• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: The Russian invasion of Ukraine part 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13924046#post13924046

In the Russian media there are two types: The pro-war camp, and the very pro-war camp.

People in the west sometimes hear the very pro-war camp predict failure and misread that to mean that this or that person is opposed to the war. This is often wrong, they are instead claiming that Russia will lose unless Russia ramps things up to the Nth degree and really hammers Ukraine (even if Russia has no real ability to do that much anymore). Like MacArthur wanting to use nukes and invade China to win the Korean war.
Click to expand...

A point I made several hundred posts upthread was that, if Putin gets deposed, it's most likely by the ultra-nationalists, which would not be good. People seem to think that, if Putin goes, the replacement regime will be an improvement. Well, that's not guaranteed.

Another mistake people make is that the population is becoming anti-war and they use the mass-exodus of conscription age men as evidence. Well, these people aren't necessarily against the war, only their own participation in it. They know the war is going badly but that doesn't mean they think it's not justified, only that they think it is being prosecuted badly.

What is interesting is that some of the very pro-war people have gone silent or missing over the past few days. This include some of the Russia-side war correspondents (like WarGonzo) and bloggers (Igor Girkin), with rumors that they might be prosecuted. These guys have repeatedly criticized the Russian war effort, but always from the side of complaining that the Russian government is not doing enough to win. They never side with Ukraine, just admit or predict some Ukrainian victories and tie those to appeals to send more Russian troops, supplies, armor and ammo or else the "Ukronazis" will win.
Click to expand...
My speculation is that Putin is concerned about the threat to himself from the more powerful very-pro-war people and is taking steps to eliminate it.

That's an interesting development, one that bears watching (or is "bares watching"? I really don't know.) I don't really know what to make of it.
Click to expand...
bears.
 
jeremyp said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13924046#post13924046



A point I made several hundred posts upthread was that, if Putin gets deposed, it's most likely by the ultra-nationalists, which would not be good. People seem to think that, if Putin goes, the replacement regime will be an improvement. Well, that's not guaranteed.

Another mistake people make is that the population is becoming anti-war and they use the mass-exodus of conscription age men as evidence. Well, these people aren't necessarily against the war, only their own participation in it. They know the war is going badly but that doesn't mean they think it's not justified, only that they think it is being prosecuted badly.


My speculation is that Putin is concerned about the threat to himself from the more powerful very-pro-war people and is taking steps to eliminate it.


bears.
Click to expand...

Girkin has apparently been mobilised.

https://eadaily.com/ru/news/2022/10/15/igor-strelkov-otpravilsya-voevat-dobrovolcem
 
When he gets killed in action it will sadly prevent the relatives of all his many victims seeing him dragged to court for his crimes, including the shooting down of MH17.
 
To poke at something said on the last thread about Musk claiming to be losing money on Starlink in Ukraine, despite Poland, the UK, and the US already paying for most of it, his numbers don't make sense.

If the rates he claims he'll be able to offer Starlink service for generally are correct, Starlink has made at least a small profit off the units sent to Ukraine. If the costs cited in the letter to the Pentagon are correct, then Starlink will not be a viable operation at the rates Musk says he will continue to offer to the rest of the planet.

Most of the units sent to Ukraine are the home units, with plans between $60-150 USD, yet Starlink claims it costs them $4,500 a month each unit.

At least some part of this is nonsense, possibly all of it.
 
To poke at something completely different: I wonder how much of the ongoing Russian collapse in Ukraine is due to "projection" (for lack of a better term).

What I mean is, to what degree does the leadership really believe that western societies and economies industries are on the same basis as their Russian counterparts? The Russian military-industrial complex is profoundly corrupt, and spends most of what little funds it has propping up aspirational mock-ups or prototypes. So maybe they believe the same is true of the western MIC? Maybe they read all those articles trashing the F-35 as a dysfunctional waste of money that isn't even stealthy, and believe it must be true? The read about graft and bribery and cost overruns, and assume our new fighter exists in no greater numbers their new fighter? Etc.

Maybe they even looked at how rampant homosexual hazing is in their army, when they officially oppose homosexuality and try to root it out. Maybe they figured, the NATO armies that actually welcome gays must be ten times more dysfunctional.

Maybe in the same way they didn't realize how far short of their paper strength the Russian army had fallen, they also didn't realize just how far beyond that strength NATO was, even with all its corruption and incompetence and neopronouns. Maybe they figured that Ukraine, having imbibed western degeneracy in the form of NATO "training" for the past eight years, would be even more corrupt and dissolute than the Russian forces coming at them.
 
theprestige said:
... Maybe they even looked at how rampant homosexual hazing is in their army, when they officially oppose homosexuality and try to root it out. Maybe they figured, the NATO armies that actually welcome gays must be ten times more dysfunctional.
Click to expand...

Oh, well, that's not a sex thing. It's just what Western snowflakes would call a team building exercise, you know, toughen them up. It wouldn't be allowed in decadent countries where everyone's terrified to tread on anyone's "rights" which is why they are so weak and Russia stronk.
 
There is no replacement for Putin who would be worse than Putin - simply because no one would have the level of control he has. Any new leader would be paralyzed by infighting.
 
Plus anyone in his inner circle of advisors and gatekeepers probably has a more realistic idea of the situation and of Russia's chances than he does. So even if they harbor the same neofascist, ultranationalist, Greater Russian sentiments, they're going to be more inclined to withdraw, lick their wounds, push a Great Betrayal narrative, and try to make a comeback ten years on. Rather than go out in a tantrumic blaze of nuclear "glory" right now.
 
theprestige said:
......
What I mean is, to what degree does the leadership really believe that western societies and economies industries are on the same basis as their Russian counterparts? The Russian military-industrial complex is profoundly corrupt, and spends most of what little funds it has propping up aspirational mock-ups or prototypes. So maybe they believe the same is true of the western MIC? Maybe they read all those articles trashing the F-35 as a dysfunctional waste of money that isn't even stealthy, and believe it must be true? The read about graft and bribery and cost overruns, and assume our new fighter exists in no greater numbers their new fighter? Etc.
.....
Click to expand...

Answering that question requires knowing how much access Russians have to foreign sources of information. Considering how tightly Putin controls and manipulates the Russian media, what does somebody have to do to see the BBC and CNN, read foreign newspapers, etc.? I wonder if, at the highest levels, seeking alternative sources might be seen as disloyal or worse. And even if you do find out the facts, do you want to try to tell Putin he's wrong?
 
jeremyp said:
A point I made several hundred posts upthread was that, if Putin gets deposed, it's most likely by the ultra-nationalists, which would not be good. People seem to think that, if Putin goes, the replacement regime will be an improvement. Well, that's not guaranteed.
Click to expand...

I think it's very likely (but of course not certain) that in the short term any replacement regime, whether internally `better' or not, will behave better. Not for any moral reasons, but simply because they know the invasion is turning out as a disaster, and it's much easier for a new regime to withdraw without loss of face. (They can explicitly blame Putin for mistakes, or his advisers, or say that the objectives were already achieved a while ago, or whatever. Mostly things that Putin himself could easily have said before the fake referendums, but a new regime can still say them now.)
 
Bob001 said:
Answering that question requires knowing how much access Russians have to foreign sources of information. Considering how tightly Putin controls and manipulates the Russian media, what does somebody have to do to see the BBC and CNN, read foreign newspapers, etc.? I wonder if, at the highest levels, seeking alternative sources might be seen as disloyal or worse. And even if you do find out the facts, do you want to try to tell Putin he's wrong?
Click to expand...


I've read that ordinary Russians can use VPNs to access foreign media. In fact, the government has been running a disinformation campaign to discourage people from using VPNs by falsely claiming that their use exposes one to identity theft.
 
Bob001 said:
Answering that question requires knowing how much access Russians have to foreign sources of information. Considering how tightly Putin controls and manipulates the Russian media, what does somebody have to do to see the BBC and CNN, read foreign newspapers, etc.? I wonder if, at the highest levels, seeking alternative sources might be seen as disloyal or worse. And even if you do find out the facts, do you want to try to tell Putin he's wrong?
Click to expand...

I'm factoring in foreign sources of information. Part of what I'm wondering is if they believe the BBC and CNN are no more than western counterparts to RussiaToday. Simply parroting state propaganda about wunderwaffen that don't really exist.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
When he gets killed in action it will sadly prevent the relatives of all his many victims seeing him dragged to court for his crimes, including the shooting down of MH17.
Click to expand...

Yeah this **** is a dead man walking. I'm a little surprised he didn't commit suicide or fall out of a window. I would like to see him charged in Ukraine and spend the rest of his life in the custody or a country he doesn't think has a right to exist. Putin will have him whacked first.
 
Michel H said:
Your link actually says:

About Igor Girkin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Girkin.
Click to expand...

"Girkin was dismissed in August 2014, after 298 people died when Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down. Dutch prosecutors have charged Girkin and three others for murder,[7][8][9] and issued an international arrest warrant against him.[10] Girkin has admitted "moral responsibility" but denies pushing the button"
 
SpitfireIX said:
I've read that ordinary Russians can use VPNs to access foreign media. In fact, the government has been running a disinformation campaign to discourage people from using VPNs by falsely claiming that their use exposes one to identity theft.
Click to expand...

It's an open question how many ordinary Russians do so, and how many of those that do see western media sources as qualitatively different than their Russian counterparts.
 
The free world cannot accept so-called referendums conducted during war or foreign occupation. Therefore Ukraine does have the right to try to retake Crimea. Unless we start seeing mass demonstrations there in support of the Russian annexation.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
There is no replacement for Putin who would be worse than Putin - simply because no one would have the level of control he has. Any new leader would be paralyzed by infighting.
Click to expand...

The Great Zaganza said:
If Putin is gone, 80+% of the efforts of the Russian State will go into finding and taking his billions.
Click to expand...

Yes to these

Meridian said:
I think it's very likely (but of course not certain) that in the short term any replacement regime, whether internally `better' or not, will behave better. Not for any moral reasons, but simply because they know the invasion is turning out as a disaster, and it's much easier for a new regime to withdraw without loss of face. (They can explicitly blame Putin for mistakes, or his advisers, or say that the objectives were already achieved a while ago, or whatever. Mostly things that Putin himself could easily have said before the fake referendums, but a new regime can still say them now.)
Click to expand...


Also true. Any successor who deposes Putin would want to trash his reputation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom