Did you see that at least 20 of those mobilised died before they ever got close to the frontline? Sleeping in draughty buses, scant food and drink supplies, cold, hungry, getting into fatal fights with others in the same position.
For those of us too young to remember 1991, I cannot tell you how mind-blowing it is to read a post like this about what I consider a modern European country (having visited Moscow a few years ago and enjoyed it a lot). It's like a real-time history textbook. Thanks very much for your work Lawrence.
Excellent post. As lovely as it would be to see Russia withdraw and have a good think about what it’s done, clearly the instability resulting from a putch on Putin carries huge risks for people both inside and outside Russia. Not least WMDs but also secession wars and Russia becoming a chronic pariah state causing geopolitical chaos for years to come. There will need be a lot blood and treasure spent before any real peace can be found.
I do not have a crystal ball. But I look at Bakhmut, and watch Prigozhin, and imagine that when the Donbass offensive finally falters and Wagner is forced to withdraw or get outflanked, he will return to Moscow and become that unifying figure. The one who kept going forward until the bitter end, had the enemy flag in his grasp, etc, will be ready to sweep away the incompetents who mismanaged the war he could have won, if only they had let him. A Prigozhin regime would then further privatize the Russian military.
Wallenstein was a military entrepreneur who served a failing emperor and developed ambitions of replacing him on the throne. He seems an analogous historical figure, to me.
Fairy tales. Hyperbole. A Bellicose pom-pom rattling piece thats only use is the mild sense of jingo one gets when backing the underdog. There’s only one point made in this pseudo analysis that resonates: war always ends when the desire for the blood purge ends, irrespective of the treasure it speculated to yield. The diplomatic road to peace needs to be paved. The bull shit positioning and lying needs to stop. The geopolitical trade offs need to be tabled. The US is yet again using another countries’ young generation of blood as a sump for its hegemony.
Who are these hardliners we hear so much about these days? The only ones whose names I have seen mentioned seem to be people especially dependent upon Putin himself, and therefore especially likely to wish to be seen to support whatever it is he seems to want.
To what extent should we interpret Putin's words and behavior as communication - signaling intentions to escalate, to go nuclear, to stop at nothing, no bluffing - versus a genuine intent to win the war?
Are his ultimate aims his own power, or destruction of Ukraine? I can't help but think that he desires the former, but is being forced by political challengers, by his own propagandists, by in-fighting, to step up the war effort. Hoist on his own petard. Trapped by the logic of his own original sin, invading Ukraine, and now unable to waver from that commitment.
The war-fighting in that case is a proxy struggle for power, pride, and persuasion. The West should need only to support Ukraine with total resolve, and regime change takes care of itself.
Rajiv Gandhi once said that governing India was like flying a 747 whose wing tips were only partially attached to the joystick; the plane landed and took off according to its own instincts and logic and not t he pilot’s. Might this situation be increasingly a reality in the Russian forces on Ukraine where there is something of a gap between the aspirations of Putin and what formations do on the ground. If this s a possibility then they must be thinking hard about how they are going to spend the winter ,if possible in a well supplied and well protected line which they might go to regardless of Moscows instructions to the contrary. In which case should we be thinking our selves where this line might be as it could frame the next chapter. JOHNACKINLAY
Reading this, I'd really like to hear a more compelling argument for Russia not using nuclear weapons than the one you did before. Because if the likely outcome to the war is domestic chaos such that even the removal of Putin is unlikely to resolve it and/or lead to war termination, that seems like conclusive evidence for the fact that there is *nothing* Russia will not risk to win it.
How long before Russia burns through its entire missile supply, including those "repurposed" from sea and air defences?
Towards the end of WW2 the Nazis developed a jet aircraft which would have outflown any fighter the Allies possessed. However, Hitler insisted on using it as a bomber instead ; it wasn't a very useful bomber - too small a payload - and any tactical advantage was lost.
Candidates to take Putin’s place: The issue of succession is always a problem in dictatorships. The situation may become as unclear as in 1957 when Malenkov, Molotov and Kaganovich attempted a coup against Khrushchev and Zhukov. If someone unleashes nuclear weapons, who would it be? Scary.
But what was the strategic value in Ukraine bombing the Kerch Bridge?
If Russia's defeat is inevitable, why poke the bear and give Putin an excuse to rain missiles down on Ukrainian civilians?
Is it a negotiating ploy?
The West has already decided Putin is the evil aggressor; it needs no more examples of his brutality. It seems all the bombing has achieved is giving the Russians reasons to commit more atrocities ... possibly even nuclear ones.
This is a weak analogy, but if Russia bombed London's Vauxhall Bridge, wouldn't that demand a very strong response?
Two memories arose for me. The first: in his book on the Vietnam war, Dispatches, the American journalist Michael Herr observed that while US troops fired off thousands of rounds of ammunition in any and every direction, the Viet Cong ("Charlie") placed a single round where it mattered. The second is a cartoon from Private Eye many years ago, by Bill Tidy, I think. It showed a general with his staff poring over the map table. I think it was probably meant as a standard satirical comment on WW1 generalship. The caption went something like: "Gentlemen, I believe the time has come for a futile gesture." Both might be applied as satirical comments on Russia's actions in the last couple of days which provide support for the view increasingly expressed that Putin has taken on personally the direction of operations in the war. Of course, it demonstrates that Russia's prosecution of the war is following the same self-destructive path it began on. Take time to think and plan before responding to the bridge attack? No, retaliate immediately and disproportionately. Key outcome? Ukraine's determination to fight is strengthened. Husband your most powerful and effective weapons for use in the key areas where the most important operations are currently underway and your army is losing? No, direct them principally at areas remote from the current battlefield. Key outcome? Your ability to contest the key space is reduced and your army's position weakened (again). Perhaps it is an apt comment on the appointment of General Surovikin. Was his appointment too recent to be able to influence the decision? Would he have wanted to? What lessons does he bring from Aleppo to THIS battle?
If the Russians are committing so many troops and armament to the Ukraine front line (and losing it), are they leaving themselves vulnerable in other parts of their country? Are there any have-a-go countries that might cause issues on a different front?
Did you see that at least 20 of those mobilised died before they ever got close to the frontline? Sleeping in draughty buses, scant food and drink supplies, cold, hungry, getting into fatal fights with others in the same position.
For those of us too young to remember 1991, I cannot tell you how mind-blowing it is to read a post like this about what I consider a modern European country (having visited Moscow a few years ago and enjoyed it a lot). It's like a real-time history textbook. Thanks very much for your work Lawrence.
Excellent post. As lovely as it would be to see Russia withdraw and have a good think about what it’s done, clearly the instability resulting from a putch on Putin carries huge risks for people both inside and outside Russia. Not least WMDs but also secession wars and Russia becoming a chronic pariah state causing geopolitical chaos for years to come. There will need be a lot blood and treasure spent before any real peace can be found.
I do not have a crystal ball. But I look at Bakhmut, and watch Prigozhin, and imagine that when the Donbass offensive finally falters and Wagner is forced to withdraw or get outflanked, he will return to Moscow and become that unifying figure. The one who kept going forward until the bitter end, had the enemy flag in his grasp, etc, will be ready to sweep away the incompetents who mismanaged the war he could have won, if only they had let him. A Prigozhin regime would then further privatize the Russian military.
Wallenstein was a military entrepreneur who served a failing emperor and developed ambitions of replacing him on the throne. He seems an analogous historical figure, to me.
Fairy tales. Hyperbole. A Bellicose pom-pom rattling piece thats only use is the mild sense of jingo one gets when backing the underdog. There’s only one point made in this pseudo analysis that resonates: war always ends when the desire for the blood purge ends, irrespective of the treasure it speculated to yield. The diplomatic road to peace needs to be paved. The bull shit positioning and lying needs to stop. The geopolitical trade offs need to be tabled. The US is yet again using another countries’ young generation of blood as a sump for its hegemony.
Who are these hardliners we hear so much about these days? The only ones whose names I have seen mentioned seem to be people especially dependent upon Putin himself, and therefore especially likely to wish to be seen to support whatever it is he seems to want.
To what extent should we interpret Putin's words and behavior as communication - signaling intentions to escalate, to go nuclear, to stop at nothing, no bluffing - versus a genuine intent to win the war?
Are his ultimate aims his own power, or destruction of Ukraine? I can't help but think that he desires the former, but is being forced by political challengers, by his own propagandists, by in-fighting, to step up the war effort. Hoist on his own petard. Trapped by the logic of his own original sin, invading Ukraine, and now unable to waver from that commitment.
The war-fighting in that case is a proxy struggle for power, pride, and persuasion. The West should need only to support Ukraine with total resolve, and regime change takes care of itself.
What comes after will be messy but inevitably so.
Rajiv Gandhi once said that governing India was like flying a 747 whose wing tips were only partially attached to the joystick; the plane landed and took off according to its own instincts and logic and not t he pilot’s. Might this situation be increasingly a reality in the Russian forces on Ukraine where there is something of a gap between the aspirations of Putin and what formations do on the ground. If this s a possibility then they must be thinking hard about how they are going to spend the winter ,if possible in a well supplied and well protected line which they might go to regardless of Moscows instructions to the contrary. In which case should we be thinking our selves where this line might be as it could frame the next chapter. JOHNACKINLAY
Reading this, I'd really like to hear a more compelling argument for Russia not using nuclear weapons than the one you did before. Because if the likely outcome to the war is domestic chaos such that even the removal of Putin is unlikely to resolve it and/or lead to war termination, that seems like conclusive evidence for the fact that there is *nothing* Russia will not risk to win it.
How long before Russia burns through its entire missile supply, including those "repurposed" from sea and air defences?
Towards the end of WW2 the Nazis developed a jet aircraft which would have outflown any fighter the Allies possessed. However, Hitler insisted on using it as a bomber instead ; it wasn't a very useful bomber - too small a payload - and any tactical advantage was lost.
Candidates to take Putin’s place: The issue of succession is always a problem in dictatorships. The situation may become as unclear as in 1957 when Malenkov, Molotov and Kaganovich attempted a coup against Khrushchev and Zhukov. If someone unleashes nuclear weapons, who would it be? Scary.
All well and good.
But what was the strategic value in Ukraine bombing the Kerch Bridge?
If Russia's defeat is inevitable, why poke the bear and give Putin an excuse to rain missiles down on Ukrainian civilians?
Is it a negotiating ploy?
The West has already decided Putin is the evil aggressor; it needs no more examples of his brutality. It seems all the bombing has achieved is giving the Russians reasons to commit more atrocities ... possibly even nuclear ones.
This is a weak analogy, but if Russia bombed London's Vauxhall Bridge, wouldn't that demand a very strong response?
Most helpful as usual.
Just got my copy of 'Command".
Long ago I read 'On the Psychology of Military Incompetence' by Norman Dixon, still very relevant today.
It's very unclear what might happen in Russia next. Whether it's true or not(I don't know) Putin is reported to be obsessed by the death of Gadaffi.
Sociopathy seems to be a common denominator in both east and west.
Two memories arose for me. The first: in his book on the Vietnam war, Dispatches, the American journalist Michael Herr observed that while US troops fired off thousands of rounds of ammunition in any and every direction, the Viet Cong ("Charlie") placed a single round where it mattered. The second is a cartoon from Private Eye many years ago, by Bill Tidy, I think. It showed a general with his staff poring over the map table. I think it was probably meant as a standard satirical comment on WW1 generalship. The caption went something like: "Gentlemen, I believe the time has come for a futile gesture." Both might be applied as satirical comments on Russia's actions in the last couple of days which provide support for the view increasingly expressed that Putin has taken on personally the direction of operations in the war. Of course, it demonstrates that Russia's prosecution of the war is following the same self-destructive path it began on. Take time to think and plan before responding to the bridge attack? No, retaliate immediately and disproportionately. Key outcome? Ukraine's determination to fight is strengthened. Husband your most powerful and effective weapons for use in the key areas where the most important operations are currently underway and your army is losing? No, direct them principally at areas remote from the current battlefield. Key outcome? Your ability to contest the key space is reduced and your army's position weakened (again). Perhaps it is an apt comment on the appointment of General Surovikin. Was his appointment too recent to be able to influence the decision? Would he have wanted to? What lessons does he bring from Aleppo to THIS battle?
This may be of interest to you and your readers as one possible, even if unlikely, path.
https://robertsdavidn.substack.com/p/the-putin-gambit-a-conspiracy-theory
If the Russians are committing so many troops and armament to the Ukraine front line (and losing it), are they leaving themselves vulnerable in other parts of their country? Are there any have-a-go countries that might cause issues on a different front?