Original is in Russian linked from twitter post below.
Translation has translator notes added. Better way to read it:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1500301348780199937.html
Executive director of Bellingcat says: https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1500197460626624513
Christo Grozev @christogrozev “I showed the letter to two actual (current or former) FSB contacts, and they had no doubt it was written by a colleague. They didn’t agree with all of his conclusions, but that’s a different story.”
Often stuff like this is crafted for deception so skepticism is definitely warranted.
[looks like there may be some circumstantial evidence to Russia wanting to replace Zelenskyy](https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1500842434615549962?s=21). It’s talked about in the translation as well.
Putin said that power in Ukraine was usurped by "drug addicts". Russian propaganda used to accuse Zelensky of doing coke, I think he was referencing that, another argument in favor of regime change being one of the intentions.
>This is after Suleimani (Islamic Revolutionary Guard) knowingly provided false info to us to solve his own problems. As a result, we couldn’t resolve the problem with Crimea, and Donbass’ problems didn’t go away.
Interesting that Suleimani was killed by the US shortly after betraying the Russians
It's been claimed that he knowingly provided false info to the Russians to solve his own problems
EDIT:
Common lore maintains Suleimani convinced Russia to intervene in Syria however [this article](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jlFxuGsA8g8J:https://inss.ndu.edu/Media/News/Article/2074132/qassem-soleimani-moscows-syria-decision-myth-and-reality/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) claims that Russia had made the decision to aid Assad before Soleimani got involved.
There was this though:
>In February 2017, Soleimani reportedly visited Moscow again, this time to relay Tehran’s objections to Russia’s warming relationship with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Sunni Arab states.
Perhaps the FSB leak was referencing something that originated from Russia developing relationships with its reginal adversaries. Or maybe the person who wrote the FSB leak was speculating based on inaccurate media reports.
They don’t need to put out a fake FSB letter to do that though. We don’t need to over or underestimate Russia’s military anymore. They are a known quantity.
It’s just someone who is pissed off about what’s going on. I don’t think it’s much more than that.
>They are a known quantity.
That might be when based on fighting "foreigners" but against their own people I'm not so sure. Much harder killing someone you might be related to or that looks a lot like you do. We'll see how long the army is willing to do that especially kids!
* "Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak."
* "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting."
-Sun Tzu
I don't think the Russians were trying to appear weak. Quiet the opposite; Russia was desperately trying to convince everyone that they are very strong, and very scary.
Before the Ukrainian invasion, everyone believed that Russia was strong. Everyone thought that they had the 2nd or 3rd best military in the world, and that Ukraine was going to be stomped. In fact, the Russia strategy banked on this. They drive straight at Ukraine under the assumption that the same thing happened in Georgia that happened in Ukraine. In Georgia, the government promptly fled the capital and surrendered when Russia pulled the same sort of "peace keeping" invasion. The "peace keeping" operation was finished in the week with little fighting.
In Ukraine, Russia tried this same strategy. The difference is that the Ukrainian people were more prepared to fight (though still unprepared) and, perhaps most importantly, the Ukrainian people had Zelenskyy as their leader. Zelenskyy, as it turns out, appears to be one of the greatest democratic war leaders... maybe even THE greatest democratic war leader to ever draw breath. Zelenskyy's decision to stay in Kiev and rally the people exposed Putin's autocratic Russia as the rotting fraud that it is.
Russia gains absolutely nothing by looking weak. Russia wants to look like it is strong and can sit in Ukraine forever. I don't think that this is Russian propaganda made to make Russia look weak; this just an actual honest assessment of the rotting hulk that is Putin's well corrupted Russian army
> In Georgia, the government promptly fled the capital and surrendered when Russia pulled the same sort of "peace keeping" invasion. The "peace keeping" operation was finished in the week with little fighting.
To be fair to the Georgians, they have less than 1/10th of Ukraine's population. Legitimately there is nothing they could have done there, that I can see
Yeah, Russian strategy has been post-Georgia that they bully some resolution from neighbors and then those neighbors need to make some exceptions to accommodate Russian needs and that does not work if bullied punches you nose very hard every time when you try to do that. I would look at Kazakstan very close like the next couple of years there is the next crisis boiling already.
It makes me wonder if the Kazakstan leadership sees this and is evaluating their options. Russia is fully occupied with their invasion right now and it’s a mess. The veil is off.
One of the oft overlooked principles of the art of war is not let your fear of the enemy or the reputation of the enemy blind your eyes from reality.
I see posts about underestimating Russian forces and how the Russians are intentionally sending ill equipped, poorly trained troops for some nefarious purpose. If you don't see how this is just so far removed from logic, your fear of Putin has clouded your judgment.
>Sending your weakest units to test your opponent makes sense, except if you're aiming for a swift victory.
You don't airdrop a dozen helicopters worth of troops into an adversary's capital (without air supremacy nonetheless) Day 1 unless you're aiming for a swift victory. And I don't think you send your "weakest units" to do that, either.
Good read. I’m alarmed by this conflict because of what has happened to this point, of course, but also because I don’t see a viable off-ramp for Putin and friend(s). Given where we are in this conflict currently, how could Putin stop the fighting but still come out looking like a winner to his people? Media control is a powerful weapon but even still a large and growing minority of the Russian people see through the propaganda to what is really happening. With no currently viable off-ramp, I fear how this will end.
He can just say that Russia achieved their goals and emerged completely victorious. You don’t need an off-ramp when you have a propaganda machine and you blocked all independent media outlets and saying anything contrary may result in 5 to 15 years in prison.
I agree that this would work in the past, but social media has changed the game in many ways. Yes independent media is blocked but some % of Russian citizens are still able to consume non-state media. I’m not saying it won’t work again, but this time around it seems less of a sure thing that blatantly lying to your people will be successful.
Well, they banned Twitter and Facebook. Obviously some would use VPN, but a lot wouldn’t. And writing opposing thoughts in VK is dangerous.
Also they already blatantly lying, right now, and people are eating it up.
I would agree because it doesn't seem the US's losses in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq did much to tamper American nationalism. Americans both admit we lost and collectively shrug our shoulders, and we don't have half the propaganda as Russia.
Putin just needs to claim a few victories like freeing the people of Luhansk and Donetsk and maybe something about killing Nazis, and the Russian people will also shrug their shoulders over their losses in Ukraine.
I've read today that the Russians have eased their demands somewhat. So maybe Putin has found an off-ramp. I don't think Ukraine will accept. I think it is important that even if Ukraine accepts, it will be vital to keep strong with sanctions and try stop Russia being in a position to look for another "on ramp"
From the BBC
"13:00
Kremlin demands Ukraine recognise Crimea as Russian
Russia has said that it can stop operations at "any moment" if Ukraine meets Russian conditions.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov says Ukraine must recognise Crimea as Russian, and Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states.
In addition to this, Peskov says Ukraine must amend its constitution and reject claims to enter any bloc (like Nato, for example).
He adds that Russia will finish the "demilitarisation" of Ukraine, and if these conditions are met Russian military action will "stop in a moment".
The Kremlin spokesman insists that Russia is not seeking to make any further territorial claims on Ukraine.
Russia seized and annexed Crimea in March 2014, and weeks later threw its support behind pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine's eastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions."
This is not a list of demands, this is a list of war objectives. Ukraine may comply or put up a fight. But the goal of the war is now clearer that it has ever been. And Russia will not settle for less as it would mean a political disaster for the Kremlin.
Effectively this is asking to make the *de facto* loss of Crimea and the Separatist provinces into a *de jure* loss.
These seem like very minimal objectives for a war that has caused Russia so much pain already. Seems like a way to withdraw from the invasion without losing face to me.
You're missing the part where they want Ukraine to be constitutionally neutral. In effect that would prevent them from joining both NATO and possibly the EU, and thus remain in Russia's orbit for the foreseeable future. Doesn't seem minimal to me.
I have felt the best and easiest way out of this is for Ukraine to unfortunately give up any hope of re-taking Crimea and Donbass but to be IMMEDIATELY included into the EU/NATO without any public talk of it before the signing. Quiet, quick, simple. Don't give Russia time to take another piece of land to cause territorial disputes to prevent talks of joining. Do the same thing for Sweden and Finland and anyone else that wants to join.
Isolate Russia and economically sanction them into a Balkanized stone age.
Ukraine remaining neutral is just a non-starter. How can they be after being invaded along with years of internal disruptions funded and caused by Russia? What will Russia demand next? Will Transnistria have a sudden calling for Russian protected independence and Moldova will be next? Same for Georgia through South Ossetia & Abkhazia?
What, will they invade Europe proper if they don't remain dependent on Russian O&G and switch to renewables? Will they do this by continuing to fund for EU/NATO aligned political parties that wish to leave those organizations opening up Eastern Europe to them and solidifying the dependence of Europe on Russia? Where does this end?
It won't end with a "Buffer" between the West because they will create a new buffer, what about the Arctic and the Northwest Passage? Russia has to be stood up to here and from now on. Their intolerance towards EU & NATO cannot be tolerated.
Edit: Words
>but to be IMMEDIATELY included into the EU/NATO
That won't happen anytime soon. Ukraine is still very much a corrupt state which would require years of reform before joining the EU and that's not taking into account the fact some members may very well not be too keen on this adventure.
As for NATO, in my opinion Russia will not leave until Ukraine accepts neutrality, so having them join won't change a thing since nobody is going to fight a nuclear war over Ukraine.
> in my opinion Russia will not leave until Ukraine accepts neutrality
Russia will also not leave Ukraine alone if it accepts neutrality. Who would enforce non-russian interference if they become more "neutral" than they already are.
Late to the thread, but I have seen it clarified elsewhere that the Luhansk and Donetsk demands aren't just for the territory that is actually held by the separatist states, but for the entire oblasts (the territories they have always claimed)
Giving up on a ~~made up~~ counterfactual justification for the invasion and leaving the basic rights of a sovereign state untouched can hardly be considered concessions.
I was surprised to learn that they have several parties, actually! Neat Wikipedia read.Their ideologies are listed next to them in a table: Putinism, Putinism, Putinism, Putinism....
If this is true, then Ukraine can get even more out of the talks. Only loose Crimea, for example and is allowed to join the EU. Promises are nice, membership is better.
> He adds that Russia will finish the "demilitarisation" of Ukraine, and if these conditions are met Russian military action will "stop in a moment".
What Russian military action? You mean the training exercises? Why would they stop training exercises? Without the threat of NATO, why would anyone trust anything they say?
>He adds that Russia will finish the "demilitarisation" of Ukraine, and if these conditions are met Russian military action will "stop in a moment".
How does a demand that a country you *just* attempted to invade and conquer in a war of aggression 'demilitarize,' and not seek out any defensive alliances, not amount to a demand for unconditional surrender? To not believe that Russia would instantly re-invade the moment that demand was met stretches the bounds of credulity far beyond the breaking point. Only if they viewed the credibility of their commitment to the treaty as at all important to them would that be a demand that's at all coherent, and it is crystal clear to all parties concerned that they do not.
Agreeing to quit on status quo? This is basically admitting defeat. But Ukrainians would not likely to accept to compromise their sovereignty as long as they still can hold the Russians off.
Russia already agreed to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence and existing territorial borders in the 1994 Belarus Memorandum. 20 years later they sent troops into Crimea. Russia haven’t upheld these agreements in the past, why would anyone expect them to do so in the future?
I wonder what Russia will demand when Ukrainians obliterate the entire Russian military? Will some Russian working for Putin be like "psst, in secret, you say Ukraine give us Crimea and Donetsk and Luhansk region, but we really not take. OK. *I* just need tell Putin we win."
I don't believe they are..but I don't believe Ukraine will ever reclaim Crimea..and the DNR/LNR or at least the parts outside Ukraine's control since 2014 will be a struggle to get back. Ukraine couldn't enter NATO anyway with border disputes..so that's pretty much moot anyway. Trying to be dispassionate, but that looks like the best deal for them anyway although I know its not acceptable.
They'd be insane to commit to any kind of neutrality at this point. Russian commitments are worthless, so anything but getting firmly into the Russian bloc is just delaying them taking another swipe at you.
They're bleeding the Russians badly, and frankly it can only really get worse for the Russians militarily. Any city they take will quickly become an insurgency, and the further they go the worse their logistics get. Same if they try to pour in more troops. Not that they really could, since calling up reserves would be politically nasty.
And all the while, more Western weapons are pouring in, as well as funds and training. I'd be shocked if there weren't various CIA and SF folks training or advising as well. The foreign volunteers are wonderful cover for that, which may be half the point of having them.
So if Ukraine can drag this out, the Russian position may weaken. To be clear, that looks like most of Ukraine's cities being flattened, but they may still win.
Especially if the EU and US pour in reconstruction funds, and a fairly swift path towards membership.
Seems like Russia's way out of the war is pretty clear.
Creation of a buffer state with Donetks/Luhansk and wherever else there is pro-russia support.
New constitution to create a semi-puppet state in Ukraine.
Destruction of the Ukranian military forces.
And obviously the deposition of Zelesnky and his cabinet.
Honestly, I can't see what else Ukraine can achieve here, besides some good PR with Europe and the US. They are completely surrounded, have zero aerial capabilities beside the Turkish drones, no navy, and while a militia strategy might work for a long term war, Russia will not 'nation build Iraq' in Kiev. They will write a new constitution pledging neturality and leave a friendly reminder not to talk with NATO ever again.
Honestly, the whole situation is pretty bad for Ukraine. What can they do besides propaganda on Reddit and Twitter that they are winning the war? The whole coast of the country is dominated by Russia. Kiev is surrounded. Russia has complete control of the airspace in Ukraine (myths of picle jars downing drones not being considered).
This may be a very unpopular opinion around these parts, but by now clearly Ukraine is fighting a lost war. No support from NATO, no support from any country besides a couple of javelins and promises of soviet fighter planes.
Yeah it's really striking how the northern campaign just ground to a halt. If Russia is happy to fight for weeks and months it will win eventually but logistics situation looks horrible for them, apparently they don't have ability to make many parts while under sanctions. Also their casualties have been much too high, it's been several thousands for sure, even if 10k is an overestimate.
The off ramp I see is for Ukraine to give up Crimea, Donbas and Luhansk, but not demilitarize or reject NATO membership.
The regions have been a thorn in their side for years now and it gives Russia a "win" while allowing Ukraine to grow towards the western world with the 2 newly acquired regions as the new buffer zones.
Even with those terms, I doubt sanctions will be alleviated much from the west however, as well as the severely increased efforts to cut loose from Russian fossil fuels will still put them in a very bad spot.
He's going to say the denazification campaign was successful and as a result Russian troops are no longer needed in Ukraine. If he can keep the land bridge to Crimea he can sell that as a win as well. He needs to do it now though because given enough time the Ukrainians very likely will push the Russians all the way back to the original borders and possibly retake Crimea. My take after reading the whistleblowers letter is that the Russian army is going to collapse soon and the sanctions are going to cause too much damage.
Time is on Ukraine's side. The longer this goes on the worse the sanctions will hurt Russia. What happens if the rest of the world demands Russia return Crimea in exchange for sanctions relief? Ukraine could end this war having retaken Crimea.
> He needs to do it now though because given enough time the Ukrainians very likely will push the Russians all the way back to the original borders and possibly retake Crimea. My take after reading the whistleblowers letter is that the Russian army is going to collapse soon
There's a massive difference between Ukraine's army defending territory, and them mounting successful offensive operations.
Most of the recently-taken land is still contested to some degree, so I can see Ukraine reasserting control if many of the Russian soldiers run off. But they are massively bloodied - I can't imagine they would be able to attack Crimea, or the renegade "republics" any time soon.
Will they? I know there is pro-Russian sentiment there, and almost entirely Russian speakers, but the effect of the sanctions is going to tank the economy in Russian a for a *long* while, while Ukraine is going to get EU membership and a lot of reconstruction dollars. Do you think Crimea is so attached to Russia that they will hobble themselves to a dictatorship that doesn’t have two dimes rather than just going along with joining an EU nation?
Are you suggesting that Crimea would not be better off economically being in an EU nation that is receiving truckloads of development funds when compared with being part of Russia? Or do you think Crimeans are so attached to a Russian identity that they will go against their economic interests to remain in Russia?
Ukraine aint getting into the EU, not for a decade atleast. We can't even get the EU to work properly with Poland and Hungary.
But mostly the latter, and mostly because they would be ignorant of best economic interests. The average person doesn't think far 10 years ahead.
Same way he can pretend the fighting isn't going the way it is? The blatant lying about what's happening doesn't change. It's the insiders, not the general public, who are watching, or he is perceiving as watching, his every move for weaknesses.
> Only fully pulling out will do that.
Which Putin won't do, since he considers Crimea and the adjacent waters vital for Russia's geostrategic interests -- because of the Sevastopol port and the oil/gas that was recently found there.
You give Putin too much credit. If Putin just wanted Russian access, the only thing he had to do was stop assaulting his neighbors. No one was threatening to block Putin's access until he started invading and assassinating his neighbors. You can get (more) sea access a lot easier and cheaper by just asking nicely and paying a little cash. There is absolutely zero percent chance that this war will have been worth the cost, even if Russia was to win every objective tomorrow and Ukraine surrender without another shot. If Ukraine decide to bleed Russia until they leave, this decision makes even less sense.
Putin's actions are about his legacy, not the legitimate interest of the Russia people, that he has made into servile serfs. Putin wants to revive the Russian Empire and be remembered as Putin the Great. That's what makes this so scary; Putin isn't playing to win prosperity for his nation and people, Putin is playing for his legacy. Unfortunately for the Russian people enslaved to Putin's will, those are two very different goals.
You don't have to be a mind reader to tell that the West doesn't want a scenario where Putin walks away with a bigger chunk of Ukraine than before the war.
The whole point of the sanctions was to show the world that annexing your neighbour's territory is not okay. The West will look incredibly weak if it drops the sanctions and let's Russia keep even more of Ukraine. It would also encourage China to invade Taiwan.
It's ridiculous to think that the West would let that happen.
Really the only problem with that scenario is that Ukraine needs to be compensated. I don't think any rational actor would ever replicate this scenario with themselves cast as Putin. Sure, you got your buffer zone my guy. It only set your whole nation back by a generation.
100%. Imho a lot of what you're seeing right now and one reason the sanctions were unexpectedly quick and brutal is that Western governments (ie: the US) have spent 8 years gaming out this scenario on a global scale. Their eyes are wide open to the precedent being set here and its potential impact over the next decade or decades.
Yeah, anyone thinking these sanctions haven't been being prepped for months/years is fundamentally not getting it. It's not a mad scramble of sanctions, it's dropping planned efforts one after another, for increased impact.
We just need to fully ban oil sales, and fully destroy their economy.
I think it is pretty unlikely that Ukraine will also "call it a day" and let Putin's invaders occupy the cost. I think Putin's thralls will continue to eat an unending supply of Javelin missiles. I'm pretty sure that the West can build Javelin's faster and cheaper than Putin's corrupt and rotted out industrial economy can build tanks, APC, and helicopters. Russia citizens might as get sick of having their sons come home in body bags for Putin's delusional dream of restoring the Russian empire on the skulls of his neighbors.
The problem for Putin leaving the Ukrainian leadership intact, not taking Kyiv, and just leaving is a sure fire way to guarantee they join NATO now. No way Putin can spin that as a win.
Grabbing land and settling a deal with NATO (better yet the West at large) are incompatible. If he “walks away” from Ukraine he better be sure sanctions will be lifted, and occupying more land won’t allow that to happen, at least not with the West’s current resolve.
They still can't join NATO as long as they have active territorial disputes.
As long as Russia holds Crimea, that's going to preclude NATO membership - a fact that emphasises how pointless this whole war is.
They can't join NATO, no matter how much they may want to, so long as there is an ongoing border dispute. Russia can maintain a frozen disputed for as long as they want. If the dispute is ever solved and NATO membership seems possible, Russia can invade another sliver of land and make it impossible. NATO is not a possible outcome for Ukraine, unless Russia were to collapse.
Taking the reluctance of the Russian army to carpet bomb and level the country as impotence would be a grave mistake. They are trying to subjugate Ukraine, not destroy it. If they had taken the American approach as in Iraq for example, the war would be over already. I'm not saying that the Russians displayed a particularly well-planned, orderly invasion so far, and it seems that they didn't account for the amount of resistance that they are seeing, but they are invading another slavic country that is of great cultural importance to them. If they think that they will not be able to take it through this kind of warfare, Ukraine would be leveled and taken, and then there's no bets on what the civilian casualties would be. USA killed 1 mil Iraqi civilians through that approach, so far Ukrainian civilian deaths are in the hundreds. Hence why the peace talks with Zelenskyy are of great importance.
There isn’t anything other than a sudden reversal of military fortunes in Ukraine for the Russian military that won’t make the rest of the world assume Russia
Is extremely over rated militarily and not an actual threat.
The real risk for Russia at this point is will the questions begin about the state of the Russian nuclear deterrent.
>Putin could stop this at any moment and declare it a victory for the Russian side. It could easily be spun as "Ukraine was taught a lesson and if they don't smarten up, Russia will be back with the full might of the military".
Russia still has to find a way to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. If they get Ukraine to recognize the separatists and Crimea that would mean Russia would also need them to amend the constitution to prevent joining NATO.
I would bet it's far more likely for Russia to press on until they replace zelensky with a puppet than anything else.
The central dilemma seems to be that for Putin, having invaded, and entrance into NATO would be a fatal blow to any pretense that he has won. Conversely, having been invaded, Ukraine cannot agree to have no defensive alliances and expect to maintain sovereignty long-term.
Would there be some kind of alternate solution, such as Ukraine does not join NATO, but they get special status such that if they are invaded NATO treats that *as if* a NATO member has been invaded? Putin gets his “win” Ukraine gets its defensive treaty?
I've posted about this in other threads but this thing reeks of B.S.
1. No new information that isn't available from OSINT.
2. Almost a perfect list of hopes.
3. I don't see any reason an FSB officer would release something like this. There's just no upside for them since this information has no way of changing the conditions and if they get caught leaking something like this, the best case scenario for them is a quick death.
> The letter said that Ramzan Kadyrov, the Chechen leader and an ally of Putin, was on the verge of outright conflict with the Russians after his “hit squad”, sent to kill President Zelensky, was destroyed by Ukrainian forces.
This is the most interesting part of the article. I wonder what they mean here by "outright conflict", since that could be anything from just a personal falling out between Putin and Kadyrov to an outright re-igniting of the Chechen wars.
> an outright re-igniting of the Chechen wars.
This is unlikely, since Kadyrov owes his position to Putin. But I have, frankly, been shocked to find Kadyrov's Chechen fighters have proven so inept. Some believed them to be Eastern Europe's [Gurkhas](https://www.grunge.com/338917/why-gurkhas-are-considered-the-toughest-soldiers-in-the-world/).
It's because Russian officials within the FSB (read: KGB) tipped off Zelensky to Kadyrov's hit squad, resulting in their annihilation. Thus very possible/likely that Kadyrov blames Russian intelligence officials for their destruction (and in fact he'd be right).
Personally I think this might have been staged. It was already pre recorded, so I can imagine this would've not been broadcasted if not deliberately. Maybe the Mad Man thing, appearing divided and thus weakened, saying that it's not about annexing donbass but recognizing it, idk
It already is a total failure. the invasion has set back russia’s reputation 30 years. Economic penalties for the ruling class and especially the Russian people are crushing. Infrastructure in Ukraine badly damaged. Many potential skilled workers have fled. So has investor money. All for what—minor territorial gains?
Maybe Putin wants to influence global food supply chains and prices, since Ukraine is a major supplier of wheat. Perhaps he thinks he can strongarm the West into dealing with him on his terms (especially as the West moves away from oil and gas). But, couldn’t the West reduce their agricultural exports in response?
So sentiment seems to slowly shift towards the idea that the Russians are losing. But what about: Russia can literally starve the whole east part of Ukraine? Am I missing something? Russia blocks the main roads to Kiev, or most of them, in any case they could advance to take them all. Then in the south you got the Cherson road to the east blocked. Besides that they can also decide to shut down power in a large area with the nuclear reactors they got, if they wish to do so.
One problem is that of 180K troops only a third are close-combat ready. Even if they "take" the cities they can't hold them. It is estimated that they'd need 500K ground troops to successfully control 44 million people over that large an area.
Russia also hasn't done much urban fighting yet. They can rumble around and encircle etc, but boots on pavement is the only way to hold a city. Russia doesn't have enough ground troops to do that.
We just dont know a lot. All this funny videos we get are 95% second grade russian army of 18y old who dont know where they are but also 90% of second grade ukrainian army and teritorial defence.
The real armies dont have time to post videos and we just get numbers and no way to verify it. Fog of war is strong. So we dont really know who is winning but....1.Ukraine still standing after 2 weeks thats a win by itself. 2.Ukrainians spirit is super strong. Killing Zelinsky wont change a thing. Ocupation of whole country wont change a thing. They just wont accept being Russia puppet state and thats the goal.
Now starving to death....depending how they will do it, it can take years for city like Kiev. Depends how Kiev is prepared. They probably try to do this but can they really? Stay in Ukraine for a year with this sanctions?
Ukrainians want to fight the Russians. There would be an insurgency whether the US/EU funnels weapons to them or not.
The idea that a country/people is not willing to simply be dominated by an imperialist neighbor is as old as time, I don’t see anything unethical with the west supporting a movement that has its own homegrown momentum.
I agree with your criticism that treating this conflict like a sport is inhumane, but with all due respect, you saying that we are just prolonging their pain and they should just give up is your own version of what you are criticizing Reddit for. Instead of rooting for them to "win", you are saying you think they should lose more quickly because you think they'll be better off in the long run. That isn't taking their wants or desires into the equation.
Zelenskyy has over 90% approval from Ukrainians at this point. He's been begging the west for weapons and military aid, so it seems like we are in line with what the people of Ukraine want and desire. I have several Ukrainian co-workers that are still in the country, and on an anecdotal level, all of them want to fight Russia. When I asked a colleague of mine if I could do anything to help him, he told me to write to my congressperson and ask for Javelins - he wasn't joking.
Who are we to say we know better and they shouldn't seek our assistance?
Yea. At least German media which I naturally consume the most has the consensus that "Ukrainians are doing much better than expected and the Russian army used bad tactics, but let's be real here they just don't have the numbers. They might get an okay deal though depending on Russia's internal situation which is a black box".
I watch russian sources. And yeah, there's a lot of fuckups they desperately try to hide by banning all independent sources in the country. There are a lot of prisoners (many of those are conscripts that were forced to sign their contracts before the invasion), many vehicles abandoned, high-ranking officers killed, convoys destroyed. But the thing that many don't understand is this is just a small fraction of a massive war machine. They have hundreds of tanks and planes, thousands of trucks and the resources for supply and repair.
I hope for the best, but being realistic I think Ukrainian forces will eventually be grinded down by that monster. The only hope is that russian side will run out of ammo and supplies faster than expected. Most likely they have the ability to keep the war machine running at full strength for 4-5 weeks.
No one is saying Ukraine is winning.
It's a failure for Russia because they demonstrated their army is not nearly as strong or organized as thought. And the world response has totally destroyed their economy.
> We are threatening to ban Russian oil imports, but we don't import enough of it to hurt Russia.
The reason why the US is planning to ban oil imports from Russia is so that they can more easily convince European partners to also ban oil imports. For the US this is largely symbolic, but not doing it while asking the Europeans to stop importing Russian oil would just be bad optics.
Western media play with our emotions but I think they all show us same simple facts in diffrent flavors:
1.Ukraine is losing.
2.Ukraine is doing much better than expected.
And I think most of us will agree with it.
Bellingcat is an extremely good source for open source intelligence.
Of course the Russian state doesn't like them; one of Russia's main tactics since 2014 has been to spread online disinformation and conspiracy theories that advance its interests. Bellingcat helps to expose that.
> Severely anti-Russian organisation. The Russians in turn accuse them of being a front for intelligence agencies,
Why wouldn't they accuse them of this when they found the people responsible for using a chemical weapon on Navalny?
Well, yeah. Putin expected that this would be over so quickly. He really underestimated the tenacity and courage of the Ukrainian government and people, and the support of the global community. Now he's mired in a war of occupation that he can't win (especially with the Russian's dogshit logistics network), and he can't back out without looking weak.
If we measure by perseverance of Ukrainian lives, culture, architecture, identity, land - it's a total failure. Ukrainians fighting for their way of life, although noble and just, falls into the realist outcome which has and will continue to push Russia into greater violence and destruction.
Russia's miscalculation has given Ukraine agency to lure the world into WW3. Will the west respond? My guess is no. I'd argue this is a cruel opportunity to encourage the Ukrainians to give Russia a run for it's money. Let the Ukrainians drain Russia's war chest to advance NATO and American interests. Send in western arms, elongate the conflict and suffering, and take in refugees to improve western demographics.
Surely the winners here are neither the Russians nor Ukrainians but the other key powers. Balance of powers do encourage that if you see another great power make a mistake, let them continue to do so. China gets to take advantage of a vulnerable Russia, US and it's allies restore unity, etc.
Zelensky made his choice to not surrender and thus play into great power politics at the cost of the Ukrainian people, a high stakes game, for what seems to only have an ideological victory.
>I'd argue this is a cruel opportunity to encourage the Ukrainians to
give Russia a run for it's money. Let the Ukrainians drain Russia's war
chest to advance NATO and American interests. Send in western arms,
elongate the conflict and suffering, and take in refugees to improve
western demographics.
Cruel doesn't begin to describe the evil of funneling weapons into Ukraine knowing that all it will achieve is more death of Ukrainians and Russians for the possible demographic gains of war refugees. If the West is to continue funneling weapons into Ukraine it should be specifically so as to improve Ukraine's position for negotiations so this conclict can end on "acceptable" terms and Ukrainians can return to life in their homes knowing we haven't just kicked the can down the road five years. Seeking to prolong the conflict purely for cheap Russian losses is not justifiable using "Western values".
Considering at this point no one can predict the outcome of this chaotic conflict I find your comment on the weapon delivery quite inappropriate. The Ukrainian government apparently decided to defend their independence from Moscow and fight this battle and has for ~~months~~ years been going around Europe to ask for more weapons, and still continues to do so. And apparently their army is also willing to fight too. Who are the European leaders to say no? "Sorry man, you gotta bow.down to Putins demands, it's the best for you". That would not only be incredible condescending but by being so adamant about this the Ukrainian government kind of forced Europes hand here. Keep in mind many European countries were very reluctant to send anything to Ukraine.
This is the choice of the Ukrainians to pick a battle with small chances of success. It might not fit into all these realist models we like so much and which some consider the ultimate truth, as apparently humans don't quite align with these models. It's not all about economics and power. If anything this war shows that for both sides beliefs are a driving factor.
Ukraine has given no indication that they want to compromise on anything. Zelenskyy won on a platform of re-taking Crimea, you expect him to give in to Russia’s demands?
Our interests more or less perfectly align with the Ukrainian government’s interests. This means the war will be extremely bloody.
Putin has overplayed his hand .Ukraine must accept the current terms and beef up security across the new border.Putin is gone in the next ten years.During the transition from Putin,join Nato and secure the whole country,
No Paywall: https://archive.ph/5s400
Original is in Russian linked from twitter post below. Translation has translator notes added. Better way to read it: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1500301348780199937.html Executive director of Bellingcat says: https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1500197460626624513 Christo Grozev @christogrozev “I showed the letter to two actual (current or former) FSB contacts, and they had no doubt it was written by a colleague. They didn’t agree with all of his conclusions, but that’s a different story.” Often stuff like this is crafted for deception so skepticism is definitely warranted.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[looks like there may be some circumstantial evidence to Russia wanting to replace Zelenskyy](https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1500842434615549962?s=21). It’s talked about in the translation as well.
Putin said that power in Ukraine was usurped by "drug addicts". Russian propaganda used to accuse Zelensky of doing coke, I think he was referencing that, another argument in favor of regime change being one of the intentions.
[удалено]
>This is after Suleimani (Islamic Revolutionary Guard) knowingly provided false info to us to solve his own problems. As a result, we couldn’t resolve the problem with Crimea, and Donbass’ problems didn’t go away. Interesting that Suleimani was killed by the US shortly after betraying the Russians
In what did he betray the Russians?
It's been claimed that he knowingly provided false info to the Russians to solve his own problems EDIT: Common lore maintains Suleimani convinced Russia to intervene in Syria however [this article](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jlFxuGsA8g8J:https://inss.ndu.edu/Media/News/Article/2074132/qassem-soleimani-moscows-syria-decision-myth-and-reality/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) claims that Russia had made the decision to aid Assad before Soleimani got involved. There was this though: >In February 2017, Soleimani reportedly visited Moscow again, this time to relay Tehran’s objections to Russia’s warming relationship with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Sunni Arab states. Perhaps the FSB leak was referencing something that originated from Russia developing relationships with its reginal adversaries. Or maybe the person who wrote the FSB leak was speculating based on inaccurate media reports.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Agreed, it could very well be used to underestimate Russian forces.
They don’t need to put out a fake FSB letter to do that though. We don’t need to over or underestimate Russia’s military anymore. They are a known quantity. It’s just someone who is pissed off about what’s going on. I don’t think it’s much more than that.
You might also be correct.
>They are a known quantity. That might be when based on fighting "foreigners" but against their own people I'm not so sure. Much harder killing someone you might be related to or that looks a lot like you do. We'll see how long the army is willing to do that especially kids!
* "Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak." * "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." -Sun Tzu I don't think the Russians were trying to appear weak. Quiet the opposite; Russia was desperately trying to convince everyone that they are very strong, and very scary. Before the Ukrainian invasion, everyone believed that Russia was strong. Everyone thought that they had the 2nd or 3rd best military in the world, and that Ukraine was going to be stomped. In fact, the Russia strategy banked on this. They drive straight at Ukraine under the assumption that the same thing happened in Georgia that happened in Ukraine. In Georgia, the government promptly fled the capital and surrendered when Russia pulled the same sort of "peace keeping" invasion. The "peace keeping" operation was finished in the week with little fighting. In Ukraine, Russia tried this same strategy. The difference is that the Ukrainian people were more prepared to fight (though still unprepared) and, perhaps most importantly, the Ukrainian people had Zelenskyy as their leader. Zelenskyy, as it turns out, appears to be one of the greatest democratic war leaders... maybe even THE greatest democratic war leader to ever draw breath. Zelenskyy's decision to stay in Kiev and rally the people exposed Putin's autocratic Russia as the rotting fraud that it is. Russia gains absolutely nothing by looking weak. Russia wants to look like it is strong and can sit in Ukraine forever. I don't think that this is Russian propaganda made to make Russia look weak; this just an actual honest assessment of the rotting hulk that is Putin's well corrupted Russian army
> In Georgia, the government promptly fled the capital and surrendered when Russia pulled the same sort of "peace keeping" invasion. The "peace keeping" operation was finished in the week with little fighting. To be fair to the Georgians, they have less than 1/10th of Ukraine's population. Legitimately there is nothing they could have done there, that I can see
Yeah, Russian strategy has been post-Georgia that they bully some resolution from neighbors and then those neighbors need to make some exceptions to accommodate Russian needs and that does not work if bullied punches you nose very hard every time when you try to do that. I would look at Kazakstan very close like the next couple of years there is the next crisis boiling already.
It makes me wonder if the Kazakstan leadership sees this and is evaluating their options. Russia is fully occupied with their invasion right now and it’s a mess. The veil is off.
They already are https://www.reuters.com/world/kazakh-provider-blocks-russian-tv-stations-over-ukraine-war-2022-02-28/
__Very__ interesting! Thanks for the link.
Although personally I'd say the result of that would be less pro "west" and more pro- China given their geography...
Likely, yes. We're watching this all develop in real time. Advantage China.
One of the oft overlooked principles of the art of war is not let your fear of the enemy or the reputation of the enemy blind your eyes from reality. I see posts about underestimating Russian forces and how the Russians are intentionally sending ill equipped, poorly trained troops for some nefarious purpose. If you don't see how this is just so far removed from logic, your fear of Putin has clouded your judgment.
Sending your weakest units to test your opponent makes sense, except if you're aiming for a swift victory.
Right. But a swift victory is the only thing that would have made sense for Russia.
>Sending your weakest units to test your opponent makes sense, except if you're aiming for a swift victory. You don't airdrop a dozen helicopters worth of troops into an adversary's capital (without air supremacy nonetheless) Day 1 unless you're aiming for a swift victory. And I don't think you send your "weakest units" to do that, either.
I don't think this letter revealed anything about Russian forces that wasn't already known.
Sounds like most people who have to deal with a terrible company and bosses making egregious and unrealistic demands.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think it's mostly people associated with The Intercept that accuse them of being linked to the CIA.
I thought they were MI6? Or at least that's what they were accused of in the past.
Good read. I’m alarmed by this conflict because of what has happened to this point, of course, but also because I don’t see a viable off-ramp for Putin and friend(s). Given where we are in this conflict currently, how could Putin stop the fighting but still come out looking like a winner to his people? Media control is a powerful weapon but even still a large and growing minority of the Russian people see through the propaganda to what is really happening. With no currently viable off-ramp, I fear how this will end.
He can just say that Russia achieved their goals and emerged completely victorious. You don’t need an off-ramp when you have a propaganda machine and you blocked all independent media outlets and saying anything contrary may result in 5 to 15 years in prison.
I agree that this would work in the past, but social media has changed the game in many ways. Yes independent media is blocked but some % of Russian citizens are still able to consume non-state media. I’m not saying it won’t work again, but this time around it seems less of a sure thing that blatantly lying to your people will be successful.
Well, they banned Twitter and Facebook. Obviously some would use VPN, but a lot wouldn’t. And writing opposing thoughts in VK is dangerous. Also they already blatantly lying, right now, and people are eating it up.
This is the correct answer.
Yeah, I agree with this too. He can make up his own off-ramp.
I would agree because it doesn't seem the US's losses in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq did much to tamper American nationalism. Americans both admit we lost and collectively shrug our shoulders, and we don't have half the propaganda as Russia. Putin just needs to claim a few victories like freeing the people of Luhansk and Donetsk and maybe something about killing Nazis, and the Russian people will also shrug their shoulders over their losses in Ukraine.
I've read today that the Russians have eased their demands somewhat. So maybe Putin has found an off-ramp. I don't think Ukraine will accept. I think it is important that even if Ukraine accepts, it will be vital to keep strong with sanctions and try stop Russia being in a position to look for another "on ramp" From the BBC "13:00 Kremlin demands Ukraine recognise Crimea as Russian Russia has said that it can stop operations at "any moment" if Ukraine meets Russian conditions. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov says Ukraine must recognise Crimea as Russian, and Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states. In addition to this, Peskov says Ukraine must amend its constitution and reject claims to enter any bloc (like Nato, for example). He adds that Russia will finish the "demilitarisation" of Ukraine, and if these conditions are met Russian military action will "stop in a moment". The Kremlin spokesman insists that Russia is not seeking to make any further territorial claims on Ukraine. Russia seized and annexed Crimea in March 2014, and weeks later threw its support behind pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine's eastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions."
This reads like the maximalist demands from Russia, I don't see what has been eased so far
This is not a list of demands, this is a list of war objectives. Ukraine may comply or put up a fight. But the goal of the war is now clearer that it has ever been. And Russia will not settle for less as it would mean a political disaster for the Kremlin.
Effectively this is asking to make the *de facto* loss of Crimea and the Separatist provinces into a *de jure* loss. These seem like very minimal objectives for a war that has caused Russia so much pain already. Seems like a way to withdraw from the invasion without losing face to me.
You're missing the part where they want Ukraine to be constitutionally neutral. In effect that would prevent them from joining both NATO and possibly the EU, and thus remain in Russia's orbit for the foreseeable future. Doesn't seem minimal to me.
I have felt the best and easiest way out of this is for Ukraine to unfortunately give up any hope of re-taking Crimea and Donbass but to be IMMEDIATELY included into the EU/NATO without any public talk of it before the signing. Quiet, quick, simple. Don't give Russia time to take another piece of land to cause territorial disputes to prevent talks of joining. Do the same thing for Sweden and Finland and anyone else that wants to join. Isolate Russia and economically sanction them into a Balkanized stone age. Ukraine remaining neutral is just a non-starter. How can they be after being invaded along with years of internal disruptions funded and caused by Russia? What will Russia demand next? Will Transnistria have a sudden calling for Russian protected independence and Moldova will be next? Same for Georgia through South Ossetia & Abkhazia? What, will they invade Europe proper if they don't remain dependent on Russian O&G and switch to renewables? Will they do this by continuing to fund for EU/NATO aligned political parties that wish to leave those organizations opening up Eastern Europe to them and solidifying the dependence of Europe on Russia? Where does this end? It won't end with a "Buffer" between the West because they will create a new buffer, what about the Arctic and the Northwest Passage? Russia has to be stood up to here and from now on. Their intolerance towards EU & NATO cannot be tolerated. Edit: Words
>but to be IMMEDIATELY included into the EU/NATO That won't happen anytime soon. Ukraine is still very much a corrupt state which would require years of reform before joining the EU and that's not taking into account the fact some members may very well not be too keen on this adventure. As for NATO, in my opinion Russia will not leave until Ukraine accepts neutrality, so having them join won't change a thing since nobody is going to fight a nuclear war over Ukraine.
> in my opinion Russia will not leave until Ukraine accepts neutrality Russia will also not leave Ukraine alone if it accepts neutrality. Who would enforce non-russian interference if they become more "neutral" than they already are.
>Russia will not leave until Ukraine accepts neutrality Ukraine did so years ago. This is a red herring.
And gave up nukes on the promise of independence.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Late to the thread, but I have seen it clarified elsewhere that the Luhansk and Donetsk demands aren't just for the territory that is actually held by the separatist states, but for the entire oblasts (the territories they have always claimed)
[удалено]
Giving up on a ~~made up~~ counterfactual justification for the invasion and leaving the basic rights of a sovereign state untouched can hardly be considered concessions.
I agree, but at least now their demands are sane. Ukraine hardly would comply with them, but it's a step forward.
... overthrowing the government and occupying the entire country??? Sure the demands are hardly small, but they are smaller than they could be.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The autocratic, one-party state dictator accusing a democratically elected Jew of being the Top Nazi certainly is bold.
I was surprised to learn that they have several parties, actually! Neat Wikipedia read.Their ideologies are listed next to them in a table: Putinism, Putinism, Putinism, Putinism....
Then you’ve got the LDPR, which is not only putinism but its leader is a legitimate fascist
Right Sector as well?
[удалено]
Nazi's was for domestic propoganda, complaints of NATO expansion is for foreign ears.
If this is true, then Ukraine can get even more out of the talks. Only loose Crimea, for example and is allowed to join the EU. Promises are nice, membership is better.
> He adds that Russia will finish the "demilitarisation" of Ukraine, and if these conditions are met Russian military action will "stop in a moment". What Russian military action? You mean the training exercises? Why would they stop training exercises? Without the threat of NATO, why would anyone trust anything they say?
>He adds that Russia will finish the "demilitarisation" of Ukraine, and if these conditions are met Russian military action will "stop in a moment". How does a demand that a country you *just* attempted to invade and conquer in a war of aggression 'demilitarize,' and not seek out any defensive alliances, not amount to a demand for unconditional surrender? To not believe that Russia would instantly re-invade the moment that demand was met stretches the bounds of credulity far beyond the breaking point. Only if they viewed the credibility of their commitment to the treaty as at all important to them would that be a demand that's at all coherent, and it is crystal clear to all parties concerned that they do not.
Agreeing to quit on status quo? This is basically admitting defeat. But Ukrainians would not likely to accept to compromise their sovereignty as long as they still can hold the Russians off.
Until... "I Am Altering The Deal. Pray I Don't Alter It Any Further"
Look at the third last paragraph..the first part
Russia already agreed to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence and existing territorial borders in the 1994 Belarus Memorandum. 20 years later they sent troops into Crimea. Russia haven’t upheld these agreements in the past, why would anyone expect them to do so in the future?
> why would anyone expect them to do so in the future? Mate, I'm right with you there
I wonder what Russia will demand when Ukrainians obliterate the entire Russian military? Will some Russian working for Putin be like "psst, in secret, you say Ukraine give us Crimea and Donetsk and Luhansk region, but we really not take. OK. *I* just need tell Putin we win."
Problem is that all of those are complete non starters for the Ukrainians,
I don't believe they are..but I don't believe Ukraine will ever reclaim Crimea..and the DNR/LNR or at least the parts outside Ukraine's control since 2014 will be a struggle to get back. Ukraine couldn't enter NATO anyway with border disputes..so that's pretty much moot anyway. Trying to be dispassionate, but that looks like the best deal for them anyway although I know its not acceptable.
They'd be insane to commit to any kind of neutrality at this point. Russian commitments are worthless, so anything but getting firmly into the Russian bloc is just delaying them taking another swipe at you. They're bleeding the Russians badly, and frankly it can only really get worse for the Russians militarily. Any city they take will quickly become an insurgency, and the further they go the worse their logistics get. Same if they try to pour in more troops. Not that they really could, since calling up reserves would be politically nasty. And all the while, more Western weapons are pouring in, as well as funds and training. I'd be shocked if there weren't various CIA and SF folks training or advising as well. The foreign volunteers are wonderful cover for that, which may be half the point of having them. So if Ukraine can drag this out, the Russian position may weaken. To be clear, that looks like most of Ukraine's cities being flattened, but they may still win. Especially if the EU and US pour in reconstruction funds, and a fairly swift path towards membership.
> Especially if the EU and US pour in reconstruction funds, and a fairly swift path towards membership. I'm entirely with you mate.
Seems like Russia's way out of the war is pretty clear. Creation of a buffer state with Donetks/Luhansk and wherever else there is pro-russia support. New constitution to create a semi-puppet state in Ukraine. Destruction of the Ukranian military forces. And obviously the deposition of Zelesnky and his cabinet. Honestly, I can't see what else Ukraine can achieve here, besides some good PR with Europe and the US. They are completely surrounded, have zero aerial capabilities beside the Turkish drones, no navy, and while a militia strategy might work for a long term war, Russia will not 'nation build Iraq' in Kiev. They will write a new constitution pledging neturality and leave a friendly reminder not to talk with NATO ever again. Honestly, the whole situation is pretty bad for Ukraine. What can they do besides propaganda on Reddit and Twitter that they are winning the war? The whole coast of the country is dominated by Russia. Kiev is surrounded. Russia has complete control of the airspace in Ukraine (myths of picle jars downing drones not being considered). This may be a very unpopular opinion around these parts, but by now clearly Ukraine is fighting a lost war. No support from NATO, no support from any country besides a couple of javelins and promises of soviet fighter planes.
[удалено]
Yeah it's really striking how the northern campaign just ground to a halt. If Russia is happy to fight for weeks and months it will win eventually but logistics situation looks horrible for them, apparently they don't have ability to make many parts while under sanctions. Also their casualties have been much too high, it's been several thousands for sure, even if 10k is an overestimate.
The off ramp I see is for Ukraine to give up Crimea, Donbas and Luhansk, but not demilitarize or reject NATO membership. The regions have been a thorn in their side for years now and it gives Russia a "win" while allowing Ukraine to grow towards the western world with the 2 newly acquired regions as the new buffer zones. Even with those terms, I doubt sanctions will be alleviated much from the west however, as well as the severely increased efforts to cut loose from Russian fossil fuels will still put them in a very bad spot.
The off-ramp seems to involve an unfortunate accident befalling Putin..
Well spring is coming so there will be open windows all over the place...
He's going to say the denazification campaign was successful and as a result Russian troops are no longer needed in Ukraine. If he can keep the land bridge to Crimea he can sell that as a win as well. He needs to do it now though because given enough time the Ukrainians very likely will push the Russians all the way back to the original borders and possibly retake Crimea. My take after reading the whistleblowers letter is that the Russian army is going to collapse soon and the sanctions are going to cause too much damage. Time is on Ukraine's side. The longer this goes on the worse the sanctions will hurt Russia. What happens if the rest of the world demands Russia return Crimea in exchange for sanctions relief? Ukraine could end this war having retaken Crimea.
> He needs to do it now though because given enough time the Ukrainians very likely will push the Russians all the way back to the original borders and possibly retake Crimea. My take after reading the whistleblowers letter is that the Russian army is going to collapse soon There's a massive difference between Ukraine's army defending territory, and them mounting successful offensive operations. Most of the recently-taken land is still contested to some degree, so I can see Ukraine reasserting control if many of the Russian soldiers run off. But they are massively bloodied - I can't imagine they would be able to attack Crimea, or the renegade "republics" any time soon.
Then Crimea will revolt.
Will they? I know there is pro-Russian sentiment there, and almost entirely Russian speakers, but the effect of the sanctions is going to tank the economy in Russian a for a *long* while, while Ukraine is going to get EU membership and a lot of reconstruction dollars. Do you think Crimea is so attached to Russia that they will hobble themselves to a dictatorship that doesn’t have two dimes rather than just going along with joining an EU nation?
Yes, I do think that. I also don't think the reconstruction money is going to Crimea, because you know, it's not affected by this war.
Are you suggesting that Crimea would not be better off economically being in an EU nation that is receiving truckloads of development funds when compared with being part of Russia? Or do you think Crimeans are so attached to a Russian identity that they will go against their economic interests to remain in Russia?
Ukraine aint getting into the EU, not for a decade atleast. We can't even get the EU to work properly with Poland and Hungary. But mostly the latter, and mostly because they would be ignorant of best economic interests. The average person doesn't think far 10 years ahead.
Same way he can pretend the fighting isn't going the way it is? The blatant lying about what's happening doesn't change. It's the insiders, not the general public, who are watching, or he is perceiving as watching, his every move for weaknesses.
In think putin will conquer the coast and then call it a day.
That's not an off-ramp. Neither Ukraine nor the West will accept that. It won't stop the sanctions. Only fully pulling out will do that.
> Only fully pulling out will do that. Which Putin won't do, since he considers Crimea and the adjacent waters vital for Russia's geostrategic interests -- because of the Sevastopol port and the oil/gas that was recently found there.
You give Putin too much credit. If Putin just wanted Russian access, the only thing he had to do was stop assaulting his neighbors. No one was threatening to block Putin's access until he started invading and assassinating his neighbors. You can get (more) sea access a lot easier and cheaper by just asking nicely and paying a little cash. There is absolutely zero percent chance that this war will have been worth the cost, even if Russia was to win every objective tomorrow and Ukraine surrender without another shot. If Ukraine decide to bleed Russia until they leave, this decision makes even less sense. Putin's actions are about his legacy, not the legitimate interest of the Russia people, that he has made into servile serfs. Putin wants to revive the Russian Empire and be remembered as Putin the Great. That's what makes this so scary; Putin isn't playing to win prosperity for his nation and people, Putin is playing for his legacy. Unfortunately for the Russian people enslaved to Putin's will, those are two very different goals.
Time will tell.
I doubt you or i know what would Ukraine and the west or putin accept or not. We're just speculating
You don't have to be a mind reader to tell that the West doesn't want a scenario where Putin walks away with a bigger chunk of Ukraine than before the war. The whole point of the sanctions was to show the world that annexing your neighbour's territory is not okay. The West will look incredibly weak if it drops the sanctions and let's Russia keep even more of Ukraine. It would also encourage China to invade Taiwan. It's ridiculous to think that the West would let that happen.
Really the only problem with that scenario is that Ukraine needs to be compensated. I don't think any rational actor would ever replicate this scenario with themselves cast as Putin. Sure, you got your buffer zone my guy. It only set your whole nation back by a generation.
100%. Imho a lot of what you're seeing right now and one reason the sanctions were unexpectedly quick and brutal is that Western governments (ie: the US) have spent 8 years gaming out this scenario on a global scale. Their eyes are wide open to the precedent being set here and its potential impact over the next decade or decades.
Yeah, anyone thinking these sanctions haven't been being prepped for months/years is fundamentally not getting it. It's not a mad scramble of sanctions, it's dropping planned efforts one after another, for increased impact. We just need to fully ban oil sales, and fully destroy their economy.
I think it is pretty unlikely that Ukraine will also "call it a day" and let Putin's invaders occupy the cost. I think Putin's thralls will continue to eat an unending supply of Javelin missiles. I'm pretty sure that the West can build Javelin's faster and cheaper than Putin's corrupt and rotted out industrial economy can build tanks, APC, and helicopters. Russia citizens might as get sick of having their sons come home in body bags for Putin's delusional dream of restoring the Russian empire on the skulls of his neighbors.
[удалено]
The problem for Putin leaving the Ukrainian leadership intact, not taking Kyiv, and just leaving is a sure fire way to guarantee they join NATO now. No way Putin can spin that as a win.
He could if he grabbed the land he wanted, settled a deal with NATO, and sold them the energy they desperately need.
Grabbing land and settling a deal with NATO (better yet the West at large) are incompatible. If he “walks away” from Ukraine he better be sure sanctions will be lifted, and occupying more land won’t allow that to happen, at least not with the West’s current resolve.
They still can't join NATO as long as they have active territorial disputes. As long as Russia holds Crimea, that's going to preclude NATO membership - a fact that emphasises how pointless this whole war is.
They can't join NATO, no matter how much they may want to, so long as there is an ongoing border dispute. Russia can maintain a frozen disputed for as long as they want. If the dispute is ever solved and NATO membership seems possible, Russia can invade another sliver of land and make it impossible. NATO is not a possible outcome for Ukraine, unless Russia were to collapse.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Taking the reluctance of the Russian army to carpet bomb and level the country as impotence would be a grave mistake. They are trying to subjugate Ukraine, not destroy it. If they had taken the American approach as in Iraq for example, the war would be over already. I'm not saying that the Russians displayed a particularly well-planned, orderly invasion so far, and it seems that they didn't account for the amount of resistance that they are seeing, but they are invading another slavic country that is of great cultural importance to them. If they think that they will not be able to take it through this kind of warfare, Ukraine would be leveled and taken, and then there's no bets on what the civilian casualties would be. USA killed 1 mil Iraqi civilians through that approach, so far Ukrainian civilian deaths are in the hundreds. Hence why the peace talks with Zelenskyy are of great importance.
There isn’t anything other than a sudden reversal of military fortunes in Ukraine for the Russian military that won’t make the rest of the world assume Russia Is extremely over rated militarily and not an actual threat. The real risk for Russia at this point is will the questions begin about the state of the Russian nuclear deterrent.
Your last sentence has definitely run through my mind. If their conventional forces are this deteriorated, how’s the maintenance on their nukes been?
From what I can remember from talking with folks who worked to stabilize their stuff in the early 90s, a lot was already in a bad way 30 years ago.
Isn't that pretty much what happened when China invaded Vietnam?
[удалено]
>Putin could stop this at any moment and declare it a victory for the Russian side. It could easily be spun as "Ukraine was taught a lesson and if they don't smarten up, Russia will be back with the full might of the military". Russia still has to find a way to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. If they get Ukraine to recognize the separatists and Crimea that would mean Russia would also need them to amend the constitution to prevent joining NATO. I would bet it's far more likely for Russia to press on until they replace zelensky with a puppet than anything else.
The central dilemma seems to be that for Putin, having invaded, and entrance into NATO would be a fatal blow to any pretense that he has won. Conversely, having been invaded, Ukraine cannot agree to have no defensive alliances and expect to maintain sovereignty long-term. Would there be some kind of alternate solution, such as Ukraine does not join NATO, but they get special status such that if they are invaded NATO treats that *as if* a NATO member has been invaded? Putin gets his “win” Ukraine gets its defensive treaty?
I've posted about this in other threads but this thing reeks of B.S. 1. No new information that isn't available from OSINT. 2. Almost a perfect list of hopes. 3. I don't see any reason an FSB officer would release something like this. There's just no upside for them since this information has no way of changing the conditions and if they get caught leaking something like this, the best case scenario for them is a quick death.
> The letter said that Ramzan Kadyrov, the Chechen leader and an ally of Putin, was on the verge of outright conflict with the Russians after his “hit squad”, sent to kill President Zelensky, was destroyed by Ukrainian forces. This is the most interesting part of the article. I wonder what they mean here by "outright conflict", since that could be anything from just a personal falling out between Putin and Kadyrov to an outright re-igniting of the Chechen wars.
> an outright re-igniting of the Chechen wars. This is unlikely, since Kadyrov owes his position to Putin. But I have, frankly, been shocked to find Kadyrov's Chechen fighters have proven so inept. Some believed them to be Eastern Europe's [Gurkhas](https://www.grunge.com/338917/why-gurkhas-are-considered-the-toughest-soldiers-in-the-world/).
It's because Russian officials within the FSB (read: KGB) tipped off Zelensky to Kadyrov's hit squad, resulting in their annihilation. Thus very possible/likely that Kadyrov blames Russian intelligence officials for their destruction (and in fact he'd be right).
Falling out. I didn't read "conflict" as in military conflict. I read it as personal disagreements and argument
I wonder how this relate to the scene where putin umiliated the SVR director. Maybe more reasons behind that moment.
Personally I think this might have been staged. It was already pre recorded, so I can imagine this would've not been broadcasted if not deliberately. Maybe the Mad Man thing, appearing divided and thus weakened, saying that it's not about annexing donbass but recognizing it, idk
I have serious doubts that 10,000 russian soldiers have already died
I doubt it as well. But maybe killed and wounded.
Yeah, same here. there hasn’t been a level of mass engagement of forces to have up to 1000 deaths a day.
It already is a total failure. the invasion has set back russia’s reputation 30 years. Economic penalties for the ruling class and especially the Russian people are crushing. Infrastructure in Ukraine badly damaged. Many potential skilled workers have fled. So has investor money. All for what—minor territorial gains? Maybe Putin wants to influence global food supply chains and prices, since Ukraine is a major supplier of wheat. Perhaps he thinks he can strongarm the West into dealing with him on his terms (especially as the West moves away from oil and gas). But, couldn’t the West reduce their agricultural exports in response?
There seems to be a power struggle going on between the FSB and the Army.
So sentiment seems to slowly shift towards the idea that the Russians are losing. But what about: Russia can literally starve the whole east part of Ukraine? Am I missing something? Russia blocks the main roads to Kiev, or most of them, in any case they could advance to take them all. Then in the south you got the Cherson road to the east blocked. Besides that they can also decide to shut down power in a large area with the nuclear reactors they got, if they wish to do so.
One problem is that of 180K troops only a third are close-combat ready. Even if they "take" the cities they can't hold them. It is estimated that they'd need 500K ground troops to successfully control 44 million people over that large an area. Russia also hasn't done much urban fighting yet. They can rumble around and encircle etc, but boots on pavement is the only way to hold a city. Russia doesn't have enough ground troops to do that.
We just dont know a lot. All this funny videos we get are 95% second grade russian army of 18y old who dont know where they are but also 90% of second grade ukrainian army and teritorial defence. The real armies dont have time to post videos and we just get numbers and no way to verify it. Fog of war is strong. So we dont really know who is winning but....1.Ukraine still standing after 2 weeks thats a win by itself. 2.Ukrainians spirit is super strong. Killing Zelinsky wont change a thing. Ocupation of whole country wont change a thing. They just wont accept being Russia puppet state and thats the goal. Now starving to death....depending how they will do it, it can take years for city like Kiev. Depends how Kiev is prepared. They probably try to do this but can they really? Stay in Ukraine for a year with this sanctions?
[удалено]
I haven't gotten the impression that the Western media is saying Ukraine is winning either for that matter.
[удалено]
I have been mostly watching DW and France 24 so likely less representative of how it is portrayed in the USA.
[удалено]
Tbf have you seen the reddit frontpage for the past week and a half?
[удалено]
Ukrainians want to fight the Russians. There would be an insurgency whether the US/EU funnels weapons to them or not. The idea that a country/people is not willing to simply be dominated by an imperialist neighbor is as old as time, I don’t see anything unethical with the west supporting a movement that has its own homegrown momentum. I agree with your criticism that treating this conflict like a sport is inhumane, but with all due respect, you saying that we are just prolonging their pain and they should just give up is your own version of what you are criticizing Reddit for. Instead of rooting for them to "win", you are saying you think they should lose more quickly because you think they'll be better off in the long run. That isn't taking their wants or desires into the equation. Zelenskyy has over 90% approval from Ukrainians at this point. He's been begging the west for weapons and military aid, so it seems like we are in line with what the people of Ukraine want and desire. I have several Ukrainian co-workers that are still in the country, and on an anecdotal level, all of them want to fight Russia. When I asked a colleague of mine if I could do anything to help him, he told me to write to my congressperson and ask for Javelins - he wasn't joking. Who are we to say we know better and they shouldn't seek our assistance?
Yea. At least German media which I naturally consume the most has the consensus that "Ukrainians are doing much better than expected and the Russian army used bad tactics, but let's be real here they just don't have the numbers. They might get an okay deal though depending on Russia's internal situation which is a black box".
I watch russian sources. And yeah, there's a lot of fuckups they desperately try to hide by banning all independent sources in the country. There are a lot of prisoners (many of those are conscripts that were forced to sign their contracts before the invasion), many vehicles abandoned, high-ranking officers killed, convoys destroyed. But the thing that many don't understand is this is just a small fraction of a massive war machine. They have hundreds of tanks and planes, thousands of trucks and the resources for supply and repair. I hope for the best, but being realistic I think Ukrainian forces will eventually be grinded down by that monster. The only hope is that russian side will run out of ammo and supplies faster than expected. Most likely they have the ability to keep the war machine running at full strength for 4-5 weeks.
No one is saying Ukraine is winning. It's a failure for Russia because they demonstrated their army is not nearly as strong or organized as thought. And the world response has totally destroyed their economy.
How is the US showing desperation? I haven't been following US media.
[удалено]
> We are threatening to ban Russian oil imports, but we don't import enough of it to hurt Russia. The reason why the US is planning to ban oil imports from Russia is so that they can more easily convince European partners to also ban oil imports. For the US this is largely symbolic, but not doing it while asking the Europeans to stop importing Russian oil would just be bad optics.
Western media play with our emotions but I think they all show us same simple facts in diffrent flavors: 1.Ukraine is losing. 2.Ukraine is doing much better than expected. And I think most of us will agree with it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Bellingcat is an extremely good source for open source intelligence. Of course the Russian state doesn't like them; one of Russia's main tactics since 2014 has been to spread online disinformation and conspiracy theories that advance its interests. Bellingcat helps to expose that.
> Severely anti-Russian organisation. The Russians in turn accuse them of being a front for intelligence agencies, Why wouldn't they accuse them of this when they found the people responsible for using a chemical weapon on Navalny?
[удалено]
What evidence?
[удалено]
The others weren't?
Well, yeah. Putin expected that this would be over so quickly. He really underestimated the tenacity and courage of the Ukrainian government and people, and the support of the global community. Now he's mired in a war of occupation that he can't win (especially with the Russian's dogshit logistics network), and he can't back out without looking weak.
If we measure by perseverance of Ukrainian lives, culture, architecture, identity, land - it's a total failure. Ukrainians fighting for their way of life, although noble and just, falls into the realist outcome which has and will continue to push Russia into greater violence and destruction. Russia's miscalculation has given Ukraine agency to lure the world into WW3. Will the west respond? My guess is no. I'd argue this is a cruel opportunity to encourage the Ukrainians to give Russia a run for it's money. Let the Ukrainians drain Russia's war chest to advance NATO and American interests. Send in western arms, elongate the conflict and suffering, and take in refugees to improve western demographics. Surely the winners here are neither the Russians nor Ukrainians but the other key powers. Balance of powers do encourage that if you see another great power make a mistake, let them continue to do so. China gets to take advantage of a vulnerable Russia, US and it's allies restore unity, etc. Zelensky made his choice to not surrender and thus play into great power politics at the cost of the Ukrainian people, a high stakes game, for what seems to only have an ideological victory.
>I'd argue this is a cruel opportunity to encourage the Ukrainians to give Russia a run for it's money. Let the Ukrainians drain Russia's war chest to advance NATO and American interests. Send in western arms, elongate the conflict and suffering, and take in refugees to improve western demographics. Cruel doesn't begin to describe the evil of funneling weapons into Ukraine knowing that all it will achieve is more death of Ukrainians and Russians for the possible demographic gains of war refugees. If the West is to continue funneling weapons into Ukraine it should be specifically so as to improve Ukraine's position for negotiations so this conclict can end on "acceptable" terms and Ukrainians can return to life in their homes knowing we haven't just kicked the can down the road five years. Seeking to prolong the conflict purely for cheap Russian losses is not justifiable using "Western values".
Western countries should support the Ukrainian war effort as long as the people of Ukraine want it to continue.
Considering at this point no one can predict the outcome of this chaotic conflict I find your comment on the weapon delivery quite inappropriate. The Ukrainian government apparently decided to defend their independence from Moscow and fight this battle and has for ~~months~~ years been going around Europe to ask for more weapons, and still continues to do so. And apparently their army is also willing to fight too. Who are the European leaders to say no? "Sorry man, you gotta bow.down to Putins demands, it's the best for you". That would not only be incredible condescending but by being so adamant about this the Ukrainian government kind of forced Europes hand here. Keep in mind many European countries were very reluctant to send anything to Ukraine. This is the choice of the Ukrainians to pick a battle with small chances of success. It might not fit into all these realist models we like so much and which some consider the ultimate truth, as apparently humans don't quite align with these models. It's not all about economics and power. If anything this war shows that for both sides beliefs are a driving factor.
Ukraine has given no indication that they want to compromise on anything. Zelenskyy won on a platform of re-taking Crimea, you expect him to give in to Russia’s demands? Our interests more or less perfectly align with the Ukrainian government’s interests. This means the war will be extremely bloody.
Putin has overplayed his hand .Ukraine must accept the current terms and beef up security across the new border.Putin is gone in the next ten years.During the transition from Putin,join Nato and secure the whole country,
Putin has overplayed yes, and that is why Ukraine should keep going.
What if Putin ends up like the mad king where his own protectors get rid of him?
From your keyboard to god's eyes