army has done successfully since Napoleon.

And you simply need the conventional forces, because the use of nuclear weapons is so limited. If a aircraft breaches the aerospace, you wouldn't use a nuclear weapon for that. Hence the need for conventional forces.

I am not counting the war lost until it is over of some sort of ceasefire is in place. I am not going to ride the roller coaster of Russian losses and Ukranian seiges. I am worried for Ukraine when I see the map, and it looks like an encirclement of the east. — FreeEmotion

He has lost this. Even if he can declare a military victory.

Just ask yourself: what does he win, if he conquers all of Ukraine? He would have to occupy a huge country. Ok, that's not going to happen (or it will, who knows). So let's then think of what he gains from this war if Zelenskyi's government would accept tomorrow his demands. So he gets Crimea and the puppet states of Donbas that he can then have join the Russian federation.

And what then? He basically had them already. Now he has a bit more territory and 1) an army that needs a lot to refitting and money to cover the losses, 2) new territory that is devastated by war and would need billions in investment, 3) a ruined Russian economy, 4) an unified Europe and NATO, who are now going to spend on the military as during the Cold War and treat him as an imminent threat, nearly.

So what's the victory with all that above? Can you see it?

You see, to do annexations, you have to be smart. You have understand what the backlashes are, you don't get into a situation where the response of the outside World is like this. Good examples are Israel of for example Morocco with the Spanish Sahara.

I think that this is the beginning of the end for Putin.

However, we really don't know much about what the average Russian is thinking about things (obviously sanctions are hitting, no one like wars--except those neo-nazis--, people are dying, and so on), but once the war is over there are many bases on which it could be considered "worth it" to ordinary Russians. — boethius

I think many understand what is happening, but then there are of course those who believe what is said. I think here the issue is that Putin is still holding to the idea of "special military operation" and the Russian media is showing Russian troops handing out food and blaming the Ukrainians (neo-nazis) to be shelling the civilians. That can sink in for a while. But too big casualty figures you cannot hide, it simply goes by word of mouth. If Americans don't trust their media, Russians don't trust it on a larger scale. At least those that can use their brains.

Maybe Putin wants to use this war to cement his dictatorship, so it doesn't necessarily need to be a quick war.

As the Frontline documentary said, Putin has the same succession problem Yeltsin had. He can't step down without fear of prosecution. So he'll just stay there for life? — frank

Not like he was seriously challenged by anyone or anything before.

But those protests at him in 2012 likely made him wary. Likely he has seen that "being liberal" won't help him. He hasn't been able to produce similar economic growth as China, so the war has been his response in order to get higher popularity. That documentary tells why it hasn't been so: basically put up to sustain the kleptocracy, I think Putin massed his wealth just because of taking power. But what he failed to do is to do anything about the kleptocracy, which would have been important. I remember him only declaring that Russia has to be a dictatorship of laws, meaning that laws should be followed as the word of a dictator (Stalin?)

This shows the utter lack of understanding how a country governed by laws operates and that it is usually the dictatorships that are the most corrupt.

Or maybe the US is just waiting to make a grand entrance and be the one who gets declared the victor? — baker

The US made it's grand entrance a long time ago.

Hence, focus on sending Ukraine anti-tank guided missiles and manpads. These are extremely dangerous weapons for sure, but you can't really assault and take a dug-in position with these weapons; certainly harass supply lines and lay ambushes but they don't really help defend against a concentrated offensive. So, if Russia digs in on the sides of a pincer and has a concentrated offensive to move forward, there's not much Ukraine can do about it with ATGM's and manpads. — boethius

The basic problem is that for Ukrainians being on the defensive works. But wars are not won just by being on the defensive. Ukraine should make counterattacks and here might be their weak point: to counterattack they should concentrate their forces and firepower and destroy the Russian units. If those Russian units are in a long column in the middle of an urban area, that's easy. If they are in defensive positions, that's hard. And with the concentration the Russian artillery has targets. Likely Ukraine will try to avoid a battle of attrition. Yet the material support coming from NATO countries is substantial. But they would need more than just those ATGMs, but also artillery and medium range Surface-to-Air missile systems. Stingers cannot defend attack from high altitude. And if you are Putin, you don't care about if you hit something else also when destroying the Ukrainian army.

When Russians declare cease-fires or humanitarian corridors, I assume they take the time to get their defences up. Already you can see that they are throwing their reserves and second tier forces into the battle as there starts to be a lot of civilian trucks in the columns. This means that the army trucks are already in use. Likely the war is going to the next phase.


But still, it's not going well for the Russians.

This part of the argument started because you claimed Russia had no strategic interests as they were too big to have to ever be concerned about attack. — Isaac

As Russia has the most nuclear weapons, it can be pretty sure that any country won't attack it. That should be obvious. Or let's say the US response to the war in Ukraine makes this obvious.

I'm bit confused why you really seem not to get that having strategic interests doesn't mean a country can invade another one country whenever feeling like it. There's multitude ways to try to influence things, but annexing parts of another countries simply isn't one.

Just think of the US and Mexico. The US has naturally strategic interests at it's southern neighbor. But does it have the option to invade & occupy the country? Actually not. Same thing with Brazil, Argentina and the Southern American countries. Basically it can use military force freely in the Caribbean, invading islands like Grenada or then make incursions to Haiti.

Putin seems to be a realist, an immensely practical man and a very forthright in this speech: typically European in outlook. Did he start a war and get people killed? No leader of any country can avoid that taking on that responsibility, to use military force, they cannot be and should not be put in that position. There are no pacifist presidents or prime ministers. Not among the powerful nations which rely on force.

I can't help feel that both Ukraine and Putin have been provoked, manipulated by the 'cunning' and perhaps unprincipled other parties. — FreeEmotion

I would put that all in past tense.

There simply is no way around this: Putin made huge gambles, made huge victories (2014 annexation of Crimea), or at least he could think so if getting territory with poor economy is that, and basically had punched way over his weight class. And now he lost it in the gamble. Made a catastrophic error on starting this war. It puts the Soviet leadership that went to Afghanistan to seem far more intelligent, far more cautious. Perhaps nobody dared to say it to him or whatever. Before Putin heard different opinions, but after 2012, the people around him have come smaller and smaller.

There are too many reports on how this came as a surprise to the whole Russian system. And just think about one thing: how could the US intel be in the end so accurate? Usually US Intel blunders at nearly everything. I think the issue is that they actually got informants inside the Kremlin because people there were worried what was happening. That the US intel assumed that Kyiv would fall in 90 hours tells how Putin wasn't the only one overestimating the Russian army and underestimating the Ukrainians.

Putin has now thrown such bad dice that there are dramatic long term consequences.

Here's a good primer on Putin, made by PBS Frontline. Tells well how we are where we are now and just how and why Putin got to power. Worth seeing.

What choice does Ukraine have, Isaac? Roll over and give more territory to Russia? — ssu

Yes, that is correct. That's the choice they have. Lose more of their young men, armed forces, women and children, or cede territory to the Russians. — Isaac

A choice. But not the only choice. Defend to get a better peace treaty is a possibility also.

.@ssu was trying to argue that Russia in 'attack mode' were so weak that the world's number 22 in army sizes (plus a few civilians) could reasonably take them on, yet no-one in the world is strong enough to present a threat to them in 'defence mode'. — Isaac

Is it so crazy to understand that defending against the US was successful for the Emirate of Afghanistan after two decades, yet attacking the US and trying to occupy California won't succeed?

Yes, countries when attacking other countries are weaker and while defending themselves are stronger.

You start loosing it, Isaac...

News of many Russian reserves being called up too. Makes sense, they clearly have a manpower problem. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Plus this has been verified by Putin declaring that reservists (and conscripts) are not and will not be used in the "special military operation". :wink:

Russia contemplating countering the sanctions by nationalizing Western assets in Russia. Likely will happen, I guess. Because why not?

(WSJ) Russia’s government legislative commission approved measures Wednesday that pave the way for the nationalization of property of Western companies that are exiting the country.

The commission’s role includes reading and assessing laws that the government intends to propose to the State Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament.

Russia’s dominant political party, United Russia, said on Wednesday that the latest measures seek to prevent bankruptcies and preserve jobs at organizations that are more than 25% owned by foreign entities of “unfriendly governments.” United Russia has been pushing for the nationalization of operations of Western companies leaving Russia in response to the war in Ukraine.

That will end up any investment into Russia for longer time than just this crisis. And as I've said, once war and serious conflict breaks out, the economy of globalization is dumped overboard immediately.

Was this verified? I had trouble finding good sources. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think think this could easily verified, if false. As easily as the false news that Zelensky had left Kyiv. Just look if the name Viktor Gulevich pops up anymore in any news about the Belarus armed forces. If it does, obviously fake then. Of course the easiest thing would have been a direct rebuttal from Gulevich himself, which would benefit Russia and Belarus in the information war. Now you have only the Russian media referring that the Belarussian defense ministry has said that this hasn't happened.

But that's true that I didn't find many of the top news media saying this, just a few that could swallow propaganda:

Russia-Ukraine War | Belarus' Chief Of General Staff Of Armed Forces Resigns Over War On Ukraine

Belarus deputy defence minister QUITS over Ukraine war: Sanctioned general who 'agreed to Russian troops deploying on the border' signs resignation letter saying he cannot support invasion

Top Belarusian general quits over ally Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Report

'Defections and resignations in Belarusian military prevented country from joining Ukraine invasion'

If one just only waits a few months, usually 95% of fake news have been proven fake. The propaganda war and social media has long forgotten what happened two months ago, when they are interested in what is new since two minutes ago.

But anyway, Thanks for the good links, @Count Timothy von Icarus!

And if you think the Ukrainians are attacking Russia when they are combating Russian forces inside their own country, you are simply totally delusional. The fighting is in the outskirts of Kyiv, not in the outskirts of Moscow. — ssu

It's the same military. Or do Russia have one force for if they're attacked and a different force for if they're defending? — Isaac

So with your delusional logic then I guess the Grenadians and Cubans attacked the US in 1983??? Because it's the same military. :chin:

And you've dodged the question - does Ukraine have a choice? — Isaac

What choice does Ukraine have, Isaac? Roll over and give more territory to Russia? Ask Kremlin to rule Ukraine on behalf of them through a puppet regime?

It already gave up it's nuclear deterrent and believed a piece of paper that Russia signed, so I guess those kind of mistakes it shouldn't do.

You explain me what the choice was for Ukraine, when an apparently not so well anymore Russian dictator accuses an administration made of a centrist party and lead by President of Jewish ancestry being neo-nazis, that are committing a genocide of which there isn't any trace of and then Russia is pursuing a de-nazification in the country which it has invaded.

I think more preferable would be to ask what are the choices for Russia now.

But on a serious note, there's some serious Nazi-like fascist iconography being pushed in Russia that just feels like Nazi cosplay with a new logo, especially when it's being pushed from official propaganda sources. — Christoffer

Oh, @Christoffer... in the first photo it was terminally ill children showing their support for the troops performing the Special Military Operation to free the Ukrainians from the neo-nazis!

Pictures show how terminally ill children in Russia were encouraged to stand outside in the snow in the shape of a letter "Z" to show support for the country's invasion of Ukraine.

Vladimir Vavilov, chairman of a cancer charity that runs a hospice in the city of Kazan, organised the children and their mothers to line up to produce the letter.Mr Vavilov posted the photo and a caption on the hospice website, according to The Daily Telegraph. "Our patients and entire team took part in it, about 60 people in total," he's quoted as saying. "People lined up in the form of the letter 'Z'.

"In our left hand we held leaflets with the flags of the LPR, DPR, Russia and Tatarstan and we clenched our right hand into a fist."

Ah, back to the spontaneity of the Soviet times! Next surely will come the lithurgy of Soviet times.

Putin's social contract was to deliver stability, relative prosperity, and a sense of national pride (at the expense of freedom and much else). He has tried to compensate for the gradual loss of the former by doubling down on the latter. Crimea was a major coup for him, but that has since evaporated, partly due to the sanctions. And now, in the space of just a couple of weeks, he has ruined it all. Lies about the NATO threat and the dastardly Neo-Nazis can only go so far, and the economy will soon be in ruins. So what does he have left? He will have to reformat the arrangement. His only chance to stay in power and secure a lasting legacy is to fashion himself into a new Stalin, if he can. Which is to say, terrorize the population into awe and submission. And that will go double for the occupied Ukraine. Soviet-era persecutions of "Ukrainian nationalists" come to mind... — SophistiCat

I think this is the likely thing that will happen. The denials of there being no marshal law have now been said so many times from the Russian regime, that something like it will likely happen. The little, but steady stream of Russians fleeing Russia shows that they are anticipating the next phase of the Sovietizing of Russia: that the borders will close. Putin now has a large conflict, he now has the hostility of the West and he now can argue that all the ways he will try to crush any opposition against him will be done in the cause to defend Russia from foreign threats.

Apparently, the younger people of Russia are also less romantically nationalistic than Putin -- except for the neo-non-nazis (like the Olympic gymnast) who display a symbolic letter "Z", apparently as a remodeled Swastika. We can only hope that the younger more moderate people on both sides of the renewed Iron Curtain — Gnomon

I think the "Z" doesn't come from a remodeled Swastike, but is the way Putin's regime hopes to instill patriotic fervour to the war. And of course, many Russians will support their troops.

However if Trump divided Americans, I think that Putin has divided Russians even more. Yet when the country is falling into more authoritarianism, there isn't public discourse or honest polling. The sanctions are working and Russia could even face hyperinflation. Yet it's not so direct that hardships of the Russians will damage Putin's rule so much, when Putin simply says this is the way the West is attacking Russia (and not relate it to be the response to the invasion of Ukraine).

But more generally, the present situation where sanctions and likely counter-sanctions are already wrecking the global market, security of supply will become the new focus. The Corona pandemic already shaked the roots of the globalized supply chain, but now the idea of "Just on Time" logistics and things being produced in complicated global supply chains will be an idea of the past. However this crisis is going to end, the likelyhood of countries looking at having strategic reserves and maintaining domestic production. Also, China can look at Russia now and think carefully how they would cope when similar actions possibly are taken against them.

In a way, now the era of globalization is collapsing. It already suffered from a structural weakness which was made more obvious during the corona pandemic. The idea that an rich elite rules the world and the nation states obey their demands is just a fallacious dream when it comes to war and crises. It was a fallacy held before World War 1 and is proving a fallacy even today. The rich have influence in peacetime, but once a crisis happens, they will quickly fall in line.

The opponents of globalization might cheer about this at first, yet they ought to then first look at what the new not-so-globalized economy might be like.

Interesting development. Reasons why Belarus hasn't participated in the fucked up invasion of Ukraine. And worrying signs it might...if generals have to resign:

Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Belarus Viktor Gulevich had abruptly resigned from his position, lodging protest against his country’s support to the Russian invasion. In the letter, Belarus’ General Staff of the Armed Forces stated that the personnel of military units in Minsk were “massively refusing to take part in hostilities and the Armed Forces are unable to complete a single battalion group. “

Such low morale is obvious. Many Belarussians have feared that Russia might take over their country and basically many are now anticipating that Belarus has become an extension of the Russian state when their local dictator Lukashenko is so highly unpopular among the people.

I have really serious doubts about the effectiveness of untrained civilians to wage the kind of war Russia is waging. — boethius

Will of the people to fight, to resist, is in every war essential.

It's possible this is a smart move against some existential threat ... it's also possible it's a really dumb move if peace can be achieved by simply recognizing what it can't have anyways — boethius

Now that deterrent has failed, motivation in war is crucial. Motivation is important to endure war. And motivation is important to rebuild the country after war.

There are many examples where the best technology has been unable to achieve anything while poorly armed defenders with outdated weapons have prevailed in the end. We are seeing it quite clearly for instance in Yemen, where one of the poorest countries one group has destroyed many American Abrams tanks of the Saudis and have captured them intact as the crews have abandoned the vehicles. You didn't see that with American troops. Will to fight is simply important.

On the same page you're arguing that Russian military capability is so vast no-one would dare attack it, then praising the sending of 18 year old boys out to fight it. — Isaac

I'm not praising anyone here. (Perhaps I ought to)

And if you think the Ukrainians are attacking Russia when they are combating Russian forces inside their own country, you are simply totally delusional. The fighting is in the outskirts of Kyiv, not in the outskirts of Moscow.

My major criticism of the Ukrainians is arming civilians. Had they kept to professional soldiery, and then lost conventional battles, there would be a lot less civilian deaths and, likely, the exact same chances of successfully defending their country. — boethius

Ukraine did do two very smart moves. By not only saying that all 18 to 60 year old men have to stay in Ukraine, but that this has been at large obeyed is actually very crucial. It's crucial in that Ukraines neighbors are opening their border to refugees and for instance basically Poland doing a total 180 degree turn on it's refugee policy when we compare it's actions toward the Belarus hybrid operation using refugees at the border just short time ago. You can see from the pictures that it isn't young males that are fleeing Ukraine.

And to just give out weapons the Zelensky government has effectively created the image both to Ukrainians and to the outside world of a unified country and a people ready to defend it. How much weapons have been given out and how much people actually have joined in the territorial defense forces is another matter. And from a population of 44 million there are simply millions of Ukrainian men that Ukraine simply cannot take into the army.

Of course this will, as you say, increase the casualty figures, but that does have when nations opt to have for example universal conscription.

A telling tweet from the Finnish Security and Intelligence Service roughly translated to English:

It is important that we do not harass or hate the Russians living in Finland. They are not guilty of the war. Internal division of the society and inappropriate treatment of Russian people weakens Finland internally and provides weapons for the Russian propaganda machine to use.

Anticipating perhaps reactions of some people and of Russia in the near future.

Russia still has a perfectly legitimate strategic interest in not being in a position to be attacked by NATO. — Isaac

Again. Russia has the most nuclear weapons in the World. Nobody is attacking it.

That's enough, really.

Ukraine has perfectly legitimate strategic interest not to be attacked by any country.

So shut up with the legitimate strategic interests and move on...

The point is that Ukraine has a choice - take that risk or lose more civilians. Anyone thinking the latter is the best choice should seriously review their ethics. — Isaac

No.

Russia has the choice.

It started this, it can surely end it.

The way I want it is analysis based on the maths of hierarchy theory, not Great Men of history fables. — apokrisis

And I predicted you would, exactly.

Oh yes, fables. Lol.

So what does the math of hierarchy theory say about the impact of Donald Trump compared to Joe Biden? Or is it something inconsequential? Or rubbish? Unimportant?!

There are the larger, the more important issues that can be opened up and understood with hierarchy theory and mathematical models, I guess. :snicker:

Why did neoliberalism deem monetarism an essential part of its "naked market" architecture? — apokrisis

Does neoliberalism deem monetarism as an essential part? Liberalism surely didn't want something as micromanaging as monetarism to be around. But monetary policy is actually the perfect example of things heading for a collapse, not something "balanced".

Why are central banks using the global constraint of money supply to bound the local competitive behaviour of market actors? — apokrisis

Define what the global constraint of money supply is, because I don't know what you mean. I do understand what money supply is and the role of debt, but what is the global constraint of it is something new.

Oh yes... do notice Putins intelligence chief stumbled in his words. Or that when they celebrated Putins admission, the stage fireworks show showed people celebrating with the Russian flag, not their own flag. What truly independence yearning country would do that? And many are there already have the Russian passport. Again the same question.



This is the simply the Russian playbook. They use these puppet regimes. If you want to believe the puppetry, I don't care.

And oh...don't forget Crimea. That's Russia isn't it, Isaac?

But what caused the collapse and led to the unsustainability? Clearly I would look to the balancing act that any sociologist or anthropologist understands - the necessary tension between the individual and the group.

And that tension is hierarchy theory in a nutshell. The need to balance local degrees of freedom and global habits of constraint. — apokrisis

Well, especially in history you do find the tension of the individual and the group certainly. But not perhaps in the way you would want it. It is the problem that all sociologists and those who promote the Longe durée. It's the problem that they will immediately say is a non-issue. It's the Cleopatra's nose. And that's why the focus for example of the Annales school, but others is somewhere that we don't see the ordinary history of rapid transformations where certain small individuals and their actions have huge consequences. Perhaps there are too many Butterfly effects in history that in the end the historian choses to model it by using the old narrative of story telling.

Where would I have said that? — apokrisis

Well, for example by saying that "the "best" society manages to balance its global cooperation with its local competition by maximizing its social cohesion and its individual independence."

If that isn't what I'm referring to, nothing is. From an economic history point of view, that's just hogwash before you somehow link global cooperation and local competition to social cohesion and individual independence.

Russia has never stated it wants to occupy and passiffy Ukraine — boethius

Yes, It just has clearly stated that it wants large chunks of Ukraine to itself. :smirk:

Like Peskov has said in their peace offering, which you quoted.