Probably. But 10 years of absolute power and rounded by sycophants, after more than 10 years of massive power, means that current Putin does not necessarily have a highly analytic mind.
We have seen similar things with every conqueror.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
We have seen similar things with every conqueror.
also true. again, it won't be known. we can only infer. if it goes one way, we get one definitive version. if it goes another, we get another. but in all scenarios no one will ever convince me that this wasn't also a Russian administrative state decision. a bad one? yes, but one which ruled out the possiblity of it not going entirely the way they wanted (Kyiv falls, puppet installed)? I doubt it. even if you put it at 1%.
I think you're grossly underestimating the impact that having a one man dictatorship has on the decision making. As if Putin comes along, says I'm going to invade Ukraine and enact regime change and the 'administrative state' says actually, this isn't such a good idea, perhaps we can try other approaches instead.
I'm sure the generals, either explicitly or implicitly, also came up with plans for what to do if the initial plan didn't work but this doesn't seem to be what you're suggesting.
But it does not matter what they thought, when there is one person who makes the decision. We saw Maria Zakharova (spokeperson of foreign ministry) saying just a couple of days before the invasion that there won't be any invasion, it is just Western propaganda. We heard similar things said by Lavrov a week before the invasion. Some minor generals might have thought that invading Ukraine might not be smart, but it does not matter.
You also have to acknowledge that Russia is not a meritocracy state (no one is, but the more corrupt a state is, the less meritocratic is). They have morons in high positions in every department. We saw generals being killed in the first few weeks, a lot of logistic problems (tanks running out of oil on the first day, or the entire supporting war column for Kyiv running out of oil and so unable to move). Idiots with a superiority complex were running the war, so it is not surprising to think that they might not have had good contigency plans.
Add to it, like in all other extremely corrupted states, it is disadvantageous to write objective report, if it puts your superior, or state not in great position. We have many leaks of how only the reports on 'how on great state the military is' reaching the higher command, with the objective ones that show problems getting prohibited.
This was will be a case-study on how to mismanage a war. A manual of 'what to not do'.
Foreign volunteers explaining their mindset:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/01/02/trapped-in-the-trenches-in-ukraine
It's great that you think you understand Northern Ireland, I would advise you to go there and actually learn about it. It's a lovely place, friendly people (mostly!) and the history is fascinating.
Ref your arbitrary assertions about paramilitaries, the paramilitary forces in Donetsk and Luhansk are probably a lot smaller than they were before this war and either way will not be welcome after the war. You are presupposing that there will be a peace negotiated and all these people will stick around. I think it's incredibly unlikely, and any that do will be a tiny minority. Northern Ireland was never an open war between two nation states no matter whether you would like to draw false parallels.
In case anyone is wondering , a ricin poison umbrella was used for the "acute measure" against Bulgarian dissident writer Georgi Markov residing in London in the 80s.
Russian propaganda really did a number on German population, a very sad watch:
Having Finland and Sweden in Nato is such a relief seeing Germany’s reaction military wise to this brutal WW2 style invasion just a few hundred kilometers away.
Having Finland and Sweden in Nato is such a relief seeing Germany’s reaction military wise to this brutal WW2 style invasion just a few hundred kilometers away.
Why are Ukraine saying Feb for peace talks? Why not say tomorrow and keep seeing what happensm Feels like its asking for chaos till then. Am I missing something?
Don't know, it's still rather vague from Kuleba.
https://apnews.com/article/russia-u...e&utm_medium=TopNews&utm_campaign=position_02
Germanys reaction has been a wet fart. Horrific really given their history, you'd have thought they would be right with Ukraine every step of the way.
Damn Windows again.
To put it simply, there's no point. Remember, when Ukraine talks about negotiations with Russia, they will be talking about complete withdrawal from Ukraine, hundreds of $billions in reparations, return of kidnapped citizens and war crime tribunals, etc.
If you thought that you missed how much a lot of German society got in love with pacifism, that they will stay out of any war they can. Love for military action was successfully eliminated.
Everyone who doesn't like this, please direct your anger at the occupation forces, especially at the UK who cared the most about this.
I think their history is precisely one of the major reasons for their response so far.
Partly although I think it's more complicated than that. that said, facing down russian fascism is the best way that Germany can show what it has learned from its own history.
defenestrations... nice word. Anyway wiki has this list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_businessmen_mystery_deaths#List_of_deaths
All wars that end, end in a peace, the idea that the end of all wars is the same is nonsense.
I had to look up what this means. I guess there is always a silver lining. I get to learn a new word.
This is a bit of a disingenuous point, in that peace will obviously always follow war because peace is the natural state of things. An eternal war is not possible, but that does not mean that the peace that arrives at the end is all the same.
The peace at the end of World War II was different to the peace at the end of the American war of independence, which was also different to the peace that came at the end of the American civil war, which is then different to the peace that came after the fecking Mongolian conquests or the crusades.
Had the axis powers not been stopped during WWII, or had Kyiv collapsed within a week during the 'special military operation' then there would also have been peace. That does not mean it is a good thing, or the kind of peace that anyone wanted.
So, your opinion seems to be that the Germans are right again and we should blame someone else about everything, correct? Perhaps we should also blame the US and the UK for Schröder's and Merkel's love for and collaboration with Putin? The problem is that multiple US and UK administrations were warning the Germans it is not a good idea, but ... Oh well, never mind, I know, somehow the US and the UK are to blame for this, too.
They just need to keep stalling this war until next presidential US elections. Then a conservative republican will be elected and Russia will finally have more leverage on USA.
Apparently it's just Russian propaganda; the omnipotent force that has also gotten to Amnesty, Associated Press, Reuters, New York Times, and explains why non-Western developing countries don't particularly care about a European war.
It depends who. Trump or a Trump wannabe, sure. An old school conservative (someone similar to Romney for example) would be harder on Russia than Biden was.
But kind of agree that if it is a GOP president it is gonna be Trump or someone similar.
IMHO next president might not going to be an extremist this time, unless Trump or other of his disciples decide to go Gung Ho and follow a politic route against their own party. But without MAGA votes, republicans will not win next elections, that's a sure thing.
Even if a "regular" republican gets elected, they have to keep the pro-russian republicans happy. Not saying they will stop supporting, but the support will certainly drop.
No, we Germans tend to be overzealous and miss the point about everything. If we start a war we do it properly and make it a World War, if we dislike people we make a full blown genocide and if we don't want war we happily ignore an ongoing war and the question if we should get involved.
That was meant as an explanation, not stating that that's how it should be.
I never said it was. Again, being from Northern Ireland, you object to the parallel not because it isn't true insofar as consociationalism and peace goes, but because you think NI so particular that it cannot transcend your personal experience of it in structural, and general, terms (which it does).
How, you've just repeated the same truth I've stated and then disagreed with it? All wars to ever have been fought, all mass murder events as it goes wherein rape and somehow even worse are normalized and people often get medals for it, (do it for money in normal conditions, and you get a heavier setenence), well, they have all ended in peace. All wars currently fought will end the same way. That is the only "victory" you can achieve in a false-state called "war" but which in actuality is "mass murder normalized", "rape", "abuse of every kind", and all for power "games" and "profit".
Thousands of years we've been putting up with this. About time it ended, I think.
Someone said it was nice that I looked at it from a "humanitarian" point of view. I think it's tragic that the truth of the matter is considered "humanitarian" with overtones of "naivety". For, in reality, you have lost all sense of truth and are become as a nihlist if you think the above to be humanitarian in any sense other than "true description of war".
'All wars end in peace' does not mean much more than 'all hurricanes end on calm weather’. Factually true, but it means nothing at all. You still have to take shelter during the hurricane and you still have to defend yourself when some imperialist country attacks you.
I’m a bit lost here. Implication seems to be it’s not Vlad. So who is the next suspect? Who would stand to gain?
It means that peace is the only victory - end result - which ever has been brought about by war. It's all that "victory" ever is (even including every scenario of "total defeat"). I.e., the cessation of the normalization of mass murder described and fetishized as something other than mass murder (for profit and "control"; war-as-game/war-economy, to be precise).
And there is also this difference: humans have the capacity to decide whether mass murder and much worse should be allowed to exist in this day and age, but do not have the capacity to determine hurricanes (as of yet).
The US went so far as creating sanctions against Germany because of Nord Stream. They would love to destroy it and have been the secondary suspect for the German public since day one.
This is such a strange and abstract way of looking at war. Yes everyone agrees that war is horrible and humans are utter twats for perpetrating it but, as has already been explained to you, 'peace' is not a universal term. The peace that follows and indeed the relationships between warring states post war, depends on how the war has gone. The 'peace' that has been ongoing since the annexation of Crimea for instance and conflict in Georgia has led us to where we are now.
Ukraine isn't fighting on because of some weird fetishisation of war and love of the fact that their cities and infrastructure is being destroyed, they're fighting because the nature of their country is at risk. Perhaps they'll ultimately 'lose' (which of course may mean different things for different people) but very few people will accept an unjust peace. In those circumstances, it breeds resentment, which inevitably leads to conflict down the line, either in terms of traditional conflict (ie WW1, WW2) or asymmetrical warfare (Gulf War 2, Israel/Palestine, Soviet Afghan war) etc etc.
I think Ukraine will feel that they've already tried your tactic of not escalating and seeing how Russia respond back in 2014 and its gotten them to this current spot.