This article has aged very badly. Perhaps most absurd is the claim that "we now enter the next stage of urban warfare" in Kiev and Kharkov, for which cases there has been no evidence of any attempted urban assault by Russian forces, much less planning or deployment to that end. Further, this bizarre assertion: "the first stage of conventional warfare to the next stage of urban warfare". Since when was urban warfare per se not conventional? "Incompetent" may seem charitably brief and restrained, as is my very selective sample here from this self-indulgent article's grossly partisan and misleading claims
When I look at the maps and the photos of the convoy I was at first puzzled. Why are the Russians so stuck north of Kiev while they are doing so well in creating the land bridge to Crimea.
1. Putin gets the war on track and takes Kiev, forcing Zelensky to flee the capital, installs a puppet government and calls a cease fire. Then there is a long insurgency.
2. Putin is overthrown as the oligarchs, the military and the public turn on him.
3. Putin sends a message to Biden telling him that if his is not able to take Kiev, force Zelensky to flee the capital, etc. then he will use an NEMP over Kiev.
In my opinion Putin has until March 15 to achieve 1., otherwise 2. will happen.
Putin will do 3. sometime between now and March 15.
I suspect that Biden will reveal Putin did 3. Then what happens is anyone's guess.
I don't think there is any scenario where he can win politically now, though he could still win militarily (in the short-term). Though if he comes too brutal, direct EU/NATO military intervention becomes a possibility.
While only an casual observer from afar, I am worried about parallels with Syria.
While there are obvious differences, I'm comparing the sense of optimism, the plucky civilians fighting back, the initial support from western nations. Then concerns arose about the "legitimacy" of the opposition coupled with air strikes and a grinding never-ending onslaught that just overwhelmed a smaller force - with Russia pulling strings.
So, in the spirit of learning and adapting, I'd be interested in hearing Mr Freedman's perspective - both how this different AND what can be done to avoid a similar ending.
The difference is geopolitical interests and maybe some racism. Some Westerners may feel bad about Muslim Middle Easterners being slaughtered, but even if something like a genocidal Holocaust occurred in Syria, no Western country would be affected at all.
But a belligerent Russia under Putin that can't be trusted on anything is a clear and present threat to all the Western-aligned democracies of Europe.
And many Westerners (overwhelmingly white) simply would not stand for their governments doing nothing while other white Europeans are slaughtered by an invading authoritarian regime.
The EU has already said they will donate fighter jets to Ukraine and allow their fighter pilots to volunteer for the fight in Ukraine. If Russia tries to turn Kyiv in to Aleppo, you will see entire Western air force units volunteer and reflag as Ukrainian to take out Russian missiles (and air and AA assets in Belarus and possibly even Russia).
If Russia uses something like chemical weapons or tactical nukes, I predict that NATO would extend to destroying military assets in Russia proper.
Of course, Putin would rattle the nuclear ICBM threat at that point, but even if he is an insane madman with a death wish, it's virtually impossible that the other Russians who'd have to agree (as well as the peon who actually has to press the button) is willing to reduce Moscow, St. Pete, and every other Russian city in to Hiroshima over Putin's crazy scheme.
The Poles and the Baltic states must seriously contemplate whether this may be their one opportunity to stop Putin. They have to be thinking about going in, especially the Poles. It may be their only opportunity to protect their country. They know their history.
They have to worry about a belligerent Russia on it's border. May be their only chance to stop them while the Ukrainians are fighting. They have to act in their own self interest. I'm sure that their are alot European soldiers ready to go and fight under the Ukrainian banner, they all know you have to stop a madman in his tracks.
Hard to call it a "world war" when it will be essentially Russia vs. most of the rest of the world with a modern military (China _definitely_ would not let itself be drawn in to Putin's crazy war).
See my comment above. Putin's options are extremely limited now.
In terms of scale, Russia's conventional military has shown itself to be a paper tiger that would get spanked easily by a NATO (or even EU-only) force in a conventional war.
And I've listed in various places why the nuclear threat is a bluff (really doubt all of the people who'd have to decide to push that button actually would be willing to turn Russia in to radioactive post-apocalyptic wasteland).
Always bad ideas to tangle with short men or men with little dicks. In this case there's probably a double jeopardy at work making the situation triply dangerous.
Yes, crazy gives you a negotiating advantage, but if the West calls Putin's bluff, what cards does he hold?
In a conventional war with NATO, his military would be completely smashed (even just the EU without the US and UK would almost certainly be able to destroy his conventional forces quickly now) and considering how quickly his pretty pathetic conventional forces in the Ukraine are losing material and men (to a military that, on paper, is a small fraction of his), he's in no shape to take on any Western alliance right now in any way.
So what does that leave? Nuclear?
Even if Putin has a death wish and desires to turn Russia in to a post-nuclear apocalyptic wasteland, it's beyond unlikely that the other people that would have to agree to a decision like that (including the peon who has to actually press the button) feel the same way.
Let's hope so. There are always fanatics and they're always dangerous. The guy's lasted a long time. One has to wonder why and on the same note one should probably assume nuclear would be uncontrollable in this day and age. Meanwhile financial markets are crashing - masks and mandates are coming off faster than a jack rabbit as people gasp in fear at another new something to be afraid of and all just in time for President Joe Biden to deliver his "first" State of the Union address on March 1, 2022 at 9 PM EST. What coincidences.
Huh? Yes, he's lasted a long time, but not by being a fanatic. Fanatics tend to get themselves killed off (ask the Taliban, who suffered horrendous loss ratios vs. the Americans; they won only because they have a shit-ton of fanatics willing to die and we don't).
And what do you mean by "probably assume nuclear would be uncontrollable". Can you spell out the steps by which nuclear would be uncontrollable?
Maybe it's the anti-anxiety meds that I'm on, but I just don't get the vague hand-wavy mood of fear. That's why I'm big on spelling out steps of how you think something could occur and weigh probabilities.
Not Putin (fanatic) - those around him pushing buttons. If I give off a "vague hand-wavy mood of fear" I'm glad - because I don't take their horse-shit hysteria too seriously anymore. As far as uncontrollable: one word - TECHNOLOGY. It's outpaced us all and I don't believe it likes us enough to save us from ourselves for the simple reason it's (AI) taken all its cues from us and we don't like ourselves well enough.
You do realise that you are commenting on an article written on 27 February?
fantastic read. thank you.
These articles by Lawrence on the Ukraine war are succinct, cogent and outstanding - many thanks for sharing your thoughts on this ongoing conflict.
This article has aged very badly. Perhaps most absurd is the claim that "we now enter the next stage of urban warfare" in Kiev and Kharkov, for which cases there has been no evidence of any attempted urban assault by Russian forces, much less planning or deployment to that end. Further, this bizarre assertion: "the first stage of conventional warfare to the next stage of urban warfare". Since when was urban warfare per se not conventional? "Incompetent" may seem charitably brief and restrained, as is my very selective sample here from this self-indulgent article's grossly partisan and misleading claims
When I look at the maps and the photos of the convoy I was at first puzzled. Why are the Russians so stuck north of Kiev while they are doing so well in creating the land bridge to Crimea.
It popped into my mind that we are being had by Putin. The convoy is mostly empty. All of his best forces are in the south. Then I realized that the plan is to occupy the entire Black Sea coast. Moving east past Odessa they could cut off Moldova from the coast and have a land connection to Transnistria https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TransnistrianRegionMap.png#/media/File:TransnistrianRegionMap.png
The land bridge to Crimea also expands the territory of Donetsk and Luhansk.
When he has the territory that he wants he will announce a cease fire.
Good narrative. Very sad situation (especially in Kyiv where I lived for 2 years and met a very nice people)
There are three ways this can end:
1. Putin gets the war on track and takes Kiev, forcing Zelensky to flee the capital, installs a puppet government and calls a cease fire. Then there is a long insurgency.
2. Putin is overthrown as the oligarchs, the military and the public turn on him.
3. Putin sends a message to Biden telling him that if his is not able to take Kiev, force Zelensky to flee the capital, etc. then he will use an NEMP over Kiev.
In my opinion Putin has until March 15 to achieve 1., otherwise 2. will happen.
Putin will do 3. sometime between now and March 15.
I suspect that Biden will reveal Putin did 3. Then what happens is anyone's guess.
Excellent as always thanks for sharing your thoughts
I don't see how Putin can get out of this now, even if he wanted to.
I don't think there is any scenario where he can win politically now, though he could still win militarily (in the short-term). Though if he comes too brutal, direct EU/NATO military intervention becomes a possibility.
While only an casual observer from afar, I am worried about parallels with Syria.
While there are obvious differences, I'm comparing the sense of optimism, the plucky civilians fighting back, the initial support from western nations. Then concerns arose about the "legitimacy" of the opposition coupled with air strikes and a grinding never-ending onslaught that just overwhelmed a smaller force - with Russia pulling strings.
So, in the spirit of learning and adapting, I'd be interested in hearing Mr Freedman's perspective - both how this different AND what can be done to avoid a similar ending.
The difference is geopolitical interests and maybe some racism. Some Westerners may feel bad about Muslim Middle Easterners being slaughtered, but even if something like a genocidal Holocaust occurred in Syria, no Western country would be affected at all.
But a belligerent Russia under Putin that can't be trusted on anything is a clear and present threat to all the Western-aligned democracies of Europe.
And many Westerners (overwhelmingly white) simply would not stand for their governments doing nothing while other white Europeans are slaughtered by an invading authoritarian regime.
The EU has already said they will donate fighter jets to Ukraine and allow their fighter pilots to volunteer for the fight in Ukraine. If Russia tries to turn Kyiv in to Aleppo, you will see entire Western air force units volunteer and reflag as Ukrainian to take out Russian missiles (and air and AA assets in Belarus and possibly even Russia).
If Russia uses something like chemical weapons or tactical nukes, I predict that NATO would extend to destroying military assets in Russia proper.
Of course, Putin would rattle the nuclear ICBM threat at that point, but even if he is an insane madman with a death wish, it's virtually impossible that the other Russians who'd have to agree (as well as the peon who actually has to press the button) is willing to reduce Moscow, St. Pete, and every other Russian city in to Hiroshima over Putin's crazy scheme.
Good article Lawrence.
The Poles and the Baltic states must seriously contemplate whether this may be their one opportunity to stop Putin. They have to be thinking about going in, especially the Poles. It may be their only opportunity to protect their country. They know their history.
If they go in that's WW3.
They have to worry about a belligerent Russia on it's border. May be their only chance to stop them while the Ukrainians are fighting. They have to act in their own self interest. I'm sure that their are alot European soldiers ready to go and fight under the Ukrainian banner, they all know you have to stop a madman in his tracks.
Hard to call it a "world war" when it will be essentially Russia vs. most of the rest of the world with a modern military (China _definitely_ would not let itself be drawn in to Putin's crazy war).
See my comment above. Putin's options are extremely limited now.
I suppose so, but I was thinking more in terms of scale than participation.
In terms of scale, Russia's conventional military has shown itself to be a paper tiger that would get spanked easily by a NATO (or even EU-only) force in a conventional war.
And I've listed in various places why the nuclear threat is a bluff (really doubt all of the people who'd have to decide to push that button actually would be willing to turn Russia in to radioactive post-apocalyptic wasteland).
Thanks for the prompt reply. I have never before encountered the use of foreign currency on line. Will donate shortly.
How can an American subscribe in pounds? Please supply dollar amounts.
Hi Laura - you can pay in pounds from anywhere - substack will do the transaction automatically from your card/account. Thanks
Always bad ideas to tangle with short men or men with little dicks. In this case there's probably a double jeopardy at work making the situation triply dangerous.
Eh, see my comment above.
Putin's in far more danger than the West. The patheticness of Russian conventional military forces really limits Putin's (good) options.
Still, crazy works in this world and a madman's threats need to be taken seriously. Especially a cornered madman.
How does it work, exactly? Please spell out.
Yes, crazy gives you a negotiating advantage, but if the West calls Putin's bluff, what cards does he hold?
In a conventional war with NATO, his military would be completely smashed (even just the EU without the US and UK would almost certainly be able to destroy his conventional forces quickly now) and considering how quickly his pretty pathetic conventional forces in the Ukraine are losing material and men (to a military that, on paper, is a small fraction of his), he's in no shape to take on any Western alliance right now in any way.
So what does that leave? Nuclear?
Even if Putin has a death wish and desires to turn Russia in to a post-nuclear apocalyptic wasteland, it's beyond unlikely that the other people that would have to agree to a decision like that (including the peon who has to actually press the button) feel the same way.
Let's hope so. There are always fanatics and they're always dangerous. The guy's lasted a long time. One has to wonder why and on the same note one should probably assume nuclear would be uncontrollable in this day and age. Meanwhile financial markets are crashing - masks and mandates are coming off faster than a jack rabbit as people gasp in fear at another new something to be afraid of and all just in time for President Joe Biden to deliver his "first" State of the Union address on March 1, 2022 at 9 PM EST. What coincidences.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/state-of-the-union-2022/
BTW, I think this thread is a great one for you to read: https://mobile.twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1498313116312080384
Like I said - original post: "small" man. Troublesome.
Huh? Yes, he's lasted a long time, but not by being a fanatic. Fanatics tend to get themselves killed off (ask the Taliban, who suffered horrendous loss ratios vs. the Americans; they won only because they have a shit-ton of fanatics willing to die and we don't).
And what do you mean by "probably assume nuclear would be uncontrollable". Can you spell out the steps by which nuclear would be uncontrollable?
Maybe it's the anti-anxiety meds that I'm on, but I just don't get the vague hand-wavy mood of fear. That's why I'm big on spelling out steps of how you think something could occur and weigh probabilities.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYmt4qu00uc&t=52s
Not Putin (fanatic) - those around him pushing buttons. If I give off a "vague hand-wavy mood of fear" I'm glad - because I don't take their horse-shit hysteria too seriously anymore. As far as uncontrollable: one word - TECHNOLOGY. It's outpaced us all and I don't believe it likes us enough to save us from ourselves for the simple reason it's (AI) taken all its cues from us and we don't like ourselves well enough.