4 ms·

My newspaper says that the attacks were by Iranian kamikaze drones, so that would explain why they're slower and possibly less powerful. These recent attacks a

by mcv 4y ago

My newspaper says that the attacks were by Iranian kamikaze drones, so that would explain why they're slower and possibly less powerful. These recent attacks are sickening. I don't see what Putin is trying to accomplish with them, except for making people hate him even more. I think he's trying to provoke a reaction that would use to justify further escalation on his part. The problem is, his only options for further escalation would be full mobilisation or nuclear weapons, and I think both would work out very badly for him. The Russian people wouldn't accept full mobilisation (see how they're reacting to partial mobilisation!), and NATO will definitely step in once nukes are used. There seems to be no way out for Putin except giving up or this sort of random destruction. He's lashing out like a toddler who can't have something he wants. Please be safe out there.

Max-Ganz-II 4y ago
Well, the option he's heading towards is loosing, and I don't think he can change that, only defer it. The partial mobilization is a band-aid; it won't make the Russian army effective (let alone the air force, or the navy). I suspect these guys are just being thrown in at the deep end. They're doing to die, and not do very much in the process. The main goal is to keep something in the field, so the Ukrainians don't just walk to the border because all the short-term contract troops have gone home. Building a real army takes at least a year; the Ukrainian are working on this, via mass training programs in European countries, and here in the Ukraine. The guy who organizes my AirBnB is in an infantry training programme; when he picks up the rent, I give him a huge shopping back stuffed with chocolate for his unit. Then there's the question of equipping and supplying that army. Ukraine has the arsenals of the West behind it, and ultimately the military strength of a country is its economic strength. Putin's underestimation of the power of the West is as great as that power is proving to be. I've no idea if Russia is also working on property training new units. It seems somewhat questionable - training in Russia is performed by the stay-at-home batallion (each regiment is three batallions, two are normally deployed, one stays at home), but a lot of those stays-at-home batallions have been deployed. If you just throw people in at the deep end, if they do survive, they have experience, but little training. No good for more complex operations, such as offensives. However, the troops anyway to my eye have no motivation for offensives. Some units are just brutual thugs, killers, torturers and maimers; others are conscripts, and the army as a whole knows perfectly well they were thoroughly lied to and sent into the battle in the worst possible ways, tactically and strategically, and are paying with their lives. This is why there's so much reliance on artillery; it just sits there, behind your lines, so you can control it, and the men firing the pieces, and all they have to do is put shells in a gun and fire. I don't think Putin will use a tactical nuclear weapon, because it just won't do very much to the battle; they are surprisingly ineffective on dispersed troops. Even to use one will turn the world against him, and he would have to use a lot. Putin would have to build a new army from scratch, with so much strength it could overwhelm the Ukraine supported by the West, and that is not possible. I hate being in a situation where I have to even think about whether or a nuclear weapon will be used. Putin has a lot to answer for.
- mcv 4y ago
  I'm wondering if that mobilisation isn't worse than a band-aid. I think it might actually be hurting Russia's ability to fight this war, for the reasons you state, and because it's putting more stress at all the weaknesses of the Russian military: logistics, command and control, and morale. Those people need to be moved to the front, more food, ammo and fuel needs to be moved to the front, and Russia is already struggling with logistics. Their command and control seems to be a mess with Wagner and the militias operating independently from the Russian army, which is short on officers, and each branch blaming each other for all the failures. Adding more untrained troops is not going to improve that situation. The impact on morale is probably obvious. Best thing to do with those conscripts would probably be to put them in trucks and let them drive more stuff to the front. Or in factories to make more stuff. Best thing strategically for him would probably be to withdraw from all those recently "annexed" regions and bet everything on keeping Crimea. And negotiate a deal to trade all of that land for recognition of the annexation of Crimea. I think Crimea is really the best thing Putin can possibly get out of this war. And even that is hardly certain.
  - trasz 4y ago
    Putin had a whole bunch of opportunities to withdraw and minimize his losses, and didn’t take any of them. At the same time it’s been obvious for some time now that there’s no way he can win. One theory that explains it is that his objective at this point is to lose - but lose to USA or NATO, not to Ukraine.
    - Max-Ganz-II 4y ago
      I may be completely wrong, but looking back at history, at people in similar situations, my take on it is that he's faced with what is for him an unacceptable outcome, but where there is no way to avoid it : in this situation, people try and delay and defer, rather than facing it. I think it's only that, nothing more sophisticated. He won't give up, because it's so unpleasant, but he can't win, so he's in limbo. The war continues until Ukraine and the West push Russia out of Ukraine.
    - 4y ago
dTal 4y ago
>He's lashing out like a toddler who can't have something he wants It can be tempting to cast one's enemies as irrational actors, but one should be careful to entertain the possibility that they are behaving rationally within constraints you don't fully understand. Indeed, anger itself is a game theoretical adaptation. In this instance, my view is that Ukraine and its massive untapped gas reserves represented a serious threat to Russia's business model. Annexation would have been preferable, but as that is proving impossible, the next best thing is to destroy Ukraine as thoroughly as possible to prevent Europe from gaining access to an independent supply.
- dijonman2 4y ago
  The most level headed and logical response I’ve seen regarding this conflict. It always comes down to money.
- puffoflogic 4y ago
  It can be tempting to cast irrational actors as coldly logical, but if one does so one should be careful to infer actually logical motives. Attacking Kyiv doesn't really make a difference to whether the West can access Ukraine's natural resources. Even attacking infrastructure, whole far more logical, would really only have a temporary impact. Insofar as the west actually needs those resources, then it will deploy its own immense infrastructure to get at them. So, Putin's actions are only logical if he is also successfully attacking power structures of the west, to convince them that it is better to buy from Russia than deploy the capability to get at those resources. We could argue whether such attacks are happening but they don't appear to be working.
  - mcv 4y ago
    Also, the fact that Russia is refusing to sell gas to the EU because of its support for Ukraine rather undermines this point. (I think it's the EU that should be refusing to buy gas from Russia in order to stop funding the Russian war machine, but it's interesting that both sides don't want to trade right now.) If Russia really wanted to prevent Ukraine or the EU from having access to resources in Donbas or Crimea, shouldn't they be using their current control over those areas to ruin/destroy those resources or make them harder to access?
altacc 4y ago
> He's lashing out like a toddler who can't have something he wants. I think that is an overly simplistic interpretation. The larger context to consider here is other countries that are loyal/controlled/influenced by Russia, the ex-Soviet states like Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Georgia. Russia's inability to defeat Ukraine is showing them that they can move away from Russia of soften their alignment and go against the Kremlin's influences. Kazakhstan has rejected the referenda annexing Ukrainian territory and Kyrgyzstan has canceled joint military exercises with Russia. Therefore Russia wants to signal that it still can project destructive power abroad both directly, with strikes on civilians deep in Ukraine, and indirectly. By attacking civilians and ignoring the usual norms & law of war (which is usual for Russia anyway), Russia is reminding people that it doesn't care about such things as civilians and therefore the talk of using nuclear weapons should be taken seriously. Basically Russia is reminding us that it is a bully who doesn't care about your feelings. Internally, whilst Putin holds almost ultimate power, this still requires a loyal network of supporters who run the country's government and businesses. He needs to keep the tough man image that he has cultivated and relies on for power. Showing any weakness begins his eventual downfall. Which is one reason why blaming and sacking top military: to show his power of them. Lastly, humans tend to be less risk adverse when cornered and Putin is getting cornered by these factors and more. That makes him more likely to try harsher tactics in order to save himself. We've seen this recently with the conscription, bombings, propaganda and increasing the murders and forced deportations in captured territory. He will become more unpredictable and I fear things will get much worse before they get better.
- Max-Ganz-II 4y ago
  In all of this horror, it is the forced deportations which trouble me most. Hundreds of thousands of people, forceably transported into Russia. Where are those people now? what is happening to them? how are they going to get back to Ukraine? Russia historically, in conquered countries, destroys the local culture. Cyrillic and Russian become mandatory in the schools, organizations and traditions of local culture are suppressed, and mass deportations and incarcerations. Also, of course, beatings and torture; all of which we see now. To my eye, as in history, this is part of Russia looking to make Ukraine actually Russian; to conquer and subsume. The Poles used to say they preferred the Germans to the Russians; "with the Germans we lose our freedom, with the Russians we lose our souls".

by mcv 4y ago

Max-Ganz-II 4y ago

Well, the option he's heading towards is loosing, and I don't think he can change that, only defer it. The partial mobilization is a band-aid; it won't make the Russian army effective (let alone the air force, or the navy). I suspect these guys are just being thrown in at the deep end. They're doing to die, and not do very much in the process. The main goal is to keep something in the field, so the Ukrainians don't just walk to the border because all the short-term contract troops have gone home. Building a real army takes at least a year; the Ukrainian are working on this, via mass training programs in European countries, and here in the Ukraine. The guy who organizes my AirBnB is in an infantry training programme; when he picks up the rent, I give him a huge shopping back stuffed with chocolate for his unit. Then there's the question of equipping and supplying that army. Ukraine has the arsenals of the West behind it, and ultimately the military strength of a country is its economic strength. Putin's underestimation of the power of the West is as great as that power is proving to be. I've no idea if Russia is also working on property training new units. It seems somewhat questionable - training in Russia is performed by the stay-at-home batallion (each regiment is three batallions, two are normally deployed, one stays at home), but a lot of those stays-at-home batallions have been deployed. If you just throw people in at the deep end, if they do survive, they have experience, but little training. No good for more complex operations, such as offensives. However, the troops anyway to my eye have no motivation for offensives. Some units are just brutual thugs, killers, torturers and maimers; others are conscripts, and the army as a whole knows perfectly well they were thoroughly lied to and sent into the battle in the worst possible ways, tactically and strategically, and are paying with their lives. This is why there's so much reliance on artillery; it just sits there, behind your lines, so you can control it, and the men firing the pieces, and all they have to do is put shells in a gun and fire. I don't think Putin will use a tactical nuclear weapon, because it just won't do very much to the battle; they are surprisingly ineffective on dispersed troops. Even to use one will turn the world against him, and he would have to use a lot. Putin would have to build a new army from scratch, with so much strength it could overwhelm the Ukraine supported by the West, and that is not possible. I hate being in a situation where I have to even think about whether or a nuclear weapon will be used. Putin has a lot to answer for.

mcv 4y ago
I'm wondering if that mobilisation isn't worse than a band-aid. I think it might actually be hurting Russia's ability to fight this war, for the reasons you state, and because it's putting more stress at all the weaknesses of the Russian military: logistics, command and control, and morale. Those people need to be moved to the front, more food, ammo and fuel needs to be moved to the front, and Russia is already struggling with logistics. Their command and control seems to be a mess with Wagner and the militias operating independently from the Russian army, which is short on officers, and each branch blaming each other for all the failures. Adding more untrained troops is not going to improve that situation. The impact on morale is probably obvious. Best thing to do with those conscripts would probably be to put them in trucks and let them drive more stuff to the front. Or in factories to make more stuff. Best thing strategically for him would probably be to withdraw from all those recently "annexed" regions and bet everything on keeping Crimea. And negotiate a deal to trade all of that land for recognition of the annexation of Crimea. I think Crimea is really the best thing Putin can possibly get out of this war. And even that is hardly certain.
- trasz 4y ago
  Putin had a whole bunch of opportunities to withdraw and minimize his losses, and didn’t take any of them. At the same time it’s been obvious for some time now that there’s no way he can win. One theory that explains it is that his objective at this point is to lose - but lose to USA or NATO, not to Ukraine.
  - Max-Ganz-II 4y ago
    I may be completely wrong, but looking back at history, at people in similar situations, my take on it is that he's faced with what is for him an unacceptable outcome, but where there is no way to avoid it : in this situation, people try and delay and defer, rather than facing it. I think it's only that, nothing more sophisticated. He won't give up, because it's so unpleasant, but he can't win, so he's in limbo. The war continues until Ukraine and the West push Russia out of Ukraine.
  - 4y ago

dTal 4y ago

>He's lashing out like a toddler who can't have something he wants It can be tempting to cast one's enemies as irrational actors, but one should be careful to entertain the possibility that they are behaving rationally within constraints you don't fully understand. Indeed, anger itself is a game theoretical adaptation. In this instance, my view is that Ukraine and its massive untapped gas reserves represented a serious threat to Russia's business model. Annexation would have been preferable, but as that is proving impossible, the next best thing is to destroy Ukraine as thoroughly as possible to prevent Europe from gaining access to an independent supply.

dijonman2 4y ago
The most level headed and logical response I’ve seen regarding this conflict. It always comes down to money.
puffoflogic 4y ago
It can be tempting to cast irrational actors as coldly logical, but if one does so one should be careful to infer actually logical motives. Attacking Kyiv doesn't really make a difference to whether the West can access Ukraine's natural resources. Even attacking infrastructure, whole far more logical, would really only have a temporary impact. Insofar as the west actually needs those resources, then it will deploy its own immense infrastructure to get at them. So, Putin's actions are only logical if he is also successfully attacking power structures of the west, to convince them that it is better to buy from Russia than deploy the capability to get at those resources. We could argue whether such attacks are happening but they don't appear to be working.
- mcv 4y ago
  Also, the fact that Russia is refusing to sell gas to the EU because of its support for Ukraine rather undermines this point. (I think it's the EU that should be refusing to buy gas from Russia in order to stop funding the Russian war machine, but it's interesting that both sides don't want to trade right now.) If Russia really wanted to prevent Ukraine or the EU from having access to resources in Donbas or Crimea, shouldn't they be using their current control over those areas to ruin/destroy those resources or make them harder to access?

altacc 4y ago

> He's lashing out like a toddler who can't have something he wants. I think that is an overly simplistic interpretation. The larger context to consider here is other countries that are loyal/controlled/influenced by Russia, the ex-Soviet states like Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Georgia. Russia's inability to defeat Ukraine is showing them that they can move away from Russia of soften their alignment and go against the Kremlin's influences. Kazakhstan has rejected the referenda annexing Ukrainian territory and Kyrgyzstan has canceled joint military exercises with Russia. Therefore Russia wants to signal that it still can project destructive power abroad both directly, with strikes on civilians deep in Ukraine, and indirectly. By attacking civilians and ignoring the usual norms & law of war (which is usual for Russia anyway), Russia is reminding people that it doesn't care about such things as civilians and therefore the talk of using nuclear weapons should be taken seriously. Basically Russia is reminding us that it is a bully who doesn't care about your feelings. Internally, whilst Putin holds almost ultimate power, this still requires a loyal network of supporters who run the country's government and businesses. He needs to keep the tough man image that he has cultivated and relies on for power. Showing any weakness begins his eventual downfall. Which is one reason why blaming and sacking top military: to show his power of them. Lastly, humans tend to be less risk adverse when cornered and Putin is getting cornered by these factors and more. That makes him more likely to try harsher tactics in order to save himself. We've seen this recently with the conscription, bombings, propaganda and increasing the murders and forced deportations in captured territory. He will become more unpredictable and I fear things will get much worse before they get better.

Max-Ganz-II 4y ago
In all of this horror, it is the forced deportations which trouble me most. Hundreds of thousands of people, forceably transported into Russia. Where are those people now? what is happening to them? how are they going to get back to Ukraine? Russia historically, in conquered countries, destroys the local culture. Cyrillic and Russian become mandatory in the schools, organizations and traditions of local culture are suppressed, and mass deportations and incarcerations. Also, of course, beatings and torture; all of which we see now. To my eye, as in history, this is part of Russia looking to make Ukraine actually Russian; to conquer and subsume. The Poles used to say they preferred the Germans to the Russians; "with the Germans we lose our freedom, with the Russians we lose our souls".