Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

I think the truth probably sits somewhere in the middle. One the one hand, he clearly didn't realise that Ukraine wouldn't just roll over and surrender, nor that most Ukrainians would be hostile to incoming Russian troops, nor that his forces would perform so badly due to poor equipment, poor leadership, low morale (etc etc). All that speaks to him having previously been living in a shell of some kind.

One the other hand, he was probably aware of the shattering of those illusions within the first week of the invasion. And now he's stuck with it: unable to retreat his forces back into Russia/Crimea, because that would probably be the end of him, but also seeing his forces unable to make significant breakthroughs.
There's a lot of truth in the reports and articles that cover how Russia views Ukraine just as an extension of their own country, and there's virtually nobody of any influence who actually takes the time to study and understand Ukraine, its language and its cultural. It's pure colonialism all over again.
 
How can anyone believe he is living in a shell like that. It's a simple case of losing men and armory and miscalculations but not affording to back out to face the nation. I am not one of those folks who thinks Putin is some sort of chess master but the lengths people go to, to make it seem like he's in a basement thinking nothing wrong is going on, is pretty silly imo.

Honestly, if you look at Putin I've never seen him look more panicked and worried. His comments have never been more aggressive. He knows exactly what's going on and is stressed as hell about it.
I don't think that he doesn't know at all what is going on, that wasn't my point.

I do however think that he was severily misinformed about the state of his army, his economy and the internal state of Ukraine's public feelings and the state of their army.

No wonder he looks panicked, everything went different than expected and he now has to quickly catch what the real situation is and how to get out of it.
 
Fascinating article about how the war may be all about oil prices and actually it was arguably never necessary to win it quickly in Putin's mind.

https://bylinetimes.com/2022/03/30/weak-oil-the-looming-collapse-of-putins-petro-dictatorship/
Not sure what to think of this article. First of all, it ignores the current heavy sanctions imposed on Russia. The war dragging on won't be nice for Russia in that sense, surely?

It also contradicts reports that they planned to take Kyiv in mere days, hence a quick victory over the Ukrainian government.

I think the article could have been better if the author took these things into account.

It does make an interesting case for Russian reluctance to unleash all their capabilities.
 
Fascinating article about how the war may be all about oil prices and actually it was arguably never necessary to win it quickly in Putin's mind.

https://bylinetimes.com/2022/03/30/weak-oil-the-looming-collapse-of-putins-petro-dictatorship/
The problem with this argument is Putin's Achilles heel - Russia's complete reliance on expertise and tech, from the very European countries he wants to destablise in order to keep prices high. It's pretty clear that his customers aren't going to let that happen.
 
He's a typical strongman who rules through fear.

I listened to a great podcast on audible about him (by Misha Glenny) and (in it's most simple form) he was selected by the oligarchs (principally Berezovsky) because they though he could be controlled. He wasn't as stupid as they thought and in the end, made sure the rich behaved themselves on pain of death (Berezovsky) or a stint in the gulag (Khodorkovsky). The others then fell into line, as have the politicians he's made rich and fearful of him in equal measure.

His problem now is that he's surrounded by yes men. I suspect because anyone who's clever or shows promise is a threat. Seems everyone is too scared to tell him what's happening. He's gaslighting himself.

Hopefully he goes the way most of his kind do, with a bullet in the head from someone close. He'll be looking for someone to blame but we could be witnessing his end here. At some stage the tide will turn and the rats will start deserting the ship.

Thanks for sharing. The part in bold reminds me of how Xi was selected by people who thought they could control him.
 
Fascinating article about how the war may be all about oil prices and actually it was arguably never necessary to win it quickly in Putin's mind.

https://bylinetimes.com/2022/03/30/weak-oil-the-looming-collapse-of-putins-petro-dictatorship/

Interesting article and that path is one of the reasons I invested in oil a couple of years ago. However, I'm not sure about the framing of it being the reason behind the war as the tools to manipulate the price higher have always been available to Putin.
 
why does Xi not get the same worldwide scrutiny as other dictators like Putin or Trump?
I ”hate” Trump and despise almost everything. He stands for. But calling him a “dictator” doesn’t make much sense. “Wanna be dictator” maybe.
 
Not sure what to think of this article. First of all, it ignores the current heavy sanctions imposed on Russia. The war dragging on won't be nice for Russia in that sense, surely?

It also contradicts reports that they planned to take Kyiv in mere days, hence a quick victory over the Ukrainian government.

I think the article could have been better if the author took these things into account.

It does make an interesting case for Russian reluctance to unleash all their capabilities.

I tend to agree that Putin probably did want to end the war quickly and overestimated his ability to do so. Destabilising Europe from closer to its borders is presumably preferable than from further away. The interesting thing from my point of view is the argument they make about Energy Return on Investment of oil, it's a factor that's quite simple to understand on the face of it but so rarely discussed and considered publicly in reality. I can certainly see how it could have been a huge contributing factor in Russian decision making, even if some of the other more widely discussed factors are also true. He may well have thought that the war dragging on a bit wouldn't be the worst outcome, but clearly he's almost certainly massively miscalculated if so.
 
I'd like to see Ukraine armed to the teeth, nothing would concentrate Russian minds more on a negotiated settlement than a Ukraine with the ability to fire 500 cruise missiles at Moscow. If there are to be "security guarantees" that are sort of like Article 5, then they have to have a lot more teeth than the last lot of Western security guarantees. Ukraine doesn't need to host Western troops or be a member of NATO to benefit from Western military know how. It seems to me that anything that prevents Ukraine from being able to evolve into the kind of European facing state it clearly wants to be, isn't sustainable.
 
I'd like to see Ukraine armed to the teeth, nothing would concentrate Russian minds more on a negotiated settlement than a Ukraine with the ability to fire 500 cruise missiles at Moscow. If there are to be "security guarantees" that are sort of like Article 5, then they have to have a lot more teeth than the last lot of Western security guarantees. Ukraine doesn't need to host Western troops or be a member of NATO to benefit from Western military know how. It seems to me that anything that prevents Ukraine from being able to evolve into the kind of European facing state it clearly wants to be, isn't sustainable.

The moment there's a pause in fighting the Ukrainians will be quickly armed to the gills with sophisticated NATO weapons. Putin has ruined his pre-war posture where he could saber rattle and NATO appeased him by not arming the Ukrainians in any meaningful way. Now that he has blown his credibility by invading, NATO will provide the Ukrainians with the most sophisticated weapons imaginable to where the only way Putin could mess with them again would be through WMDs.
 
The BB reports:

"The US military's top commander in Europe ... Gen Tod Wolters, who leads the military's European Command, ... said that the US has established two centres - each with about 100 personnel - that are working to funnel military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine. Ukrainian liaison officers are present at these centres."
 
I don't think he is right on the "no one" part but it is interesting to see how united the Ukrainians are. I myself was quite surprised too. For example, in 2014 a Ukrainian navy chief defected.

 
The Ukrainians seem to capture so many intact vehicles. I wonder how many of these - tanks, trucks, APCs etc - are just deliberately abandoned by the occupants when not under attack ... so they they can escape the possibility of being attacked and then just either (a) walk back to the Russian lines to claim that they were attacked; or (b) head westward to surrender or desert?
 
The Ukrainians seem to capture so many intact vehicles. I wonder how many of these - tanks, trucks, APCs etc - are just deliberately abandoned by the occupants when not under attack ... so they they can escape the possibility of being attacked and then just either (a) walk back to the Russian lines to claim that they were attacked; or (b) head westward to surrender or desert?

yes its crazy , UA has more tanks then when the war started.
 
https://www.rferl.org/a/nuland-ukraine-incredible-losses/31777845.html

"Russia has been sustaining "incredible" losses since the start of its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, a senior U.S. State Department official says, putting the figure at more than 10,000 killed since the attack was launched just over a month ago.

"I think that, unfortunately, the Russians have not yet fully learned how tough the Ukrainian military is," U.S. Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland said in an interview with Current Time on March 29.

"They are taking incredible losses on the Russian side -- you know, by our estimates, more than 10,000 Russian dead," Nuland said."


Meanwhile ... https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/russian-losses-cause-result-impact-1.6400495

"Sean Maloney is a professor of military history at the Royal Military College who served as the Canadian army's historian for the conflict in Afghanistan. He told CBC that, based on his knowledge of Russia's military and sources inside of Belarus and Russia, the high-end NATO estimate [mid March] of Russian casualties is likely accurate.

"I am confident, with the sources that I have, that the number of Russians killed in action is above 15,000," Maloney said."


If Maloney is right, that would imply around 60,000 Russian troops now out of action one way or another!
 
I don't think he is right on the "no one" part but it is interesting to see how united the Ukrainians are. I myself was quite surprised too. For example, in 2014 a Ukrainian navy chief defected.


Eight years of seeing just how shit life could be, life under a Russia that can’t be fecked with any real investment in Crimea, or worse still in a militia fiefdom of the LNR or DNR, will help galvanise that.
 
I've no idea if this video is genuine (it looks like it is), but:

"'We've been thrown into the s**t! Our rifles don't f***ing fire!' Young Russian conscripts complain they have been given 1940s guns and are suffering heavy losses against Ukraine"

https://videos.dailymail.co.uk/vide...150934243/640x360_MP4_3374642500150934243.mp4

I had seen somewhere of reports that Russian conscripts were given Mosin-Nagant rifles. Designed in 1891.

20220307_143038.jpg
 
I presume that the Kremlin is using all the money they had stored up to shore up the Ruble. Which means it cannot last forever. And they are spending their money on currency manipulation and not on guns or tanks.
Makes sense if they're using guns made in the 40s.