My newspaper says that the attacks were by Iranian kamikaze drones, so that would explain why they're slower and possibly less powerful.
These recent attacks are sickening. I don't see what Putin is trying to accomplish with them, except for making people hate him even more. I think he's trying to provoke a reaction that would use to justify further escalation on his part. The problem is, his only options for further escalation would be full mobilisation or nuclear weapons, and I think both would work out very badly for him. The Russian people wouldn't accept full mobilisation (see how they're reacting to partial mobilisation!), and NATO will definitely step in once nukes are used.
There seems to be no way out for Putin except giving up or this sort of random destruction. He's lashing out like a toddler who can't have something he wants.
>He's lashing out like a toddler who can't have something he wants
It can be tempting to cast one's enemies as irrational actors, but one should be careful to entertain the possibility that they are behaving rationally within constraints you don't fully understand. Indeed, anger itself is a game theoretical adaptation.
In this instance, my view is that Ukraine and its massive untapped gas reserves represented a serious threat to Russia's business model. Annexation would have been preferable, but as that is proving impossible, the next best thing is to destroy Ukraine as thoroughly as possible to prevent Europe from gaining access to an independent supply.
I coud be utterly wrong, but I do not think the motives are so rational.
I think the motives are cultural : this is what Russia has done over the course of its entire existence, and it continues to this day. There is simply a culture of territorial expansionism, with whatever justifications are handy at the time; that old saying - there's a good reason, and then there's the real reason.
It can be tempting to cast irrational actors as coldly logical, but if one does so one should be careful to infer actually logical motives.
Attacking Kyiv doesn't really make a difference to whether the West can access Ukraine's natural resources. Even attacking infrastructure, whole far more logical, would really only have a temporary impact. Insofar as the west actually needs those resources, then it will deploy its own immense infrastructure to get at them.
So, Putin's actions are only logical if he is also successfully attacking power structures of the west, to convince them that it is better to buy from Russia than deploy the capability to get at those resources. We could argue whether such attacks are happening but they don't appear to be working.
Also, the fact that Russia is refusing to sell gas to the EU because of its support for Ukraine rather undermines this point. (I think it's the EU that should be refusing to buy gas from Russia in order to stop funding the Russian war machine, but it's interesting that both sides don't want to trade right now.)
If Russia really wanted to prevent Ukraine or the EU from having access to resources in Donbas or Crimea, shouldn't they be using their current control over those areas to ruin/destroy those resources or make them harder to access?
> He's lashing out like a toddler who can't have something he wants.
I think that is an overly simplistic interpretation.
The larger context to consider here is other countries that are loyal/controlled/influenced by Russia, the ex-Soviet states like Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Georgia. Russia's inability to defeat Ukraine is showing them that they can move away from Russia of soften their alignment and go against the Kremlin's influences. Kazakhstan has rejected the referenda annexing Ukrainian territory and Kyrgyzstan has canceled joint military exercises with Russia.
Therefore Russia wants to signal that it still can project destructive power abroad both directly, with strikes on civilians deep in Ukraine, and indirectly. By attacking civilians and ignoring the usual norms & law of war (which is usual for Russia anyway), Russia is reminding people that it doesn't care about such things as civilians and therefore the talk of using nuclear weapons should be taken seriously.
Basically Russia is reminding us that it is a bully who doesn't care about your feelings.
Internally, whilst Putin holds almost ultimate power, this still requires a loyal network of supporters who run the country's government and businesses. He needs to keep the tough man image that he has cultivated and relies on for power. Showing any weakness begins his eventual downfall. Which is one reason why blaming and sacking top military: to show his power of them.
Lastly, humans tend to be less risk adverse when cornered and Putin is getting cornered by these factors and more. That makes him more likely to try harsher tactics in order to save himself. We've seen this recently with the conscription, bombings, propaganda and increasing the murders and forced deportations in captured territory. He will become more unpredictable and I fear things will get much worse before they get better.
In all of this horror, it is the forced deportations which trouble me most.
Hundreds of thousands of people, forceably transported into Russia.
Where are those people now? what is happening to them? how are they going to get back to Ukraine?
Russia historically, in conquered countries, destroys the local culture. Cyrillic and Russian become mandatory in the schools, organizations and traditions of local culture are suppressed, and mass deportations and incarcerations. Also, of course, beatings and torture; all of which we see now.
To my eye, as in history, this is part of Russia looking to make Ukraine actually Russian; to conquer and subsume.
The Poles used to say they preferred the Germans to the Russians; "with the Germans we lose our freedom, with the Russians we lose our souls".
I'm terrified for those deportees. People (including me) keep saying that Putin can have peace simply by leaving Ukraine, but simply leaving Ukraine doesn't bring those deported people back. You bet he's going to use them as some sort of leverage. Or just kill them if they become a liability.
I really hope they'll be able to return, but I fear that might end up requiring some concessions to Putin.
Well, the option he's heading towards is loosing, and I don't think he can change that, only defer it.
The partial mobilization is a band-aid; it won't make the Russian army effective (let alone the air force, or the navy). I suspect these guys are just being thrown in at the deep end. They're doing to die, and not do very much in the process. The main goal is to keep something in the field, so the Ukrainians don't just walk to the border because all the short-term contract troops have gone home.
Building a real army takes at least a year; the Ukrainian are working on this, via mass training programs in European countries, and here in the Ukraine. The guy who organizes my AirBnB is in an infantry training programme; when he picks up the rent, I give him a huge shopping back stuffed with chocolate for his unit.
Then there's the question of equipping and supplying that army. Ukraine has the arsenals of the West behind it, and ultimately the military strength of a country is its economic strength. Putin's underestimation of the power of the West is as great as that power is proving to be.
I've no idea if Russia is also working on property training new units. It seems somewhat questionable - training in Russia is performed by the stay-at-home batallion (each regiment is three batallions, two are normally deployed, one stays at home), but a lot of those stays-at-home batallions have been deployed. If you just throw people in at the deep end, if they do survive, they have experience, but little training. No good for more complex operations, such as offensives.
However, the troops anyway to my eye have no motivation for offensives. Some units are just brutual thugs, killers, torturers and maimers; others are conscripts, and the army as a whole knows perfectly well they were thoroughly lied to and sent into the battle in the worst possible ways, tactically and strategically, and are paying with their lives.
This is why there's so much reliance on artillery; it just sits there, behind your lines, so you can control it, and the men firing the pieces, and all they have to do is put shells in a gun and fire.
I don't think Putin will use a tactical nuclear weapon, because it just won't do very much to the battle; they are surprisingly ineffective on dispersed troops. Even to use one will turn the world against him, and he would have to use a lot. Putin would have to build a new army from scratch, with so much strength it could overwhelm the Ukraine supported by the West, and that is not possible.
I hate being in a situation where I have to even think about whether or a nuclear weapon will be used. Putin has a lot to answer for.
I'm wondering if that mobilisation isn't worse than a band-aid. I think it might actually be hurting Russia's ability to fight this war, for the reasons you state, and because it's putting more stress at all the weaknesses of the Russian military: logistics, command and control, and morale.
Those people need to be moved to the front, more food, ammo and fuel needs to be moved to the front, and Russia is already struggling with logistics. Their command and control seems to be a mess with Wagner and the militias operating independently from the Russian army, which is short on officers, and each branch blaming each other for all the failures. Adding more untrained troops is not going to improve that situation. The impact on morale is probably obvious.
Best thing to do with those conscripts would probably be to put them in trucks and let them drive more stuff to the front. Or in factories to make more stuff.
Best thing strategically for him would probably be to withdraw from all those recently "annexed" regions and bet everything on keeping Crimea. And negotiate a deal to trade all of that land for recognition of the annexation of Crimea. I think Crimea is really the best thing Putin can possibly get out of this war. And even that is hardly certain.
I've heard that the mobilized people are used as a sort of early-warning meatshield for the more veteran forces by from an intercepted call by Ukrainian SIGINT (ofc veracity cannot be independently confirmed), which gels with Russian BTG tactics as known to US defence before the 2022 invasion[0].
Putin had a whole bunch of opportunities to withdraw and minimize his losses, and didn’t take any of them. At the same time it’s been obvious for some time now that there’s no way he can win.
One theory that explains it is that his objective at this point is to lose - but lose to USA or NATO, not to Ukraine.
I may be completely wrong, but looking back at history, at people in similar situations, my take on it is that he's faced with what is for him an unacceptable outcome, but where there is no way to avoid it : in this situation, people try and delay and defer, rather than facing it.
I think it's only that, nothing more sophisticated. He won't give up, because it's so unpleasant, but he can't win, so he's in limbo. The war continues until Ukraine and the West push Russia out of Ukraine.
> One theory that explains it is that his objective at this point is to lose - but lose to USA or NATO, not to Ukraine.
Interesting perspective, and it makes sense. There's probably less shame in losing to the most powerful alliance in the world, than losing to a former vassal.
This might actually increase the chance of him using tactical nukes; that's the surefire way to get NATO involved. But ideally he'll want to lose just barely to NATO; he doesn't want to get completely destroyed. That's probably why he's escalating one small step at a time.
I’m not sure if using nukes would get NATO directly involved. First, it would be counterproductive wrt Putin’s goal above. Second, it could provoke strikes against NATO - Russia stands no chance militarily, but they can still kill civilians. Third, I don’t think isn’t even necessary - looking at experiences so far, Ukraine is more than capable of wiping the floor with Russian army, provided they get the hardware necessary. So far NATO has been very (way too much imho) careful to only provide Ukraine with defensive weapons; they didn’t give them cruise missiles or fighter jets, for example. Likewise Ukraine so far avoided striking anything that’s not strictly a military target. Nuclear strike would probably change that.
I don't think there's any way NATO can afford not to respond to the offensive use of nuclear weapons in a war of conquest, just outside their borders, against a friendly nation. But as long as it's a small, tactical nuke, I think NATO's response will be conventional, but still big enough to cripple all Russian positions in Ukraine, and possibly more.
This is simply not true. Russia withdrew its regular army months ago - whats fighting now are non-regular forces (mercenaries, etc.) in order to keep the battlefield 'soft' while the next offensive is being planned.
Its not good to believe ones own propaganda, and we in the West are extremely propagandized about this action. Russia hasn't applied the full forces of its war machines to Ukraine - yet. Its a "special military operation" because Putin is limited by Russia's democracy as to what he can apply.
Escalating to actual war policies is whats happening right now. Once the ground freezes in Ukraine (within the next few weeks), there will be another round of attacks from Russia - this time, with all the 'terrorist attacks on the Russian state', Putins' gloves will be coming off. We in the West don't understand that what we incorrectly perceive as a "failed military invasion" is really just the first round in a 'special military operation' that has to scale up to war before Russia's full war machine is activated. We want to believe it was a failed full-blown war - the truth is, its just the beginning ..
Strange. As far as rest of the world knows, Ukraine fought a spectacular counteroffensive against Russia's elite tank division (4th Guards) near Izyum just a few weeks ago, took many of them prisoners and captured 100 or so of their best tanks and hundreds of APCs.
That was hardly a decisive victory, and Russia has not applied the full forces of its military in this "operation" - yet.
Its a "special military operation", meaning Putin is limited as to what he can order into the field. Now that he has the justification of "terrorist attacks on Russia", he can escalate - and this is precisely what is about to happen. When the ground freezes in Ukraine, an even more lethal Russian force will be applied to what is now more of a war and less of a 'special operation'.
Me saying this does not mean I agree with it - I find all of it heinous. But those of you addicted to your Western propaganda need to understand that it is very, very dangerous to suck up your own agitprop and consider it the one Holy Truth™. You'd be a lot wiser if you actually paid attention to what Russia, itself, has to say about the situation - not that you can, given the censorship regime being imposed on you by your own military, alas...
Of course it was, Kupiansk is a very important railway junction[1] and the whole front collapsed after it was captured. Speed of the operation was nothing short of amazing. In mere days Ukraine liberated more than Russia had captured in months of heavy fighting with insane losses, worst since WW2. In large parts of Ukraine's northeast, Russia was pushed back to state border and there is virtually no fighting anymore beyond sporadic Russian revenge attacks on Ukrainian civilian infrastructure. This is dictionary definition of a decisive victory. Russian forces have left the Sumy-Kharkiv region and the fighting over Ukraine's north-east has finished.
> and Russia has not applied the full forces of its military in this "operation" - yet.
Why are police officers dragging pilots from airliner cockpits[2] and sending as cannon fodder to the frontlines if there is no desperate shortage of manpower? Why is Putin's right-hand man touring prisons to recruit rapists and murderers?[3] The clock is ticking on Kherson and it is only a question of time when Ukraine will liberate it, Ukraine already conducted a successful limited operation and liberated a lot of ground north of Kherson. Why isn't the "full force" brought in to stop the humiliating series of defeats?
> You'd be a lot wiser if you actually paid attention to what Russia, itself, has to say about the situation - not that you can, given the censorship regime being imposed on you by your own military, alas...
I don't think even Russian MoD claims that there is no Russian regular army in Ukraine. Who told you that?
>Why isn't the "full force" brought in to stop the humiliating series of defeats?
Because Putin doesn't have the power to do such a thing: he is not a dictator, Western agitprop notwithstanding.
Same reason Bush had to invent a phony "war on terror" excuse to get around the requirement that he get - democratically - Congress' permission to declare war on the world.
>I don't think even Russian MoD claims that there is no Russian regular army in Ukraine. Who told you that?
The Russians themselves. You probably don't have access to their statements, though .. or haven't tried very hard to find them yourself.
This was a "special military operation" because Putins Presidency is not a total dictatorship. Conditions for declaring total war were not in place - they are now, however. The West likes to think this "special military operation" represents the totality of Russian military power being applied - and failing - but this is a very, very dangerous mistake to make.
Ah. Now I suspect I know what you're talking about: the terror campaign. Essentially what Russia did in Syria - they don't stand a chance against a proper army, but they definitely can commit genocide and level entire cities, like they did in Mariupol.
So, yes, indeed, they are starting to do it again. But because they have already spent most of the tools they could use to do it - we know that because they are forced to use very expensive weapons in a way that doesn't make any sense, like attacking ground targets using anti-ship missiles - it will quickly fizzle out. They got one last push using Iranian ghetto-drones, but even those are in limited quantity - all of this stuff depends on western parts.
Keep your hate-filled agit-prop to yourself and try to stay rational. I'm not rooting for Russia - I'm trying to indicate you are in danger of mis-underestimating your enemy - a fatal mistake to make!
I'm not mentioning "terrorist attacks on Russian state" because I agree that thats what they are - I am 100% anti-war, no matter who is fighting it - but that is what Russia's democratic process requires in order to authorize an escalation of its "special military operation" to a broader war-fighting stance. In precisely the same way that the USA needed terrorist attacks to justify its own special military operations around the world, Russia has the very same condition in its own democratic processes - and whether you like it or not, Russia is just as democratic as the USA - they just don't vote for people you like.
Whether you agree or not, Russia has not applied the full forces of its military to this "special operation" - this will happen in the next few weeks, now that the political conditions within Russia are in place to authorize the use of such force. You don't really think Putin can just dictate that a war happen - just like the USA, Putins' power is limited by democratic processes.
Know Your Enemy! Putins' hands have been tied thus far - once the gloves come off, you might change your mind about Russia's weaknesses ...
You say they haven't applied the full force of its military, but considering how spent the Russian forces are, it's not at all clear that Russia really has significantly more forces that can be used. Other than nukes, of course.
> Putins' power is limited by democratic processes.
The processes in Russia aren't very democratic, considering the way Putin controls the media and locks up the opposition. But you're right that his power isn't absolute; no power ever is. If too many Russians rebel against him, his security apparatus won't save him. On top of that, he needs to keep the support of the military, Wagner, the nationalist, and various other groups, and if he loses that support, he's also lost. So he has to be careful and ensure he keeps sufficient domestic justification for what he does.
How spent are the Russian forces? They haven't even applied 15% of their full forces to this operation, Western agitprop notwithstanding.
>The processes in Russia aren't very democratic, considering the way Putin controls the media and locks up the opposition.
At least as democratic as the West.
He has not had the power he needs to field a full war-fighting force - only "special military operations" capabilities. The longer this war goes on, the more justification ("Ma' Terrorists!") he has to pull off the gloves.
3 weeks from now, we will see what that looks like. I'd wager its going to be a much different scenario than the current "special military operation".
(NOTE: I am not pro-Russia - I am 100% anti-war.. ALL war, including our own heinous drone attacks on civilians...)
>How spent are the Russian forces? They haven't even applied 15% of their full forces to this operation
This is in stark contrast to what analysts are saying, which is that Russia already _lost_ about half of its military. Visually confirmed losses of Russian tanks alone are over one thousand units. Russians are so desperate they had to introduce mandatory conscription, despite it being a suicide from political point of view.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, and you hadn’t provided a single source that would support your view.
>as democratic as West
Lol, no. Russia isn’t even a dysfunctional democracy; it lacks basic prerequisites to become one. You’re probably imagining Russia is kind of like Eastern Europe, only poorer. It’s not - the "cultural distance” between Russia and, say, Poland is much greater then between Poland and, say, UK.
Analysts - on TV - are telling you what to think: because its their job to spread propaganda and make the general public think what is necessary for the Pentagon to get its wishes.
Make the effort to get past the propaganda wall and you will see a much different picture.
Paul Stephan agreed that there is a distinction between democracy and liberalism in Russia: "Russia enjoys robust democratic institutions at least as vigorous as Japan, Korea, Italy, France, and Germany."
No, but if the other side's official state media is admitting that they might have screwed up mass conscription in their desperate haste whilst nationalist bloggers fume about military defeats and the government threatening them for reporting on them, whilst you're arguing things are going smoothly for them and the reason they're losing territory they now claim to be Russia's is because they casually withdrew their 85% of their army for unexplained "democratic" reasons, you have no interest in truth.
Maybe you're only paying attention to the narrative that suits your prejudice.
Fact: it was a "special military operation" - this is not the same as an all-out war/invasion. Putins' hands were tied as to what he could deploy - the West has successfully used its propaganda outlets to parley this as 'Russia military is a fail'. That conclusion is premature - when Russia fields a full war force, the story may be different.
Fact: The army was withdrawn to prevent further civilian casualties in the regions that have already suffered 8 years of catastrophic war, involving the massacre of civilians by armed forces.
As to your appeal to authority figures on TV, I can only assume you are unwilling to make an effort to look further than the idiot box for information, and are therefore not really arguing in good faith. I suggest you peak around the curtains and try not to get distracted by the broken mirrors ..
The idea that they withdrew from lightly populated Kharkiv and northern Kherson regions they occupied to new positions in the cities to "protect civilians" is ... inventive.
As to your severe reading comprehension difficulties, if you're having to pretend that I'm talking about "authority figures on TV" when I'm pointing out that Russian nationalists on Telegram and Russian state media aren't as enthusiastic about Russia's war as you are, it's not because your cliche ridden contrarianism is coming from a place of actual knowledge...
>Russian nationalists on Telegram and Russian state media
"actual knowledge"
Anyone can pretend to be a Russian nationalist on Telegram, and Russian state media is not as "Russian state" as you'd like to think.
Perhaps your call-to-authority proclivity should result in you paying actual attention to what the Russian generals, themselves, are saying - not that you would have access to that in the current censorship regime you seem to be particularly enamoured of ..
Which Russian generals? I mean, Kadryov and Prizoghin whose factions are doing much of the fighting are quite openly accusing the military of cowardice and incompetence (maybe they're Western agents too?). Lapin's too busy making PR videos proving that he is not, in fact, hiding from the war and mourning his son's sad loss due to mutinying conscripts (recruiting people who'd rather suicide massacre their comrades than fight in the war is a sure sign Russia is holding back all their best troops!) Then there's numerous ones who've been dismissed from their posts? Not an awful lot about the mythical million well trained troops with excellent equipment who are somehow more politically difficult to mobilise than middle class middle aged Muscovites who did their national service for the USSR and Belarussian T62s
If you're having to disregard Russian media and all the most popular Russian milbloggers and the guy who started the Donbas conflict as Western propagandists to satisfy your dreams of dead Ukranians, maybe it's not everyone else in the world that's wearing blinkers....
Thats good. Im also helping Ukraine as much as I can. I've sent one 4x4 and donated money to the Army. I am also training in the volunteer paramilitary in my country in case Russian people and their Putin wants even bigger piece of the pie in the future and they need to be stopped again.
Do you happen to know how the leases and loans for the man and women serving under mobilisation in the UA army are treated. Are the payments stopped for the war?
These recent attacks are sickening. I don't see what Putin is trying to accomplish with them, except for making people hate him even more. I think he's trying to provoke a reaction that would use to justify further escalation on his part. The problem is, his only options for further escalation would be full mobilisation or nuclear weapons, and I think both would work out very badly for him. The Russian people wouldn't accept full mobilisation (see how they're reacting to partial mobilisation!), and NATO will definitely step in once nukes are used.
There seems to be no way out for Putin except giving up or this sort of random destruction. He's lashing out like a toddler who can't have something he wants.
Please be safe out there.