The narrative started out that Putin is a dog backed into a corner, therefore he is bluffing and won’t actually invade. The story was also that he has the most to lose.
Maybe the premise was correct, but the conclusion hasn’t been proven valid yet.
> ...his only instinct is going to be to double down and to try and ‘Grozny-fy’ Kyiv, if you know what I mean. And to reduce it to [rubble]
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/mar/01/uk-pol...
Add to that miscommunication within all sectors of government just to please your superiors and that's how you arrive at the, sorry, shit tier decision making surrounding this entire war.
Anyone with half a brain should have seen the economic and geopolitical disaster resulting from this. And I firmly believe that many in military, intelligence, economy etc. DID SEE IT. But talking about it was never accepted and harshly punished. This war has ended Russia as we know it and will make it just another vassal of China.
It's interesting and terrifying to observe the new fascist "Z" propaganda being pushed by Putin as well...
1. He incorrectly assumed that he'd only be facing minor sanctions for starting a war of aggression. Given how many other countries have waged wars of aggression in the past few decades, this wasn't an insane assumption... given the information he had at the time.
2. He incorrectly assumed that Ukraine would fold in less than a week. Given how the first day of the invasion looked like the Russian army was driving westwards until there wasn't any gas in the tank, this wasn't an insane assumption... given the information he had at the time.
3. There is no 3, those were the two major contributors to the shit sandwich he's now serving to both Ukraine and Russia. All the crazy shit he says about eight-hundred year old history and nazis and so on and so forth isn't what he actually believes, it's intended for internal Russian media consumption.
So no, from the perspective of someone playing at empire-building, starting this war was only 'irrational' for him with the benefit of hind-sight.
Russia's biggest source of income is their export of gas and oil. These are not sanctioned, the West is buying as much as ever and the profits are flowing straight into Putin's war chest.
> 2. He incorrectly assumed that Ukraine would fold in less than a week.
How do you know this? Russia has fought wars before, e.g. in Chechnya. They eventually won after bombing the whole country to ruins, but it took several years.
They sort of ended up sanctioned. You're right, there's nothing official, but no unconstrained buyer wants to touch energy exports from Russia.
Russia is struggling to sell its oil to unconstrained buyers [1]. Sure, Europe, in winter, with no ready alternative, is still buying, but that's about it it seems.
Also, while it's true global oil prices are sky-high, the rise in Russian oil is far more muted. Basically, there are many kinds of oil sold around the world (Brent, WTI, and many more). They usually move largely in lock step, as to a reasonable extent you can substitute one for another. But recently Urals is sold at a massive discount - because no one wants to touch it.
> How do you know this?
There are plenty of soft indications. Troops only given rations for 72-odd hours. Attempts at airborne strikes that are very rapid, but doomed to fail terribly with any but minimal resistance. Reports of Russia looking to "source" new troops - from Russian reserves, and Syrian, hmm, volunteers? All suggests the current length of the war exceeds plan A and plan B.
Of course Russia might still win a long, hard slog of a war, by bombing everything that moves...
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-has-not-sanctione... [2] https://www.neste.com/investors/market-data/urals-brent-pric...
Getting paid dollars for oil and gas doesn't do you much good when you can't spend those dollars on anything. Imports into Russia have stopped over the past week.
> How do you know this?
The propaganda leading up to the 'Minor peacekeeping action in the Donbass' certainly didn't sound like he was getting everyone ready for a forever-war.
> e.g. in Chechnya
To most Russians - even the warhawks, the war in Chechnya (much like the Winter War of 1939) was seen as a debacle and an utter embarrassment.
I mean, it's entirely possible that the war will end this week, and my second point is moot. But it's looking like it's quite possible that it won't.
This is the only type of rationality. What are you imagining when you say "objectively rational"?
> Most economic models need to stop assuming that the typical actor is rational.
Being rational as defined by your personal ideology is what economic models postulate when they assume rationality.
I really disagree. For starters, I would put "not tank your economy into the stone age" firmly into the objectively rational category of thinking. How can this war ever be "worth it" for Putin? Ukrainians will never accept the occupation force and RUSSIA DOESNT EVEN HAVE ONE to begin with. They cannot at all maintain an occupation in the Ukraine. Incapable.
This was a spear-head blitzkrieg operation aimed at replacing Selenskij within a week that was poorly planned and immediately failed and now they are completely and utterly screwed. Putin made this decision based off bad information fed to him - a downside when suppressing your subordinates, keeping bootlickers around and punishing differing opinions.
The objective results are going to be really difficult for Russia at best if not outright destructive. And it was all voluntary.
No idea why he thought any of that was worth the risk...
You're assuming an occupation of all of Ukraine is the endgame.
Especially since he has kids, he'll be leaving them an extra bad legacy, even in his own country.
You might not think it’s rational but it’s fairly common. Saying it’s irrational is explaining away pretty common behaviour with “they aren’t like me so they’re idiots”.
Except it’s more your own empathy that’s lacking for understanding another perspective.
> The seven characteristics of life include:
> responsiveness to the environment;
> growth and change;
> <<ability to reproduce;>>
> have a metabolism and breathe;
> maintain homeostasis;
> being made of cells; and.
> <<passing traits onto offspring.>>
Putin is defective, he's making the lives of his own kids harder.
I mean, I don't even need to say he's defective, it's obvious. He's a narcissist.
There can be no empathy for autocrat narcissists. They don't have any and they don't deserve any.
Plus, the former head of Mi6 warned not to try and corner Putin, since if he were to be personally severely threatened, he wouldn't hesitate to turn to using nuclear weapons and take the whole world down with him if he were to ever be ousted form power by the west.
Never gonna happen because:
1) The majority of the Russian population is still supportive of him, thinking they're fighting to liberate Ukraine from nazis and that the western sanctions are in place because the west hates them, rather than consequences for their leaders' war crimes
2) Like the former head of Mi6 said, Putin is so mad that if threatened, he's more likely to be ok with seeing the whole world get nuked, instead of going down like Gaddafi did, which is why the west is going so soft on him.
That's ok. Putin doesn't have a big red button, he actually needs a lot of people to be ok with committing a suicide, and it is likely they won't.
And nuked world might be better than world in which Russian can do what it wants.
And the humanitarian corridors Russia recently designated lead to Belarus and Russia, which is not where the people want to be. The Russian effort to "help the civilians" are just deeply cynical PR and misdirection.
They are. I think the count is up to two million or something.
> Russia is obviously going to win.
That's not so obvious. For instance: the US failed to win against much weaker opponents than the Ukrainians.
> The logical thing to do is to leave, suffer but be sure that your kids will have it better. But I reckon this isn't about logic?
Or it is about logic, but your "logic" is too shallow of an analysis.
Those were opponents in a tribalistic society practicing guerilla warfare hiding across deserts spreading thousands of miles.
Ukraine is a developed country with infrastructure that's well documented and known by their enemy. If they take out their vital infrastructure like hospitals, water, power, schools, they're done for. When their cities are reduced to rubble from the shelling, there will be nothing left fighting for, as you can't live and raise kids in wasteland that's been reduced to rubble.
> Ukraine is a developed country with infrastructure that's well documented and known by their enemy.
A developed country is 1 bombing campaign away from becoming a tribalistic society practicing guerilla warfare...
Ukraine is a huge country, cities are a great environment for insurgents. I'd be surprised if that wasn't an option Ukraine's planning. That they didn't have to resort to that kind of warfare yet is quite surprising if you ask me.
We’re not talking about fighting only. There has to be a local support for guerilla to eat and sleep. That might work in primarily agricultural countriside but not in cities built around industry.
Another, if somewhat less successful, urban insurgent group is the IRA. The Troubles were almost exclusively urban fighting.
Ukrainians have very good weapons from the West and are getting more. Putin can't hold such a huge country against them.
Destroyed infrastructure works against the occupiers, too. Sometimes even more, because the locals have some local knowledge, e.g. which water sources deep in the forest are safe to drink.
The Marshall plan types work when there is guaranteed political and economical stability in the countries where there are implemented, and it worked in destroyed countries like West Germany and Japan because those countries had guaranteed stability and protection from internal and external threats post-WW2 by the US military bases hosted in those countries which made Marshall plan investments very safe bets that they would be paid off.
Not NATO, nor the US military is willing to protect Ukraine and go to war with Russia to guarantee Ukraine's political and economical stability, and as long as Russia can steamroll Ukraine whenever they feel like it, no bank or country will make any significant investments in Ukraine.
They don't seem to be pulling it off now. Their capabilites will only degrade once the sanctions bite fully.
I'd like Ukraine to win, but if you listen to the former head of Mi6 and US military experts, they don't give Ukraine much chance of actually winning, as they're severely outgunned and outnumbered vs Russia, despite aid from the west. Despite taking heavy losses, Russia's use of tried and tested WW2 style of encircle the big cities and slowly pummle them into submission with artilerie, and endless cannon fodder plus ruthless trained killers form Chechnya, seems to be working for them slowly but surely.
And the sanctions are mostly affecting the average Russian who can't buy iPhones, Ikea furniture anymore or use Paypal, but it has no effect on Putin's war machine or on his grasp of political power in Russia. Banned western goods will still come into Russia through Serbia and Kazakhstan anyway, as they're not sanctioned countries and have liberal trade policies with Russia.
At this point, they are losing equipment much faster than they can produce new one, no one can churn out a dozen new military helicopters in 2 weeks. This alone will be a major source of attrition. Meanwhile, the Ukrainians are getting very efficient weapons from the West and they are being replenished constantly. If Russia could have prevented the inflow, they would have done so.
Sieges of big cities are a messy, protracted affair that may take years (see: Sarajevo, Leningrad). They consume enormous resources - e.g. Leningrad was besieged by 750 000 Germans. Russia isn't capable of supplying a much smaller task force right now.
What makes you think that they could mobilize "endless cannon fodder" (e.g. five million men or so), equip them with something more efficient than AK-47s, throw them into the theater and supply them with fuel, ammo and food if they are struggling to supply a mere 180 000?
Some people say that Russians are holding back and preparing winning push.
Some people say the Russians will just try to hold what they gained so far (which is few minor cities, despite maps colored red) and try to achieve their objectives in negotiations.
Hard to say what will happen.
If you analyze the actual situation, they're stalling there for good reason, nor because they can't go further. They're setting up permanent bases there so they can resupply easier, setup a field hospital and a service center for vehicle repairs. It will make next offensive much more efective, in theory.
Both of those things can be true at the same time.
In the case of Palestinians especially, finding easy citizenship elsewhere is not simple.
To the point you're making though, I don't think it's so straightforward in all cases. If you're not well off and your life is being completely uprooted either way, it's a much more complex calculus than just, say, going to Poland.
The men are staying and fighting. The men who were in our country have gone back to fight.
Fuck Putin
https://visitukraine.today/de/blog/102/exceptions-when-a-man...
It's not. It's going to be a repeat of Afghanistan for them.
> The logical thing to do is to leave
That's logical only for a coward. Many people won't give in to a bully, especially when they're winning. (Independent sources are saying 5800 dead orcs on 3 March. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukrai... )
please, grow up, this is an actual human war we're trying to discuss. live in reality. there's no orcs and hobbits and wizards here.
i can only stomach about 30 seconds of reading the comments section on reddit before running into mindless stuff like this.
No, they are simply under permanent military occupation, with no end in sight, no path to enfranchisement. At best, they are living in an apartheid state. At worst, they had a war declared on them, and they aren't even permitted to surrender.
If some third party invaded the United States, and kettled Americans to live in isolated enclaves and ghettos, with no freedom of movement, national sovereignty, or pathway to assimilation into the occupier's new nation, that occupier might be subject to the occasional rock and rocket attack, too.
Most of them are living much much better than in any neighbor country.
Most do not have that right, despite being born there, and having no other home country.
That some of them are enfranchised is a fig leaf over an apartheid state.
The rhetorical sleight-of-hand that you are obscuring is that most Arabs living in Israel are not, and will never be allowed to become Israeli citizens. This is despite both being born, and living on a territory that is very clearly under the military control of the Knesset.
It's either an indeterminate military occupation, or its apartheid. I don't care what you want to call it, but you have to pick one or the other, because in 2022, Palestine simply does not exist as a free, sovereign nation. It's either a civil territory of Israel, or occupied by Israel.
To this day I don't know where I stand in this conflict, since I understand many of the subtleties of the conflict.
But that part is clear, Palestine <<is>> under attack.
Israely is knowingly "salamy tactic-ing" Palestine. They're slowly chipping away at their regions. They're destroying Palestine through administrative abuse.
It's like slowly being crushed by one of those car compactors.
I have no idea what the correct reactions in this situation is.
https://www.jns.org/eu-unpublished-report-finds-palestinian-...
I'm just saying that if you were a member of a population that's being squeezed out of their land, day by day, in a country that at best, if you try to integrate, treats you like a second hand citizen, you can't say for sure what your reaction would be.
You could try to pretend it would be a peaceful reaction, but you can't say for sure. Nobody can.
"squeezed out of their land". The Hamas got untouched territory. They could have build a paradise there. Nobody wants this part of the land. So again why send rockets? There is simple no reason - only to stay in power and get the donations.
Just building settlements. So providing homes for people does't justify rockets and violence in my opinion. Settlements can be removed later if it is unacceptable for a Palestinian state to have some jew's
And the Palestinian government like <<any>> sovereign state on this planet, is allowed to decide who builds what where.
Again, salami tactics. Brilliant strategy, but awful from a humanitarian point of view. How to strangle another country, kill it by a thousand paper cuts.
Sheikh Jarrah is only one of many cases.
> Just building settlements
That's a very weird way of putting it. Illegal settlements, in lands that don't belong to Israel, so it's not up to Israel to decide what to do with it. It's obviously a population displacement tactic - then there'd be Jews there, Israel can claim the lands, and if Palestine does decide to remove them, Israel will cry genocide and step in.
Hamas use terrorist tactics and are a terrorist organisation. That doesn't in any way change the apartheid-like regime Palestine is under, and the unfairness of all the terrible treatment Palestinians suffer at the hands of Israel. And Hamas' tactics are understandable ( but unsupportable) - what are they to do to fight against Israeli atrocities, expulsions, blockade, apartheid? Submit and accept living in ghettos ? You can't blame them for making a different choice.
But this is still a very impoverished part of the world. Income per capita is ~$2k / yr.
So, most simply don't have the means to leave. I think most are counting on being able to just stay out of the way and waiting for this to "blow over".