Continuation of thread from here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13924509#post13924509 as ever feel free to refer to previous thread etc (as long as it is on topic!!).
Posted By: Darat
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.
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.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.
bears.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.
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.
Your link actually says:Girkin has apparently been mobilised.
https://eadaily.com/ru/news/2022/10/15/igor-strelkov-otpravilsya-voevat-dobrovolcem
About Igor Girkin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Girkin.The former Minister of Defense of the DPR, a retired FSB colonel, 51-year-old Igor Strelkov (Girkin), went to fight as part of one of the volunteer units.
... 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.
......
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.
.....
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
If Putin is gone, 80+% of the efforts of the Russian State will go into finding and taking his billions.
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.)
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.
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.
News stories about Russia are stating that the head of Wagner is working on ousting the defense minister. Okay, what happens after that?
If Utkin can put a puppet in the job, he can control the Russian defense ministry. But he will have somebody else in place to take the fall when things don't get better.
If Utkin takes the job himself, things still won't improve since the fundamental problems are outside of the minster's control. When he cannot fix the problems, he will be in trouble. Easiest way to not end up on the wrong side of Putin is to make sure Putin is not a threat. And the guy has his own army.
Wagner group probably will at some point be seen as a threat to Putin anyway. Just a question of how fast that happens. Did these people ever read "The Prince"? Machiavelli had a lot to say about mercenaries and it isn't positive.
News stories about Russia are stating that the head of Wagner is working on ousting the defense minister. Okay, what happens after that?
If Utkin can put a puppet in the job, he can control the Russian defense ministry. But he will have somebody else in place to take the fall when things don't get better.
If Utkin takes the job himself, things still won't improve since the fundamental problems are outside of the minster's control. When he cannot fix the problems, he will be in trouble. Easiest way to not end up on the wrong side of Putin is to make sure Putin is not a threat. And the guy has his own army.
Wagner group probably will at some point be seen as a threat to Putin anyway. Just a question of how fast that happens. Did these people ever read "The Prince"? Machiavelli had a lot to say about mercenaries and it isn't positive.
Wagner aren't really conventional mercenaries, more like a deniable arm of the Kremlin.
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.
That just makes them sound like the Pretorian guard. Same ending is likely.
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.
If Putin is gone, 80+% of the efforts of the Russian State will go into finding and taking his billions.
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.)
Denys Davydov characterised it as a dispute between Muslims conscripts and Christian conscripts.The mutiny continues.
I'd say they could, if they had an internet connection and knew languages other than Russian. For the masses outside the big cities both are doubtful.
I really hope you are all correct, but I'm not as optimistic.
An ultra nationalist successor to Putin may decide to end the war by levelling Ukraine with tactical nukes. That wouldn't be a rational thing to do, but it would have the support of a lot of Russians and rationality, even now, is not something that Russia seems to do.
To me, all your arguments seem to be rationalising what you want to happen. I'm not saying that they are necessarily wrong (except the one about spending 80% of their effort tracking down Putin's money - that is ridiculous), I'm just saying the evidence for them is only as good as the evidence for the worst case scenario
I read they were from a minority ex USSR country, so the type of people Putin wants to die for Russia but aren't worth any respect.Denys Davydov characterised it as a dispute between Muslims conscripts and Christian conscripts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsJ5bzt47r0
It sounds credible but, whilst checking for this post, I couldn't find any sources to back up the assertion.
I really hope you are all correct, but I'm not as optimistic.
An ultra nationalist successor to Putin may decide to end the war by levelling Ukraine with tactical nukes. That wouldn't be a rational thing to do, but it would have the support of a lot of Russians and rationality, even now, is not something that Russia seems to do.
To me, all your arguments seem to be rationalising what you want to happen. I'm not saying that they are necessarily wrong (except the one about spending 80% of their effort tracking down Putin's money - that is ridiculous), I'm just saying the evidence for them is only as good as the evidence for the worst case scenario
I really hope you are all correct, but I'm not as optimistic.
An ultra nationalist successor to Putin may decide to end the war by levelling Ukraine with tactical nukes. That wouldn't be a rational thing to do, but it would have the support of a lot of Russians and rationality, even now, is not something that Russia seems to do.
To me, all your arguments seem to be rationalising what you want to happen. I'm not saying that they are necessarily wrong (except the one about spending 80% of their effort tracking down Putin's money - that is ridiculous), I'm just saying the evidence for them is only as good as the evidence for the worst case scenario