xzar_monty

Out of twenty Russian generals who initially took part in the war, ten have now died. Not entirely certain given that one side has an interest in skewing the numbers one way and the other the other, but that appears to be approximately the size of it. Humiliating, in any case, like that fallen match that produced that fire on Moskva.

Who do you reckon would have the potential to do this? I mean, Andorra can't do it but the US can -- who else can?

What's your take on the reasons for this? In my view, the most logical explanation is that Putin, surrounded by yes-men, was told what he wanted to hear, and this skewed his thinking way out of proportion. Combine this with the effects of widespread corruption on equipment and morale, and you get what we've got this far. I mean, the original plan indeed was too unrealistic, by several orders of magnitude, so to speak.

We're not going to know it, but it would be extremely interesting to know how much various people have already been given and what they have also been promised. Mind you, I'm not saying anything about Orban. But here's a good definite example: this guy Kirill. The pope's words won't carry weight in Russia, I'm sure, but it's still nice to see him come across this blunt. Kirill has KGB history going back to 1972, when he used a different name. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/04/europe/pope-francis-patriarch-kirill-ukraine-invasion-intl/index.html

Absolutely, that's what it is. But should you ask Lavrov about it, for instance, there would surely be different justifications, possibly related to the nazis in Sweden or something (I suppose you've seen the campaign going on in Russia). That's what I was referring to (although, admittedly, possibly not clearly enough). What they're enganged in here is criminal, once again. Here, too. But they are likely going to try to justify it in a completely different way, and there will be some who accept that different way.

Apparently Russia is breaching foreign airspace again up in the north, this time in Finland. They've done it in Sweden, too, very recently. Lovely folks. I wonder about the justifications for this, Sweden and Finland being such belligerents, historically. But clearly there will be some, and clearly they will be believed by some.

Ha. I am just now working on something written by a major international star, and it's fascinating to note, once again, how even towards the very end, various names and unnice descriptions get removed from or modified in the manuscript. To avoid potential legal trouble, of course. Having done this for decades, some of it must have rubbed on me. Just in case you wonder why I avoid unpleasantries, you waffling twát.

Touché. (Except I wouldn't say putler.)

If you were alluding to me, I most certainly didn't mean there should be a succession plan as such. What I meant that the whole political scene in Russia is so focused on Putin (no real party system, no opposition, etc., you know it very well) that there is genuine potential for chaos after Putin, unlike in many other countries. As for whether there's a working succession plan like in, say, North Korea, that may indeed be quite possible. I'm contradicting myself by saying this, but I don't think the British tabloids are worth talking about. And yes, Putin's appearance was indeed swift. It is interesting to speculate about whether 1) Russia was in dire need of a commanding figure (which Putin didn't appear to be at first) after the very bad 1990s and Putin sort of just appeared to come along, or 2) Putin manufactured his rise with a guile similar to what he has subsequently showed in power, or 3) a fair amount of both, and other factors, too. But with so many variables, this stuff is likely to remain speculation. Below: interesting historical insight on Russian leadership.

It is indeed rather scary that the question of "What comes after Putin?" is completely in the air. Of course the equivalent question tends to be in the air in most places, but given Putin's dictatorial actions, there doesn't appear to be much else on the whole political landscape, apart from him. So it does look both strange and worrying.

Interesting, thanks for that. Really hadn't seen that one. British politicians are... well, what can you say. Boris Johnson is a marvelous joke in every other sense except in that he's not funny.

The state that the Swedish army was in just a little while ago really beggars belief, considering the country's geographic location. Some heavy naivety going on there, along with the aforementioned attitude of doing business during wartime (and almost certainly some other stuff I'm not too aware of).

Hang on, have we seen this demand? I don't think I have, but then I don't follow everything. This is just to clarify, i.e. whether you intended that as an example of what may happen or a description of what already has.

Nice comparison!

Yep, you're probably quite right on both counts. Good points. Didn't think of GDP myself, but that's a good one.

Mencken was wrong! Also hyperbolic in his word choices, to the point of being silly. Thanks for the response, too. Will be interesting, to say the least, to see how it goes.

Doesn't it look exceedingly likely that Sweden will want to join, though? This is what it looks like from the outside -- obviously I can't speak about the view from the inside. As for past stances: I understand your point, but there is a huge change happening right now.

There most certainly was a lot of this in the response, especially from and within countries who aren't battling Russia for geopolitical dominance. Power politics clearly plays into it as well, now especially, and it's also worthwhile to remember that humanitarian responses and power politics don't rule each other out. Given the vast amount of support that individuals from around the world have contributed in aid to Ukraine, it is heartening to see how much people care: there is an awful lot of good in humanity, sometimes bursting to come out. One interesting thing about Russia's possible mobilization is the timeframe. To put it in more concrete terms: supposing that there is a general mobilization in Russia on or around May 9th, the next question is: when will this have any effect on the frontlines? Not immediately, and not even all that soon.

That's an interesting choice of word, there, "sacrifices". It most certainly would amount to a major defeat. But if we disregard religious meanings, sacrifice would amount to something like "giving up something valuable for the sake of other considerations". What sort of valuable things (for itself) has Russia sacrificed? Certainly not its own soldiers. Ordnance and other equipment, I suppose, yes. I don't think it has exactly "sacrificed" its credibility and reputation, it has simply lost it.

Your comment is extremely funny and tragic because it hits the nail on the head. Russia appears to be running out of options because its strategy and its application has been so awful (while it has admittedly caused an awful lot of damage and carnage in Ukraine). So, it appears likely that it is going to escalate, because it has to. Except that it could just stop. It could have chosen the option not to start in the first place. That was always there. The option to desist is still there. It's extremely simple. But there's no chance of that being taken. If memory serves, Italy attacked somewhere in North Africa sometime in the very early 20th century. It was an idiotic attack and led to an awful lot of Italian deaths. The result of this failure, however, was simply another attack, because so many resources had already been put in the first attack and it would have been simply too painful to admit that all the young soldiers died in vain. The second attack was also a disaster. But because of that very same reason, Italy still couldn't desist. So it attacked for a third time, with equally disastrous results. Only then was it able to stop. Damned if I can remember the details.

Interesting. How do you reckon the situation in Scandinavia / the Nordic countries being different in case A) Finland is in NATO but Sweden is not vs. B) both Finland and Sweden being in NATO? The prevailing view here the north appears to be that situation A is, to put it mildly, not ideal. Sweden is a pain in the ass.

Geopolitics is the main issue, yes. From that vantage point alone, the conflicts are worlds apart. As unfortunate as it is.

Interesting photo from Moscow -- apparently there's a new campaign going on. And it's not silly beyond description, not by any means.

I wouldn't be as cynical as that, although I don't think there's any reason for naivety, either. The US, for instance, has committed to an awful lot of aid. So, my sense is that aid to Ukraine will continue, genuine goodwill shall continue and there will be some rebuilding because of this. How much, of course, is impossible to say. In other news: rumours about Putin's forthcoming cancer operation gather pace to the extent that they are mentioned in reputable newspapers (which, however, point out that they are unconfirmed rumours). Of course we don't know if there's any truth in this. But if there is, it is going to be one heck of an operation, from a political point of view, and from the point of view of a potential -- shall we say -- health risk.

Given the range of nuclear missiles and Sweden's proximity to Russia, there's essentially no way either Sweden or Finland will have nukes. (Of course, there are nukes very close to a NATO border right now, but on the other side, i.e. in Kaliningrad and in the north, close to Norway.) The Baltic countries have been NATO members for quite some time now, and we haven't seen any Russian "little green men" there. We have seen them elsewhere, in neighboring countries not in NATO. This kind of gives you the impression that while there is no respect for NATO in Russia, there is some apprehension -- there is no question that Putin would like to invade all of the Baltic nations if he could.