War in Ukraine, assorted opinions

[Strannik]

39 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

After Bucha and all the other horrors, I wonder how Russia wages real war.

Russia are so sick. ☹️

Germany: from genocide committer to genocide enabler.  Progress!

[glenn239]

16 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Unfortunatelly Russia is not waging war at all - since our leadership is only looking for the ways to get better conditions for the deal with West they dream about (aka conditional surrender).

On one hand you believe that Moscow wants to surrender, but on the other hand you acknowledge that since 2013 Putin has vastly increased Russia's strength and world standing relative to NATO and the West.  You see how these two opinions are flatly contradictory to one another?  

[JWB]

 

[Strannik]

Ah another opus from one of the major Uke propagandists 👆 courtesy a copypaster on duty

https://therecord.media/how-anton-gerashchenko-is-waging-an-information-war-against-russia

[Roman Alymov]

3 hours ago, JWB said:

Unfortunately this cases of bureaucracy mismanagement are quite frequent (not only with money not paid, but even regular papers not filled in). I know a lot of cases far worse then what pro-Ukrainians are telling about - for obvious reasons i am not sharing them here. So what, that is Russian way of war - the same way one of my grandfather still have two personal records in Great Patriotic War veterans state run database: according to one of them, he ended war in Germany in 1945 as decorated officer, heavy guns battery commander - while on another record he was MIA in 1942.....

[Roman Alymov]

5 hours ago, glenn239 said:

On one hand you believe that Moscow wants to surrender, but on the other hand you acknowledge that since 2013 Putin has vastly increased Russia's strength and world standing relative to NATO and the West.  You see how these two opinions are flatly contradictory to one another?  

No contradiction here: as soon as you accept the simple fact Putin is not some sort of allmighty dictator, but just sort of chairman for "collective Putin" with rivaling groups of interests (and built in dependence on West - it is how entire system was created back in 1990th) you will understand that "two steps forvard - one step backward" or, as Strelkov put it, "never doing any business to more than half of what is needed" are not bugs, but features of modern Russia policy,

[glenn239]

3 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

No contradiction here: as soon as you accept the simple fact Putin is not some sort of allmighty dictator, but just sort of chairman for "collective Putin" with rivaling groups of interests (and built in dependence on West - it is how entire system was created back in 1990th) you will understand that "two steps forvard - one step backward" or, as Strelkov put it, "never doing any business to more than half of what is needed" are not bugs, but features of modern Russia policy,

So the surrender party is so desperate to surrender that they are accidentally forging a complex new path for Russia independent of the West that is by all accounts succeeding. 

[Roman Alymov]

9 hours ago, glenn239 said:

So the surrender party is so desperate to surrender that they are accidentally forging a complex new path for Russia independent of the West that is by all accounts succeeding. 

See my comments in another thread, "conditional surrender party" (aka "Appeasement of the West" party) want to negotiate best possible conditions for them personally (de-facto retaining their status of comprador/occupation administration they have enjoyed for 30 years). For that, they need tools to not allow complete collapse and desintegration (as it is wanted by "unconditional surrender" party who are mostly liberal members of "intellectual elite" without significant property or assets). "New path" is in fact not "path" like in China, but chaotic traectory of top political leadership balancing between this and other parties. That is why China will not assist Russia in this war: no way for China to assist country where significant part of ruling elite only dream about conditional surrender that will save them in power (and, quite likely, turning Russia against China will be what Rus ellite will be promising West in exchange for that - see recent Surkov's atricle about "Russia is natural paert of Great North Allience with West").

[Stefan Kotsch]

1 hour ago, Roman Alymov said:

country where significant part of ruling elite only dream about conditional surrender that will save them in power

OK. Let's assume that this is true. But how can you recognize this in reality? I only see a continuation of what has happened before.

Or do you think that refraining from declaring total war is the real sign of the desire to surrender?
Well, that would be a bit of a strange diagnosis.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Im not sure why anyone spends so much time trying to understand their narrative. It matters little what motivates them anymore, or the explanations that sustain them from defeat to defeat. We didnt worry in 1939 what motivated Nazi's, we just piled on the weapontry to defeat them.

Yes, to the historians im sure its going to be very interesting, but ultimately, SFW? They invaded Ukraine because Putin ordered them to, and no other reasons. The rest are excuses piled upon excuses about why the imminent glorious victory has been infinitely deferred. They dont really tell us anything, other than the infinite human capacity for credulity.

 

[KV7]

10 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

OK. Let's assume that this is true. But how can you recognize this in reality? I only see a continuation of what has happened before.

Or do you think that refraining from declaring total war is the real sign of the desire to surrender?
Well, that would be a bit of a strange diagnosis.

The plausible interpretation along the lines of Roman's thesis is that for political reasons they have certain commitments (i.e. to "Donbass patriots", "standing up to NATO expansion") many never really wanted to honour, and were happy to keep at the level of theatrics and minor actions (including some very stupid and ghastly ones too) but the situation forced them to because even in Russia, there is a limit to how much one can bullshit and renege, at least when others can make political headway by taking the theatrics and "serious preparations" at face value.  

This fits with the general conduct of the war.  I.e. the initial plan makes sense as a sort of "we have to do something now, but let's not make it too big or drawn out, so let's hope for an easy victory via a quick push into Kiev.". 

I think to some extent there is a tendency along these lines almost everywhere, as pretending to do something serious is easier than actually doing it, and political systems are not very good at rewarding actual achievements, rather than good political manoeuvring and self promoting bluster. 

Actually you can look at Armata as a case in point. Those who talked up the project got to grandstand but it's unclear if anyone will face any consequences of the debacle. But this does not mean the whole thing is theatrics, because the cynical players cannot obviously be open about it, and most functionaries will actually take projects moderately seriously and try to make them work. 

Actually I have met some very sincere engineers who have become extremely pissed when they realise what they have been working on was a sort of bullshit political game. 

[Roman Alymov]

1 hour ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

OK. Let's assume that this is true. But how can you recognize this in reality? I only see a continuation of what has happened before.

Or do you think that refraining from declaring total war is the real sign of the desire to surrender?
Well, that would be a bit of a strange diagnosis.

Let me direct you for my post of more than a year ago, to save time

 

[Stefan Kotsch]

53 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

Let me direct you for my post of more than a year ago, to save time

This is confus. I'm sorry, but I'm just reading that the Hunger Games continue in Panem.

[glenn239]

4 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

See my comments in another thread, "conditional surrender party" (aka "Appeasement of the West" party) want to negotiate best possible conditions for them personally (de-facto retaining their status of comprador/occupation administration they have enjoyed for 30 years). 

I've read your comments previously and I've already made up my mind.   Either the 'surrender' party is making Russia weaker in order to do what they want and surrender, or it is making it stronger in order to be independent.   What you are trying to do is to square the circle between those two absolutes to explain why Putin is making Russia stronger in order to surrender.  That does not compute.  At some level you recognize that Putin is making Russia stronger, but for some reason you urgently want to draw the exact wrong conclusion from that.

When you occasionally post what Strelkov and other agitators of his ilk are saying, what I see personally are ambitious political climbers.   War with Ukraine was always going to be difficult and no amount of lies from a clown like Strelkov alters that fact.  Strelkov wants personal power and he urgently hopes Russia loses the war in Ukraine so that he can get it.  The thing Strelkov fears is that the Ukrainians will lose the war - he knows a Russian victory is the end of his political ambiitions.

 

 

Edited November 4, 2023 by glenn239

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, KV7 said:

I think to some extent there is a tendency along these lines almost everywhere, as pretending to do something serious is easier than actually doing it, and political systems are not very good at rewarding actual achievements, rather than good political manoeuvring and self promoting bluster. 

Putin's method is to never take more risk at any one time than is necessary to achieve the objective.  With Ukraine, Putin already sees a Russian victory as inevitable under the current strategy.  So, they're looking beyond the end of the war in 2 years or whatever, and trying to shape the post-war geopolitical circumstances (Europe, USA, Middle East, China) to Russia's maximum advantage.  If, unexpectedly, the equations on the outcome in Ukraine start to take a negative turn, then Putin will up the risk again as necessary to correct the drift.

[Roman Alymov]

33 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

I've read your comments previously and I've already made up my mind.   Either the 'surrender' party is making Russia weaker in order to do what they want and surrender, or it is making it stronger in order to be independent.   What you are trying to do is to square the circle between those two absolutes to explain why Putin is making Russia stronger in order to surrender.  That does not compute.  At some level you recognize that Putin is making Russia stronger, but for some reason you urgently want to draw the exact wrong conclusion from that.

I'm not going to debate the opinion you have allready made up, but the problem with "absolutes" you talk about is you are missing the meaning of words used. "Surrender" means return to pre-2014 (or at least pre-2022) situation when Russian elite was de-facto colonial administration for West, enjoying all the benefits money could buy in Western capitals and resorts, traveling freely around the globe on their cruiser-size yaghts and private jets etc. and always ready to get safe haven if loose in competition with another groups of Russian elite at home that will result in criminal cases against them in Russia. It was a time of Russia de-facto providing natural resourses for West for free (as most of money paid were channeled back to Western banks, assets and services_).  Thius people do not see this "surrender" as something bad - for them it is "return to normality". And this "normality" is what is hated by pro-Russians (some of them, like Andrey "Murz" Morozov were even sentenced to prison terms before 2014, others like Strelkov have lost their careers for failure to accept this situation as normal).

      So this people need to "make Russia stronger" to get political leverage in negotiations with West with final goal to "return to normality" (aka surrender, as this "normality" was de-facto colonial status). But at the same time they are affraid of winning the war in military way - because Russian Federation (the country where the wery word "Russian" was de-facto banned from official use and where slogan "Russian means sober" was considered extremism) can;t win the war - but Russia can. But in Russia political leadership of Russian Federation would end up in jail (or excile in best case for them).

54 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

When you occasionally post what Strelkov and other agitators of his ilk are saying, what I see personally are ambitious political climbers.   War with Ukraine was always going to be difficult and no amount of lies from a clown like Strelkov alters that fact.  Strelkov wants personal power and he urgently hopes Russia loses the war in Ukraine so that he can get it.  The thing Strelkov fears is that the Ukrainians will lose the war - he knows a Russian victory is the end of his political ambiitions.

Again, your opinion is up to you, but knowing Strelkov personally, i do not see any desire for personal power from him.

[JWB]

53 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

It was a time of Russia de-facto providing natural resourses for West for free (as most of money paid were channeled back to Western banks, assets and services_).

That is how international commerce works. It is the same for the OPEC countries.

[JWB]

 

[Roman Alymov]

57 minutes ago, JWB said:

That is how international commerce works. It is the same for the OPEC countries.

Not only OPEC - for long time China was also collecting US debt (while everybody know this debt will newer be repaid). It is the system created for make unlimited "quantitative easyng" possible.

[Stefan Kotsch]

Putin once again gave a speech about the causes of war. This time:

... Before you decide ... , you need to think about whether it is possible to do without it [war]. No, unfortunately that was not possible because we were already attacked,” Vladimir Putin said.

... The president also compared today's situation with the reign of Alexander Nevsky:

“Finally he went to the Horde, bowed to the Horde khans, and received a seal document with permission to act to effectively resist the invasion from the West.

 A reader comment:
For almost two years we still can't understand why we went there? Every time there are new versions that we ourselves don't believe in.

Source

First Putin follows in the footsteps of Peter the Great, now Alexander Nevsky. Every country in the world wants a president like that. Putin never wants to capitulate.With 20 years of peace Russia has been ruined. Now Russia is flourishing through a major war that it started and is becoming a successful and prosperous country.

 

[Roman Alymov]

20 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

First Putin follows in the footsteps of Peter the Great, now Alexander Nevsky. Every country in the world wants a president like that. Putin never wants to capitulate.With 20 years of peace Russia has been ruined. Now Russia is flourishing through a major war that it started and is becoming a successful and prosperous country.

Breaking news, politician is twisting and turning his rethoric to meet what he and his advisors/speechwriters believe is appropriate at the moment. Newer happened before.....

[BansheeOne]

2 hours ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

... The president also compared today's situation with the reign of Alexander Nevsky:

“Finally he went to the Horde, bowed to the Horde khans, and received a seal document with permission to act to effectively resist the invasion from the West.

Careful with those analogies, Volodya. 😄

[JWB]

8 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

Not only OPEC - for long time China was also collecting US debt (while everybody know this debt will newer be repaid). It is the system created for make unlimited "quantitative easyng" possible.

I am not talking about debt. I am talking about oil revenues. Oil is bought and sold in dollars  That money must be deposited only in banks that will accept dollars.

[Roman Alymov]

5 hours ago, JWB said:

I am not talking about debt. I am talking about oil revenues. Oil is bought and sold in dollars  That money must be deposited only in banks that will accept dollars.

Dollars are de-facto IOU of US Gov.

[Mistral]

6 hours ago, JWB said:

I am not talking about debt. I am talking about oil revenues. Oil is bought and sold in dollars  That money must be deposited only in banks that will accept dollars.

Please tell me you do not believe only western banks accept usd as deposits. Please…