The Kremlin is burning?

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 hours ago, glenn239 said:

But Roman is the first to state that Putin would have been happy to have avoided the entire war in the first place.  

Sure he would. He would have been perfectly happy for the Ukrainians to go to sleep in the snow.

[Stuart Galbraith]

6 hours ago, Josh said:

His response surprises me, but he’s also been saying 1) Ukraine is not a country and 2) Putin is ready to surrender for the last three years. I have no idea if flags were left on buildings or not, but he is rewriting history in his mind if he thinks the thrust towards Odessa and the encirclement of Kiev we’re going to leave anything left of Ukraine outside a small rump landlocked state, assuming even that survived. The attack pattern very clearly was not a “return to Minsk” and Putin publicly declared Ukraine not a country in 2021.

There was even that editorial released in the first day of the war in 2022 that clearly indicated the objective was to take and occupy the country. Whether it was going to be dominion status or occupation, that was how it was going to be.

[glenn239]

12 hours ago, Josh said:

His response surprises me, but he’s also been saying 1) Ukraine is not a country and 2) Putin is ready to surrender for the last three years. I have no idea if flags were left on buildings or not, but he is rewriting history in his mind if he thinks the thrust towards Odessa and the encirclement of Kiev we’re going to leave anything left of Ukraine outside a small rump landlocked state, assuming even that survived. The attack pattern very clearly was not a “return to Minsk” and Putin publicly declared Ukraine not a country in 2021.

Roman wants the glorious revolution of the Russian people against its overlords, of which Putin is their barracks emperor.   Whether Roman prefers the revolution or a Russian victory in Ukraine, if only one or the other is to be had?  That is an interesting question.

[glenn239]

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Sure he would. He would have been perfectly happy for the Ukrainians to go to sleep in the snow.

You wanted consequences, and now you've got them.  A little late in the game to make up nonsense stories about how an avoidable outcome was inevitable.

[seahawk]

51 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Roman wants the glorious revolution of the Russian people against its overlords, of which Putin is their barracks emperor.   Whether Roman prefers the revolution or a Russian victory in Ukraine, if only one or the other is to be had?  That is an interesting question.

The revolution automatically leads to victory over the Ukraine.

Edited May 24 by seahawk

[urbanoid]

A story about Hobbits

https://x.com/ChrisO_wiki/status/1925998447032668180

 

[Josh]

5 hours ago, glenn239 said:

You wanted consequences, and now you've got them.  A little late in the game to make up nonsense stories about how an avoidable outcome was inevitable.

I think Stuart and I simply disagree that this was avoidable. Putin’s intentions were very clear pre war, and his invasion clearly was an annexation attempt, not just a move to ensure the survival of the brake away “republics”.

[Stefan Kotsch]

5 hours ago, glenn239 said:

You wanted consequences, and now you've got them.

Clausewitz already said that the outbreak of a war is always the fault of the attacked. If the attacked person had not defended himself, the attacker would not have had to shoot. Then there would have been no war. And the attacker would have peacefully taken possession of the goal of his wishes.

As is well known, Putin had issued a warning. In which he invoked Hitler. [sic]
Hitler had called on Poland to hand over to Germany, which Hitler had demanded. Because the Poles were unreasonable, Hitler was forced to use force. So the Poles themselves were to blame for the outbreak of war. Putin says. Glenn239 doesn't say otherwise.

[Stuart Galbraith]

5 hours ago, glenn239 said:

You wanted consequences, and now you've got them.  A little late in the game to make up nonsense stories about how blah blah blah

Dearie me, dont you talk such inane prattle.

I warned you all Putin was a threat, and you mocked me like everyone else, now you blame me for seeing what anyone else could have seen with the right pair of eyes. Alright, I thought it would be Estonia first. That mistakes on me, but what the hell, there is still time.

All through this you have preached appeasement like the worst Chamberlain acolyte. I grant you most appeasers saw through the policy after Hitler annexed Czecho, but for you Glenn, the penny never drops.

My guess is in a few years we will end up in a war with Russia. And guess what? You will assuredly blame me for that too. The consequences  are all yours, my little Putin brown noser. Be proud.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

I think Stuart and I simply disagree that this was avoidable. Putin’s intentions were very clear pre war, and his invasion clearly was an annexation attempt, not just a move to ensure the survival of the brake away “republics”.

I had a big post but the gremlins ate it. Probably for the best.

I will just recommend you read David Fabers book on Munich in 38. The parallels with Ukraine and how successive politicians dropped the ball is shocking. More so, because in 1938 they didn't know what was going to happen. This time we did, and still did bugger all to avoid it.

[Josh]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I had a big post but the gremlins ate it. Probably for the best.

I will just recommend you read David Fabers book on Munich in 38. The parallels with Ukraine and how successive politicians dropped the ball is shocking. More so, because in 1938 they didn't know what was going to happen. This time we did, and still did bugger all to avoid it.

I do not think there was much more to be done to prevent the war, outside actively getting involved, which I have always been against. I think equipment donations could have been ramped up far more quickly though.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well its on the European continent, so we were already involved. The only question was how willing Putin was to trigger a general war with NATO. My guess is, not very. So we could have put F35's in the country (we have seen how the UKR airforce survived, so its not much of a risk), start mobilising troops and sending them towards the Ukraine border, and let Putin do his own risk calculation. My guess is he would have backed down, and criticized the west for its overly aggressive nature.

But we didnt do that. Partly because we convinced ourselves that there was going to be a war no matter what we did (and putin always did a risk calculaion before doing anything, so I dont buy that), and Ukraine would definately go down the tubes in 3 days (because the intelligence services bought the narrative Russia had about its own army). And because we had an old man as leader of the free world that after the fiasco of the end of th Afghan war was risk adverse (and was scared of nuclear war, despite having the worlds second largest stockpile).

Alas, we shall never know for sure, because we all circled the wagons, were risk adverse and never seriously tried to stop it. One meeting at Geneva clearly wasnt enough. We fumbled it, just like 1938.

[Josh]

The United States as a population is very “risk adverse”. The Afghan/Iraq wars had a Vietnam like effect. No US president of any party was going to risk any American lives on Ukraine. My only gripe with Biden was publicly coming out and saying so when there was no election his party had to win, though Putin probably already could be quite sure of it.

And if you’ll remember, that old man practically stood alone when he declared that Russia would invade, and when it actually happened, he was the one who organized the aide efforts while Macron was busy icing his arm after patting himself on the back so hard for his peacemaking efforts.

I think more could have been done on a faster timeline, but Biden is probably the only reason even *that* much got done.

Edited May 25 by Josh

[Stuart Galbraith]

Just now, Josh said:

The United States as a population is very “risk adverse”. The Afghan/Iraq wars had a Vietnam like effect. No US president of any party was going to risk any American lives on Ukraine. My only gripe with Biden was publicly coming out and saying so when there was no election his party had to win.

And if you’ll remember, that old man practically stood alone when declared that Russia would invade, and when it actually happened, he was the one who organized the aide efforts while Macron was busy icing his arm after patting himself on the back so hard in his peacemaking efforts.

I think more could have been done on a faster timeline, but Biden is probably the only reason even *that* much got done.

And Boris Johnson too, which looking back might have been part of the problem.

Supposedly Bojo and Biden (or rather their intelligence representives) went to the French and the Germans and told them 'we have this intelligence, they are going to invade.' And they didnt believe it. They kept saying 'well what about Iraq?' To the point where a senior head of German intelligence was in Ukraine the day of the invasion, and the Germans had to send in SF to escort him out. 

It seems it was probably SIGINT, perhaps even mobile phone conversations. And because we couldnt reveal where the information came from, they wouldnt believe it.

Macron was badly served by his intelligence staff. I was listening to a podcast on the intelligence background to the war ('The rest is classified', worth looking up, its where I got most of this) and Macron was apparently told by his Foreign intelligence staff that, unlike what the Anglos were saying, Putin hadnt yet made his mind up yet. So Macron met Putin, apparently got what he thought was a concession to not invade, went home and did a victory lap, and a few days later Putin invaded. Because he had seemingly made his mind up. The head of French intelligence later got canned over that.

I dont mock Macron for doing it. The problem was not the approach, but the method. It was 'Oh Putin, you dont want to be a homocidal maniac, do you?' when 'Im going to put my airforce into Ukraine and help them if you invade' which may have served better.

Rather like 1938, doing anything TOO overt such as mobilisation was avoided, because it was believed doing so would shock the Germans into overreacting. The same seems to have been the same with Putin. But rather like 1938, I suspect that Putin had made his mind up, and was just looking to see if the risk index worsened. It did with the delivery of NLAW and Javelin, but not to degree that Putin,almost Militarily illiterate, appreciated.

Im sorry, Biden I lost all respect for after Afghanistan. I dont think he subsequently did anything in this war after the intial warning that he wasnt dragged into by Europeans first. And for the leader of the free world, thats a real problem.

[Stefan Kotsch]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

And because we couldnt reveal where the information came from, they wouldnt believe it.

That's actually laughable. Because everyone with open eyes could see what was developing there and where it would lead. This is called criminal ignorance.

[mkenny]

18 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

That's actually laughable. Because everyone with open eyes could see what was developing there and where it would lead. This is called criminal ignorance.

Much like they could 'see' that Saddam did have weapons of 'Mass Destruction'. .

[glenn239]

19 hours ago, Josh said:

I think Stuart and I simply disagree that this was avoidable. Putin’s intentions were very clear pre war, and his invasion clearly was an annexation attempt, not just a move to ensure the survival of the brake away “republics”.

You both overestimated the chances of a NATO proxy victory at the time where the conflict was still avoidable, and as the scale of the miscalculation becomes clear to all, rather than admitting the mistake, you simply say that the war was inevitable.  But it was not inevitable.  Roman is correct on one thing - Putin would have been perfectly happy with a negotiated settlement in 2021.

[glenn239]

19 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Clausewitz already said that the outbreak of a war is always the fault of the attacked.

Any duel ever fought in history was usually the fault of one party more than the other.  What does that have to do with the outcome, where one duelist is lying dead on the ground?   Do you suppose there is some sort of bonus points in heaven for a dead duelist being the wronged party?

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, mkenny said:

Much like they could 'see' that Saddam did have weapons of 'Mass Destruction'. .

Stefan is, like Stuart, seems to me another poster that wanted war instead of formally halting NATO expansion, but now seems unhappy with the results.  

[Stefan Kotsch]

21 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

19 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Clausewitz already said that the outbreak of a war is always the fault of the attacked.

Any duel ever fought in history was usually the fault of one party more than the other.  ...

No, that's not what Clausewitz wants to say. To put it simply, he says that bloodshed begins when someone defends himself.

Putin did not want bloodshed. He thought his green men would regulate this very quietly in the Donbas as well.

[Stefan Kotsch]

24 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Stefan is, like Stuart, seems to me another poster that wanted war

If Roosevelt had been a supporter of Trump's ideas at the time, it would have been read like this. Lucky for the world that it was not so.

[mkenny]

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Stefan is, like Stuart, seems to me another poster that wanted war instead of formally halting NATO expansion, but now seems unhappy with the results.  

They both thought that Russia could be bullied and there was no risk to NATO. They both thought that even if Russia did initiate conflict that she could easily be beaten. They both believed that so strongly that they  thought Putin knew it too and thus he would not resist. Both were wrong bigly. 

Stuart is one of those people who thinks the world needs to hear what he has to say, is always right  and can predict the future. There is no need for him have the full facts because he has a white hat. Arguments won't work with him because, as he keeps telling us,  he is never  proved wrong.

Stefan should know better. He understood the risks but thought it certain  Putin was bluffing and  could be faced down. Now he has found out he could not  he is desperately scrambling to explain why the might of NATO and its wunderwaffen  could not prevail. This is not how it played out in his head and he has not yet come to terms with the new (to him) reality. 

 

They both cling to two dreams.

1 Trump changes his mind and in the end Nukes Russia.

2  The Ukrainians are kept in the game no matter their losses.  The Dems sweep to power in the mid-terms, hobble Trump and then win the next Presidential Election.

 

Edited May 25 by mkenny

[Stuart Galbraith]

4 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

That's actually laughable. Because everyone with open eyes could see what was developing there and where it would lead. This is called criminal ignorance.

Oh, It is utterly laughable, but it was easier apparently to believe the Anglos were lying, than admit what was actually happening.

Its less criminal ignorance, than picking the reality you prefer to live in. Lets be fair, we see it round 'ere all the time.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Just now, mkenny said:

They both thought that Russia could be bullied and there was no risk to NATO. They both thought that even if Russia did initiate conflict that she could easily be beaten. They both believed that so strongly that they  thought Putin knew it too and thus he would not resist. Both were wrong bigly. 

Stuart is one of those people who thinks the world needs to hear what he has to say, is always right  and can predict the future. There is no need for him have the full facts because he has a white hat. Arguments won't work with him because, as he keeps telling us,  he is never  proved wrong.

Stefan should know better. He understood the risks but thought it certain  Putin was bluffing and  could be faced down. Now he has found out he could not  he is desperately scrambling to explain why the might of NATO and its wunderwaffen  could not prevail. This is not how it played out in his head and he has not yet come to terms with the new (to him) reality. 

Well look how spectacularly go off track, even hearing what I have to say. You really would find yourself in a terible muddle if I wasnt here to show the error of your ways.

 

[mkenny]

2 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well look how spectacularly go off track, even hearing what I have to say. You really would find yourself in a terible muddle if I wasnt here to show the error of your ways.

 

I suspect the first version of your post did not have the comical addition and it was only when you saw how bad it looked that you decided to add the 'just kidding'  bit.