I’m going to be flying tonight so can’t attend the Q&A.
Most of the thinking that we have see so far suggests that Putin is in a hole - see above.
Putin obviously doesn’t want to stay there. How is he going to look for and find strategic paths to safety. Speculation about what these are is less interesting in the processes that can be used.
If I put it in startup terms, it appears that he has a relatively short runway, before structural problems increase to a point where he is at risk. How can he find ways to get airborne fast? Or is he no longer in control of what is happening in any meaningful way?
As an aside - what happens when Ukraine starts hitting objectives in Russia?
There is a way. Ugly way. He can turn this affair into internal semi war. Russia lost because of traitors. Traitors he can deal with (doesn't matter if they are real) so he won, overcome greatest danger to Russia, the traitors, the scum. At the same time he can make his power stronger. So it's bad way for Russians, but it is a way out for Putin.
Do you realize you are right?! But the traitor is the dictator Putin and his thugs. What could have been won by soft power and prosperity was stolen by con men, thieves and murderous thugs telling you it was for mother Russia. Why does that lie always work for "big daddy strongmen"? Ask yourself that. What keeps Russia back but it's horrible politicians ... for centuries now. Russia, with its great universities and engineers is now a leaky gas station to China with a paper military. The engineers have left. That is Putin, not any other enemy, Putin and those who lick his murderous boots.
Putin will keep killing Ukrainian civilians and try to create facts on the ground in the Donbas in a desperate bid to force Ukraine to accept some peace deal that he can sell as a win to Russians.
Frankly, all routes for Putin right now are bad. What is probably least bad for him is keeping a grinding war going in Ukraine as long as possible to keep his control in Russia, as terrible as that may be.
Question for tonight. Does China have a better or worse chance of a quick takeover of Taiwan compared to Russia with Ukraine (excluding the possibility of US help)?
There are a number of very well written in-depth studies of a Chinese invasion and what that would entail if you google around. But the main points are that 1) the straits are difficult to cross and only doable for a short period every year 2) China does not have the landing ships necessary 3) it would take 2-3 months of supplies/men buildup in china before they could engage, so there would be plenty of warning 4) the seas would be heavily mined 5) limited beachfronts for landing, all would be mined and defended, like many mini Normandies 6) Taiwan has a fleet of F-16s, many which are bunkered inside mountains and unbombable 7) there would be an unimaginable amount of casualties, there is family on both sides of the straits, this would be a super unpopular war 8) the Chinese tend not to do things that are risky, this could topple the entire CCP if things went poorly 9) the Japanese have said they will help defend Taiwan, and it's likely the US would get involved in some way, 10) I would say 99% chance the US has to get involved, everything that we make rely on the high end semiconductors that TMSC makes. It would literally cripple the entire world. I just don't see it happening, but crazier things have happened.
IMO, a quick takeover of Taiwan by purely war (an invasion) would be almost impossible if the Taiwanese fight (and now I think they probably will). I was thinking the PRC could try to blockade Taiwan to force it to the negotiating table, but that seems an extremely unlikely route to success as well.
If the PRC was smart, they would just live with Taiwan being de facto independent.
Hard to tell as we don't really know how effective the Chinese army is.
Taiwan does have certain advantages, generally it has a more modern/well-equipped army/air force compared to Ukraine and the fact that it's an island makes it much more defensible.
There are some disadvantages too, since Taiwan is quite small there isn't much space for an army to hide and we don't know if the Taiwanese army is as combat effective as the Ukrainian army (given that the Ukrainian army has been in combat for the past 8 years).
A *very* related question - would Xi (or any future leader of China) believe any "Yes We Can!" answer that his generals gave him?
After all, Putin was evidently over-sold on Russia's military capabilities. And the Russians have some (modest) recent fighting experience. Other than border skirmishes with India I don't recall a major Chinese war effort since 1979 wirth Vietnam, which did not go well.
For an utterly untested army to debut with a complex cross-water invasion contested by (maybe!) the US Seventh Fleet would be, well, bold. More likely (IMHO) is a Chinese leader accepting a tolerable staus quo and kicking the can down the road. Unlike with Putin, time seems to be on China's side.
That said, a shrewd and aggressive Chinese leader might choose to pick a warm-up fight with a lesser foe. That would be an alarming warning sign.
That's an excellent and very important question. The only trouble is I don't think anyone can answer it. So if I was Biden I'd be looking to send large numbers of Stingers and hand held anti-tank weapons to Taiwan.
Yes, after Putin's debacle in Ukraine, I believe a warm-up war with Vietnam or Mongolia is more likely than an invasion of Taiwan with a military that hasn't fought a major war in generations (and a navy that has never fought anything ever).
Great article. I’d forgotten about Mr Girkin and the news of his present situation seriously over-stimulated my Schadenfreude sensors. If Putin has him arrested, as a member of Amnesty I guess I’d have to write on his behalf…but it would be hard, really hard!
I don’t think it’s fear of the reaction of ultra-nationalists that keeps Putin reinforcing failure in Ukraine. I can’t recall him ever embracing strategic retreat once he’s committed and he’s seriously committed here. I’d say his army would need to be near ground to dust before he gives up on conquering Ukraine. Reversing the Cold War and expanding Russian power has dominated his foreign policy for decades and I can’t see him changing.
I’m puzzled by people’s obsession with the ‘peace’ talks as though they offer lasting settlements rather than agreed pauses for rest/rotation/resupply. If Putin agrees to go to pre-invasion boundaries or Zelensky agrees to Russian occupation of parts of Ukraine than I’ll start scanning the skies for flying pigs.
PS ‘(Russians) are not known for honest portrayals of their policies’ was a delicious under-statement and alone made this article worth reading!
Where does cheerleader Kadyrov's recent promotion fit into this narrative? Does he exemplify the kind of talk Putin wants to hear, and rewards accordingly?
Thanks for such interesting analysis. What I would be interested in is more information on the capacity of both sides to sustain a much longer war of attrition in terms of military supplies and plain financial cost. I hope that Ukraine will receive enough military and other economic support from America and the EU to continue to resist. Although I assume analysis of exactly how much military hardware is being supplied is confidential. But equally important is whether the Russians can continue to bear the military and economic costs of the war, given the damage to their economy caused by sanctions which is likely to increase as time goes on.
Russia, not really. They'll soon be down to mostly poorly-trained reservists/conscripts/riot police using ancient Soviet relics missing parts. But unless the West keeps supplying the UA, a grinding stalemate is a possibility.
I can't make it this evening but I would be interested to know what he thinks of the idea of a mini-alliance for offensive action (by US, UK, Canada and Poland) talked about on news this morning, seemingly independently of NATO.
Can't say how long it will take, but this is likely to end in partition, much like what happened between India and the then created Pakistan in 1947. I don't see another solution that can extricate both sides from the worse alternative of this impossibly expensive blood-letting continue indefinitely. Neither of them can afford it.
Yes-ish. For Putin personally this gamble is Too Big To Fail, but there are easy outs for a new Russian leadership team. That is the obvious 'regime change' fantasy (and still my hope!) where we get a pro-Western liberal leader who ends the war, ditches China, and joins the West in a chorus of "Kumbaya".
Of course, we might get an even crazier right-wing nationalist who successfully deposes Putin because he didn't go nuclear on Ukraine. There's a wide range of possibilities.
I agree - there is a wide range of possibilities. But I start from several propositions about the objective situation in Russia. The economy is smaller than Italy's. There is massive poverty because on top of the low level of GDP, it is a kleptocracy so the little income there is to distribute is very badly distributed. The only two things that make Putin powerful are hydrocarbon and nuclear bombs. The former will become a dead-weight if he continues this war and he can't win with the latter - Moscow and St. Petersburg would be evaporated in a flash. His main objective must be to preserve himself and his kleptocracy in power. Follow the money.
The next thing is we shouldn't assume Putin is off his rocker. I think regime change within Russia is not impossible because it has happened before, but perhaps a lower probability event than settling the war before this has a chance to happen. I also think it less likely that the intelligentsia in Moscow or Petersburg will tolerate having crazier nationalists in charge of the government. So yes, many possibilities, but not all of them may have equal probability.
Re: " I also think it less likely that the intelligentsia in Moscow or Petersburg will tolerate having crazier nationalists in charge of the government."
Substitute "DC or New York", set the clock back to fall 2016, and away we go. Sometimes the intelligentsia and The Establishment aren't as powerful as they look.
And on that theme, in a January 2022 poll roughly 30% of American adults thought Biden did not win fairly. Being a US citizen/ resident, I kinda sorta get it. Kind of. But seeing that level of disconnect in the US leaves me very humble about guessing what Russian national opinion looks like in their vast flyover country.
It makes you wonder what Putin could have achieved had he made a charm offensive on Ukraine. Do you remember the fable of the traveller and his coat, and how the North Wind and the Sun vied to remove it ?
How many Communist/authoritarian leaders manage to be able to charm their neighboring countries in to submission? I'm having trouble thinking of any that had charm as something in their toolkit.
The overlooked consequence of 2 out of 5 breadbaskets going down and Ukraine's inability to ship will soon be a factor in this war that most are not now considering. How will the world view Putin when millions die from famine? Will the pressure from India/China become a larger concern when food and other resources diminish? However, we must also account for the fact that Narcissist/Megalomaniacs could care less about the masses. The US can't bail out this big of a famine. One must have grain to deliver grain and world cereal grains will be down over 50% with drought, lack of fertilizer and war. Will this have an effect on war ending? We have our freedom, it is only right to let Ukrainians fight for theirs as well. Putin lied to the UN about invading and occupying Ukraine, so let Putin account for this starvation. He must be brought to the Hague ASAP.
Do you have a plausible path by which he might be brought to The Hague? Send a couple cops over on a (non-existent) international flight and arrest him?
As always it's an interesting read and again I hope it's more right than wrong. The two major questions I have concern the effectiveness of Ukraine's supply lines to the east and south and, also, how far east can Ukraine realistically install anti-aircraft systems? Both of these surely are essential to Ukraine being able to successfully prosecute the war for an extended period of time. Presumably Russia will target these supply lines and air defences ruthlessly? So, what can Ukraine do and what should it do in this regard? Thanks for your reportage.
I agree Russia would 'ruthlessly target' Ukrainian supply lines and air defenses if they could. The fact that they haven't has lead most commentators to believe that they can't. As far as I can work out the Russian Air Force has had an more embarrassing war then the Russian Army.
I have wondered about delivering Ukraine weapons suitable to attack within Russia itself. There's that bit of me that says "bomb some Russian cities, see how they like it." Then the sensible bit of me tells me that Russia would nuke both whomever carried out the attack, and whomever gave them the weapons. Reality unfortunately has to intrude.
Bottom line, if Putin sees this as a must win war, then he'll use every tool at his disposal. Which includes nuclear weapons. Someone needs to put together a clear scenario that Putin agrees with that demonstrates using nuclear weapons = losing.
I think we need to send more offensive weapons to Ukraine so they can kick Russia out. I have heard a couple Retired Generals in the past few days suggesting it also.
Honestly, I don't understand. I've worked with Russians on software projects for 20 years. Many things you see, such as in google maps have some of this software at their core. In the last 5 months, 75% of these engineers have moved to the West -- Cypress, Israel, Ireland, US. Putin might as well have blown up the Kremlin in Moscow. There is no conceivable NATO force that would invade, or would want to invade Russia. But Putin allies himself with China ... who has 100M people bordering on Outer Manchuria. The population there is already shifting to heavily Chinese and China needs that land. That's who Putin makes an ally of??
I cannot imagine a Russian patriot who does not pray every day for total defeat of Russia in Ukraine because it will lead to total defeat of Putin. Russia is now doing poorly because it has no smart people, it has excellent universities and great engineers. It is doing poorly, for centuries because of its criminal thug political class. This should be used to destroy them and implement the only form of government that works long term: A rational balance of power between private and public good always weighted towards the private. This is not the ideal of "the West", it is the universal ideal of humanity. Prosperity and peace go where this idea is implemented, disaster and horror the further a society moves from that ideal. Always.
People were fooled that the "Big Daddy" "Strongmen" were making places like Russia and China strong. No, they were maggots on the carcass of the society. You will watch them decay and fall again in the next 20 years. The age of Putin and Xi cannot end fast enough, every cm gained by Ukraine helps make Russia strong again.
Many many variables. Understanding which paths are to be taken by Putin is problematic. That may in itself be the point. Russia’s access to far right nationalists, South American Dictators and the various interests across Africa, including training, military support and government contracts; mining rights etc, causes many issues. Understanding the KGB instinct is to understand the principles upon which they set out their plan of attack. It has been in motion for decades. It is to turn democracies on their heads. The first visual manifestation of such a devious scheme would be a little company called Cambridge Analytica. CEO Alexander Nix came up with the business model of a lifetime: The use of military grade psychological warfare upon an unsuspecting population during peacetime. A company declared war on the democratic world, and won. Queue Brexit, Queue Trump... the rest, as they say, is history.
If his maximalist (Kiev) and minimalist (Donbas) strategies are as you describe, what would you say Putin's break point now is, and how will we know if/when he reaches it? Is the Golden Bridge exit strategy a dead duck? Does this lead to another 'frozen' conflict?
The Golden Bridge is an excellent idea but I fear there isn't a metal valuable enough to get Putin to cross it back to a position the Ukrainians would accept.
Thank you, Lawrence - this is the most coherent analysis, I have seen to date. As a Russian/Ukrainian language speaker , I can put my signature under your every word, especially the Girkin/Strelkov part, which is widely misunderstood in the US journalists and analytical circles
I’m going to be flying tonight so can’t attend the Q&A.
Most of the thinking that we have see so far suggests that Putin is in a hole - see above.
Putin obviously doesn’t want to stay there. How is he going to look for and find strategic paths to safety. Speculation about what these are is less interesting in the processes that can be used.
If I put it in startup terms, it appears that he has a relatively short runway, before structural problems increase to a point where he is at risk. How can he find ways to get airborne fast? Or is he no longer in control of what is happening in any meaningful way?
As an aside - what happens when Ukraine starts hitting objectives in Russia?
There is a way. Ugly way. He can turn this affair into internal semi war. Russia lost because of traitors. Traitors he can deal with (doesn't matter if they are real) so he won, overcome greatest danger to Russia, the traitors, the scum. At the same time he can make his power stronger. So it's bad way for Russians, but it is a way out for Putin.
Do you realize you are right?! But the traitor is the dictator Putin and his thugs. What could have been won by soft power and prosperity was stolen by con men, thieves and murderous thugs telling you it was for mother Russia. Why does that lie always work for "big daddy strongmen"? Ask yourself that. What keeps Russia back but it's horrible politicians ... for centuries now. Russia, with its great universities and engineers is now a leaky gas station to China with a paper military. The engineers have left. That is Putin, not any other enemy, Putin and those who lick his murderous boots.
Path to victory not assured that way either.
Putin will keep killing Ukrainian civilians and try to create facts on the ground in the Donbas in a desperate bid to force Ukraine to accept some peace deal that he can sell as a win to Russians.
Frankly, all routes for Putin right now are bad. What is probably least bad for him is keeping a grinding war going in Ukraine as long as possible to keep his control in Russia, as terrible as that may be.
Question for tonight. Does China have a better or worse chance of a quick takeover of Taiwan compared to Russia with Ukraine (excluding the possibility of US help)?
There are a number of very well written in-depth studies of a Chinese invasion and what that would entail if you google around. But the main points are that 1) the straits are difficult to cross and only doable for a short period every year 2) China does not have the landing ships necessary 3) it would take 2-3 months of supplies/men buildup in china before they could engage, so there would be plenty of warning 4) the seas would be heavily mined 5) limited beachfronts for landing, all would be mined and defended, like many mini Normandies 6) Taiwan has a fleet of F-16s, many which are bunkered inside mountains and unbombable 7) there would be an unimaginable amount of casualties, there is family on both sides of the straits, this would be a super unpopular war 8) the Chinese tend not to do things that are risky, this could topple the entire CCP if things went poorly 9) the Japanese have said they will help defend Taiwan, and it's likely the US would get involved in some way, 10) I would say 99% chance the US has to get involved, everything that we make rely on the high end semiconductors that TMSC makes. It would literally cripple the entire world. I just don't see it happening, but crazier things have happened.
IMO, a quick takeover of Taiwan by purely war (an invasion) would be almost impossible if the Taiwanese fight (and now I think they probably will). I was thinking the PRC could try to blockade Taiwan to force it to the negotiating table, but that seems an extremely unlikely route to success as well.
If the PRC was smart, they would just live with Taiwan being de facto independent.
Hard to tell as we don't really know how effective the Chinese army is.
Taiwan does have certain advantages, generally it has a more modern/well-equipped army/air force compared to Ukraine and the fact that it's an island makes it much more defensible.
There are some disadvantages too, since Taiwan is quite small there isn't much space for an army to hide and we don't know if the Taiwanese army is as combat effective as the Ukrainian army (given that the Ukrainian army has been in combat for the past 8 years).
A *very* related question - would Xi (or any future leader of China) believe any "Yes We Can!" answer that his generals gave him?
After all, Putin was evidently over-sold on Russia's military capabilities. And the Russians have some (modest) recent fighting experience. Other than border skirmishes with India I don't recall a major Chinese war effort since 1979 wirth Vietnam, which did not go well.
For an utterly untested army to debut with a complex cross-water invasion contested by (maybe!) the US Seventh Fleet would be, well, bold. More likely (IMHO) is a Chinese leader accepting a tolerable staus quo and kicking the can down the road. Unlike with Putin, time seems to be on China's side.
That said, a shrewd and aggressive Chinese leader might choose to pick a warm-up fight with a lesser foe. That would be an alarming warning sign.
That's an excellent and very important question. The only trouble is I don't think anyone can answer it. So if I was Biden I'd be looking to send large numbers of Stingers and hand held anti-tank weapons to Taiwan.
Yes, after Putin's debacle in Ukraine, I believe a warm-up war with Vietnam or Mongolia is more likely than an invasion of Taiwan with a military that hasn't fought a major war in generations (and a navy that has never fought anything ever).
Great article. I’d forgotten about Mr Girkin and the news of his present situation seriously over-stimulated my Schadenfreude sensors. If Putin has him arrested, as a member of Amnesty I guess I’d have to write on his behalf…but it would be hard, really hard!
I don’t think it’s fear of the reaction of ultra-nationalists that keeps Putin reinforcing failure in Ukraine. I can’t recall him ever embracing strategic retreat once he’s committed and he’s seriously committed here. I’d say his army would need to be near ground to dust before he gives up on conquering Ukraine. Reversing the Cold War and expanding Russian power has dominated his foreign policy for decades and I can’t see him changing.
I’m puzzled by people’s obsession with the ‘peace’ talks as though they offer lasting settlements rather than agreed pauses for rest/rotation/resupply. If Putin agrees to go to pre-invasion boundaries or Zelensky agrees to Russian occupation of parts of Ukraine than I’ll start scanning the skies for flying pigs.
PS ‘(Russians) are not known for honest portrayals of their policies’ was a delicious under-statement and alone made this article worth reading!
Where does cheerleader Kadyrov's recent promotion fit into this narrative? Does he exemplify the kind of talk Putin wants to hear, and rewards accordingly?
Kadyrov seems mostly intent on building a TikTok following. I don't think we should look to him for indications of anything.
He is certainly into self-promotion, but in this case it was apparently Putin who made him a Lieutenant General as a reward for something or other.
Thanks for such interesting analysis. What I would be interested in is more information on the capacity of both sides to sustain a much longer war of attrition in terms of military supplies and plain financial cost. I hope that Ukraine will receive enough military and other economic support from America and the EU to continue to resist. Although I assume analysis of exactly how much military hardware is being supplied is confidential. But equally important is whether the Russians can continue to bear the military and economic costs of the war, given the damage to their economy caused by sanctions which is likely to increase as time goes on.
Russia, not really. They'll soon be down to mostly poorly-trained reservists/conscripts/riot police using ancient Soviet relics missing parts. But unless the West keeps supplying the UA, a grinding stalemate is a possibility.
I can't make it this evening but I would be interested to know what he thinks of the idea of a mini-alliance for offensive action (by US, UK, Canada and Poland) talked about on news this morning, seemingly independently of NATO.
Can't say how long it will take, but this is likely to end in partition, much like what happened between India and the then created Pakistan in 1947. I don't see another solution that can extricate both sides from the worse alternative of this impossibly expensive blood-letting continue indefinitely. Neither of them can afford it.
Yes-ish. For Putin personally this gamble is Too Big To Fail, but there are easy outs for a new Russian leadership team. That is the obvious 'regime change' fantasy (and still my hope!) where we get a pro-Western liberal leader who ends the war, ditches China, and joins the West in a chorus of "Kumbaya".
Of course, we might get an even crazier right-wing nationalist who successfully deposes Putin because he didn't go nuclear on Ukraine. There's a wide range of possibilities.
I agree - there is a wide range of possibilities. But I start from several propositions about the objective situation in Russia. The economy is smaller than Italy's. There is massive poverty because on top of the low level of GDP, it is a kleptocracy so the little income there is to distribute is very badly distributed. The only two things that make Putin powerful are hydrocarbon and nuclear bombs. The former will become a dead-weight if he continues this war and he can't win with the latter - Moscow and St. Petersburg would be evaporated in a flash. His main objective must be to preserve himself and his kleptocracy in power. Follow the money.
The next thing is we shouldn't assume Putin is off his rocker. I think regime change within Russia is not impossible because it has happened before, but perhaps a lower probability event than settling the war before this has a chance to happen. I also think it less likely that the intelligentsia in Moscow or Petersburg will tolerate having crazier nationalists in charge of the government. So yes, many possibilities, but not all of them may have equal probability.
Re: " I also think it less likely that the intelligentsia in Moscow or Petersburg will tolerate having crazier nationalists in charge of the government."
Substitute "DC or New York", set the clock back to fall 2016, and away we go. Sometimes the intelligentsia and The Establishment aren't as powerful as they look.
And on that theme, in a January 2022 poll roughly 30% of American adults thought Biden did not win fairly. Being a US citizen/ resident, I kinda sorta get it. Kind of. But seeing that level of disconnect in the US leaves me very humble about guessing what Russian national opinion looks like in their vast flyover country.
Good point - the scary part of it being that Trump could be re-elected in '24.
Will be.
Trump increased American oil output. Joe decreased American oil output.
Trump opposed Russian gas pipeline. Joe favored Russian gas pipeline.
Who is Joe working for? Check Hunter's laptop. Or ask Ashley.
It makes you wonder what Putin could have achieved had he made a charm offensive on Ukraine. Do you remember the fable of the traveller and his coat, and how the North Wind and the Sun vied to remove it ?
How many Communist/authoritarian leaders manage to be able to charm their neighboring countries in to submission? I'm having trouble thinking of any that had charm as something in their toolkit.
Yes, I wonder what it is they
Lack. They have power, and seem to think it can only be expressed by force
Well, the forces that select those leaders don't select for charming people (unlike democracies).
The overlooked consequence of 2 out of 5 breadbaskets going down and Ukraine's inability to ship will soon be a factor in this war that most are not now considering. How will the world view Putin when millions die from famine? Will the pressure from India/China become a larger concern when food and other resources diminish? However, we must also account for the fact that Narcissist/Megalomaniacs could care less about the masses. The US can't bail out this big of a famine. One must have grain to deliver grain and world cereal grains will be down over 50% with drought, lack of fertilizer and war. Will this have an effect on war ending? We have our freedom, it is only right to let Ukrainians fight for theirs as well. Putin lied to the UN about invading and occupying Ukraine, so let Putin account for this starvation. He must be brought to the Hague ASAP.
Do you have a plausible path by which he might be brought to The Hague? Send a couple cops over on a (non-existent) international flight and arrest him?
Just send him a "must appear" warrant. Then it is his responsibility. Oh. Wait. There may be a problem of non-compliance. It needs more work.
As always it's an interesting read and again I hope it's more right than wrong. The two major questions I have concern the effectiveness of Ukraine's supply lines to the east and south and, also, how far east can Ukraine realistically install anti-aircraft systems? Both of these surely are essential to Ukraine being able to successfully prosecute the war for an extended period of time. Presumably Russia will target these supply lines and air defences ruthlessly? So, what can Ukraine do and what should it do in this regard? Thanks for your reportage.
I agree Russia would 'ruthlessly target' Ukrainian supply lines and air defenses if they could. The fact that they haven't has lead most commentators to believe that they can't. As far as I can work out the Russian Air Force has had an more embarrassing war then the Russian Army.
I have wondered about delivering Ukraine weapons suitable to attack within Russia itself. There's that bit of me that says "bomb some Russian cities, see how they like it." Then the sensible bit of me tells me that Russia would nuke both whomever carried out the attack, and whomever gave them the weapons. Reality unfortunately has to intrude.
Bottom line, if Putin sees this as a must win war, then he'll use every tool at his disposal. Which includes nuclear weapons. Someone needs to put together a clear scenario that Putin agrees with that demonstrates using nuclear weapons = losing.
UA just bombed Belgograd. Destroyed oil facilities. No threat of nukes because even Putin isn't that stupid.
I think we need to send more offensive weapons to Ukraine so they can kick Russia out. I have heard a couple Retired Generals in the past few days suggesting it also.
Honestly, I don't understand. I've worked with Russians on software projects for 20 years. Many things you see, such as in google maps have some of this software at their core. In the last 5 months, 75% of these engineers have moved to the West -- Cypress, Israel, Ireland, US. Putin might as well have blown up the Kremlin in Moscow. There is no conceivable NATO force that would invade, or would want to invade Russia. But Putin allies himself with China ... who has 100M people bordering on Outer Manchuria. The population there is already shifting to heavily Chinese and China needs that land. That's who Putin makes an ally of??
I cannot imagine a Russian patriot who does not pray every day for total defeat of Russia in Ukraine because it will lead to total defeat of Putin. Russia is now doing poorly because it has no smart people, it has excellent universities and great engineers. It is doing poorly, for centuries because of its criminal thug political class. This should be used to destroy them and implement the only form of government that works long term: A rational balance of power between private and public good always weighted towards the private. This is not the ideal of "the West", it is the universal ideal of humanity. Prosperity and peace go where this idea is implemented, disaster and horror the further a society moves from that ideal. Always.
People were fooled that the "Big Daddy" "Strongmen" were making places like Russia and China strong. No, they were maggots on the carcass of the society. You will watch them decay and fall again in the next 20 years. The age of Putin and Xi cannot end fast enough, every cm gained by Ukraine helps make Russia strong again.
Many many variables. Understanding which paths are to be taken by Putin is problematic. That may in itself be the point. Russia’s access to far right nationalists, South American Dictators and the various interests across Africa, including training, military support and government contracts; mining rights etc, causes many issues. Understanding the KGB instinct is to understand the principles upon which they set out their plan of attack. It has been in motion for decades. It is to turn democracies on their heads. The first visual manifestation of such a devious scheme would be a little company called Cambridge Analytica. CEO Alexander Nix came up with the business model of a lifetime: The use of military grade psychological warfare upon an unsuspecting population during peacetime. A company declared war on the democratic world, and won. Queue Brexit, Queue Trump... the rest, as they say, is history.
Link please!
If his maximalist (Kiev) and minimalist (Donbas) strategies are as you describe, what would you say Putin's break point now is, and how will we know if/when he reaches it? Is the Golden Bridge exit strategy a dead duck? Does this lead to another 'frozen' conflict?
The Golden Bridge is an excellent idea but I fear there isn't a metal valuable enough to get Putin to cross it back to a position the Ukrainians would accept.
The break point is around 60,000 LIA. (Killed & Wounded) Around 25 April I estimate.
Thank you, Lawrence - this is the most coherent analysis, I have seen to date. As a Russian/Ukrainian language speaker , I can put my signature under your every word, especially the Girkin/Strelkov part, which is widely misunderstood in the US journalists and analytical circles
Very timely, thank you again
Kind of you to say.