Yep, so much for Russia’s stocks being depleted
Following the 2014 invasion sanctions weren't as strong and several western countries supplied Russia with tech, e.g. tank sighting systems, drone engines, etc.
In 2022 sanctions are a lot stronger but western money has been getting through legally from the beginning to pay for Russian energy.
Iran and N.Korea have mutually evaded sanctions for years, e.g. N.Korea getting Iranian fuel in exchange for weapons. Russia has joined this arrangement and has a land border with N.Korea meaning that it's very difficult to prevent trade.
Widely reported US intel this week suggests that Russia is offering unsold (because of sanctions) Sukhoi SU35 Flanker-E aircraft in another exchange.
It's perhaps notable that the trade involves swaps rather than cash, which indicates that sanctions are working financially.
Not sure whether this is overly optimistic or asking for trouble as it could be worse
It's the nature of war. Until life has returned to normality there is no peace. A moment of victory etc is just that to keep the spirit up but this is no short war. The slow grind will affect all involved until one breaks. Russia knows if they break that will be the end of Russia.
That appears to have little or no relevance to what I posted
That appears to have little or no relevance to what I posted
I scrolled down to the rest of that link and there seem to be plenty of "celebration" of success.
Not sure if you are referring to the first post on that link related to the swans (not sure how that link works in tweeter tbh).
piemonster
Full Member
That appears to have little or no relevance to what I posted
And what you posted seems to have no relevance to this thread either! Or if it does, it's gone right over my head...
Apologies Vlad, just assumed people knew what it meant. PJM has done what I should have.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
Christo is normally a pretty astute observer. Mind you, could just be a photo of some black Swans.
A Black Swan event.
I see. Interesting.
But this is war not financial risk?
Or are you referring to this?
The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable
"A central idea in Taleb's book is not to attempt to predict Black Swan events, but to build robustness to negative events and an ability to exploit positive events. "Robustness" reflects an attitude where nothing is permitted to fail under conditions of change.[3] Taleb contends that banks and trading firms are vulnerable to hazardous Black Swan events and are exposed to losses beyond those predicted by their defective financial models.
The book asserts that a "Black Swan" event depends on the observer: for example, what may be a Black Swan surprise for a turkey is not a Black Swan surprise for its butcher. Hence the objective should be to "avoid being the turkey", by identifying areas of vulnerability in order to "turn the Black Swans white"."
Christo is normally a pretty astute observer. Mind you, could just be a photo of some black Swans.
Yes, some explanation to clarify would help otherwise nobody knows what you are referring to. Some of our reference points are different.
So the er Belaruse shooting down of a Ukrainian missile in their territory? The false flag Belaruse/Putin needs?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theoryChristo is normally a pretty astute observer. Mind you, could just be a photo of some black Swans.
From the reference.
Interesting this.
According to Taleb, thinkers who came before him who dealt with the notion of the improbable (such as Hume, Mill, and Popper) focused on the problem of induction in logic, specifically, that of drawing general conclusions from specific observations.[16] The central and unique attribute of Taleb's black swan event is that it is high-profile. His claim is that almost all consequential events in history come from the unexpected – yet humans later convince themselves that these events are explainable in hindsight.[citation needed]
So how do you apply his theory or arguments to Ukraine/Russia war?
We all know that decision biases affected the Bay of Pigs (failed "invasion" - example), but how do you apply Taleb views in this case?
Can anyone explain what the black swan and the plane are all about?
Christo Grozev has been involved with Bellingcat for some time and received an award for his work in unmasking the Skripal poisoning suspects. I note that his cryptic tweet shows not one but three black swans.
Grozev is apparently on a "wanted list" according to the Russian Interior Ministry, the Russian ambassador to Bulgaria (Grozev's home country) has apparently been summoned to explain why.
I'm at home with covid and didn't really sleep last night, so someone needs to spell it out for me lol
Can anyone explain what the black swan and the plane are all about?
I think piemonster has confused more than just me with this Black Swan metaphor!
I get that a black swan even is something that seems inconsequential at the time, but with hindsight is discovered to have monumental consequences (thanks for the explaining link piemonster!) but I'm not understanding how that is relevant to a plane taking off and landing in Moscow?
I think piemonster has confused more than just me with this Black Swan metaphor!
I am trying to figure out if piemonster is referring to the unpredictability of the events or something else?
If it is about decision biases then that need to be clarified. Good theory mind.
Slight divergence
According to Taleb, thinkers who came before him who dealt with the notion of the improbable (such as Hume, Mill, and Popper) focused on the problem of induction in logic, specifically, that of drawing general conclusions from specific observations.
So is he viewing or advocating it from deductive reasoning?
Beyond this, Taleb emphasizes that many events simply are without precedent, undercutting the basis of this type of reasoning altogether.[citation needed]
Taleb also argues for the use of counterfactual reasoning when considering risk.[10]: p. xvii [23
Surely he knows that inductive reasoning is generally, "most of the time", referred to specific unique
individual cases where no two events are the same? No? Yes?
Christo Grozev has been involved with Bellingcat for some time and received an award for his work in unmasking the Skripal poisoning suspects. I note that his cryptic tweet shows not one but three black swans.
Ok, sort of. But still don't really get it to be honest. I appreciate that at this point I'm prob just being annoying due to my lack of background knowledge on the subject! No idea who Christo Grosev, Bellingcat or the Skripal poisoning suspects are....
Bellingcat's investigative journalism traced the suspects of the Salisbury poisoning incident and unearthed evidence that the suspects were acting on the orders of the GRU. Christo Grozev is the lead Russia investigator at Bellingcat.
Ok, I've scrolled through the comments below the tweet and even though everyone's doing that dick waving 'I know thing you don't' information gatekeeper bullshit, it looks like the general gist of it is that Putin may have been deposed, or some other situation defining event
Bellingcat’s investigative journalism traced the suspects of the Salisbury poisoning incident and unearthed evidence that the suspects were acting on the orders of the GRU. Christo Grozev is the lead Russia investigator at Bellingcat
Ah, ok, thanks!
The inference I took as one possibility, is that his observations suggests an unexpected and dramatic event is increasing in probability. (Unless it’s just a picture of some swans)
At some point, the politics of somewhere that matters WILL change, and that change will lead to some sort of peace, even if temporary. It might be sudden, it might be gradual. It might be soon, or years away (I’m still guessing years)
No idea who Christo Grosev, Bellingcat or the Skripal poisoning suspects are….
Bellingcat and Grozev, this should help
https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/how-bellingcat-unmasked-putins-assassins
Both involved with https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navalny_(film)
Which is worth a watch, although Navalny gets painted in a better light than I think he should.
Skripal, surname of Sergei and Yulia, you’ll better recognise this as the Salisbury poisonings.
Which is worth a watch, although Navalny gets painted in a better light than I think he should.
I heard this was good! I keep meaning to watch it!!
Skripal, surname of Sergei and Yulia, you’ll better recognise this as the Salisbury poisonings.
Ah, yep, thanks! 😀
The inference I took as one possibility, is that his observations suggests an unexpected and dramatic event is increasing in probability. (Unless it’s just a picture of some swans)
At some point, the politics of somewhere that matters WILL change, and that change will lead to some sort of peace, even if temporary. It might be sudden, it might be gradual. It might be soon, or years away (I’m still guessing years)
I see. Thank you for clarifying. That sounds logical in relation to the Black Swans theory.
I shall need to read a bit more onto Taleb "inductive" argument logic because that sounds interesting.
reports of yet more missles being fired.
As long as they are lobbing them at civilian targets and infrastructure that's fewer left to use against military targets,
As long as they are lobbing them at civilian targets and infrastructure that’s fewer left to use against military targets,
I think you have your priorities wrong there, slowoldman! (Or your choice of phrase is clumsy...)
I think you have your priorities wrong there, slowoldman! (Or your choice of phrase is clumsy…)
I'm pretty sure there was a tongue very firmly in cheek there tbh
I'm pointing out that the current Russian tactic is militarily somewhat naive. They are eating valuable resources which they ought to be using to attack the Ukrainian forces. I don't say this as support for attacking civilians, merely commenting on the rather strange priority of targets. There have been many cases of mass attacks on civilian populations in previous conflicts and they are generally, after the event, considered to have had little military impact.
Of course I would prefer if Russian forces would just sod off back to their own country and not attack anyone - military or civilian.
If I remember correctly, Taleb also defined a 'Black swan event as an unknown unknown.
As someone mentioned earlier, wether an event is a black swan or not depends very much on the observer. I think for Putin the black swan is Zelinsky. Putin had no conception of how Zelinsky had transformed the body politic in Ukraine. Putin couldn't see what had happened on the ground there, instead he chose to listen to his advisors, who told him that Ukraine was as divided as ever. (and of course, siphoned off funds).
On the counterfactual note; what would have happened had Russia invaded 4 years ago?, when the political divisions were more pronounced before Zelinsky's election to president Certainly he would have found it easier then than now?
Did he hold off invading whilst Trump was in power? Seeing as the orange one was doing his best to do Putin's work for him by undermining NATO and withholding aid to Ukraine?
I’m pointing out that the current Russian tactic is militarily somewhat naive.
But politically astute? The bigger picture is pressurizing "the West" to stop supplying arms to Ukraine surely?
Also (and I admit I don't know the answer to this...), are the Ukrainian forces/infrastructure more heavily protected by surface-to-air missiles? And, presumably, there are a lot more undefended civilian targets to choose from...
The US did promise some Patriot missile battery to UKAF when Zalensky ws over at Chrimbo seeing Biden . I doubt they are in country yet , or have the personel trained to operate them ready to go But then I would not be surprised if some people qualifed to use them just happened to be knocking around near some Ukraininan Power Plants
Glad I'm not the only one that didn't make the link between some swans and a plot of a plane returning to an airport!😁
But politically astute?
I know what you mean, but it seems to be having the opposite effect tbh- of anything it is lowering everyone's trust in Russia and increasing their resolve to defeat them
And, presumably, there are a lot more undefended civilian targets to choose from…
This is prob closer to the truth imo- just going for the easy targets. They've had poor strategy since the start, and I can't see any sign of it changing yet
I can't see Putin bombing the hell out of civilian targets as anything other than weakness (and barbarism obviously.)
It's not going to make western countries stop arming Ukraine and it sure as hell isn't going to make the average Ukrainian feel anything other than complete hatred for anything Russian for at least a generation.
Putin is showing barbaric desperation in the hope it's perceived as strength. It wasn't long ago he was threatening global nuclear conflict, now he's using grey import drones to hit power stations. Hardly the escalation the world feared, as shit as it obviously is for Ukrainians.
I can’t see Putin bombing the hell out of civilian targets as anything other than weakness (and barbarism obviously.)
<Chewkw>That's also a "Western" tactic* so does that makes "us" barbarian as well</Chewkw>
* See Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, Iraq etc etc
The inference I took as one possibility, is that his observations suggests an unexpected and dramatic event is increasing in probability.
More than one perhaps.
If I remember correctly, Taleb also defined a ‘Black swan event as an unknown unknown.
Russia's invasion plan relied upon their forces conquering Kyiv within three days.
My take is the "Black Swan" is a massive civil war currently happening within the Oligarchs, which is why there are so many accidental deaths. One outcome is Putin being replaced. Although the thought of who replaces him is equally terrifying. Wagner guy Prigozhin or Chechnyan Kadyrov?
@slowoldman I agree the missile attacks dont make any sense. The Russians launch these attacks and then sit back for a few days, and let the Ukrainians make repairs. This attack cost them $500m in missiles, of which they havent got many left. Meanwhile it has no affect on the front lines where they are still being slaughtered. Its just political.
<Chewkw>That’s also a “Western” tactic* so does that makes “us” barbarian as well</Chewkw>
* See Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, Iraq etc etc
Yes, when civilians are targeted. But that narrative only happened during peace time or after a victor is confirmed and usually it is too late because people are already dead.
Besides, the victor(s) set the rules and the dead is dead. Barbarians/heroes are seen as the saviour for the good at the cost of the dead.
"Russia’s invasion plan relied upon their forces conquering Kyiv within three days."
Based on dodgy information, namely that there was far greater support amongst Ukraine's Russian speaking population for the 'mother' country than was actually the case.
A few years earlier Ukraine was much more divided, far fight parties had a greater presence in government and institutions and the Russian speaking population hadn't yet seen how the Russian occupation of Crimea was turning Crimea into a police state / arms dump.They still harboured notions of Russia bringing investment and better days (Crimea being amongst the more deprived Ukranian regions).
Zelinsky managed to find the middle ground and began to bring the country together but Putin didn't realise.
The Patriot isn’t the right solution to the problem of drone attacks in Ukraine. It’s like using a Tomahawk in place of a grenade. It’s too expensive. They’d be far better using a land version of the Phalanx or the RIM SM3. These are smaller cheaper and are more appropriate for drones and non-ballistic missiles.
Interestingly, if you search for Christo Grosev under 'people' in Twitter it comes up as a blank now (it managed to find him when I searched earlier)
Swan Lake, innit? Tchaikovsky is very symbolic in Russia where Taleb is somewhat less so
The White Swan and her lover died to give the other swans their freedom. This led to the evil sorcerer, Rothbart, losing his power and dying (Swan Lake plot in an eggshell)
Swan Lake has had several endings in its 135 year history, romantic, tragic and now possibly a third ending?
In March when TV Rain was closed down in Russia they transmitted Swan Lake. It's also been transmitted when Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko had died
Did he hold off invading whilst Trump was in power? Seeing as the orange one was doing his best to do Putin’s work for him by undermining NATO and withholding aid to Ukraine?
I doubt that this would have stopped Russia's invasion had it been planned for 2020
Trump actually strengthened NATO by pointing out that very few members were contributing as agreed
Trump withheld aid because he was trying get dirt on Joe Biden. Trump also offered other inducements to secure President Zelenskyy's co-operation on this and allegations around Trump's 2016 election as president.
A CIA whistle-blower stepped up as a result
Based on dodgy information, namely that there was far greater support amongst Ukraine’s Russian speaking population for the ‘mother’ country than was actually the case.
Not helped by weak sanctions in 2014 where western countries continued to supply military tech to Russia and buy their gas and oil, continued with NordStream 2, had Russian sympathisers high up in EU countries, etc.
Russia took Crimea with literally a handful of fatalities. Where was the discouragement?
Trump actually strengthened NATO by pointing out that very few members were contributing as agreed
Trump was very damaging to NATO, for some reason he took it upon himself to undermine it (and many other vital international treaties and institutions) to the point that it is very likely one of the contributing factors to the Ukraine war
Trump was very damaging to NATO, for some reason he took it upon himself to undermine it
We've had this exchange before. Please evidence it, in the meantime I'll leave this link...
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_170796.htm
PS I'm not in any way associated with/support Donald Trump
I’m pointing out that the current Russian tactic is militarily somewhat naive. They are eating valuable resources which they ought to be using to attack the Ukrainian forces.
I think Putin believes that attacking civilian targets will demoralize the Ukrainians and they will turn against their government. Putin is badly isolated and his advisors just tell him what he wants to hear. He has badly misjudged pretty much everything about this war and is deluded if he thinks Ukraine is going to capitulate, or that NATO can force them to.
The problem for the Russians is that they lack large stocks of modern precision guided weapons so they can't strike military targets effectively. The missiles they are using are only accurate enough to strike large, immobile targets, which pretty much limits them to civilian infrastructure. Quite likely, the military leaders are terrified of being blamed for failure so they are desperately firing off whatever missiles they have so they can present reports to Putin listing targets destroyed. They will know that the targets have no military value but they don't care, they just need to show that they are blowing stuff up to save their own necks.
In reverse order, "Trump likes to take credit for increased spending by other NATO countries — which have upped their spending on defense by $40 billion, or 15%, from 2016 to 2019 — but he’s wrong to claim spending was “heading down” before he took office." Fact Check.org
"At the end of his tenure, however, the US president had neither withdrawn membership nor substantially undermined the alliance from within." Oxford Academic International Affairs
"Trump boasts he told Nato members he wouldn’t protect them from Russia" Independent (paywalled)
"Trump discussed pulling US from NATO" NYT, also paywalled
"“We have a unique opportunity to open a new chapter in the relationship between North America and Europe.” But will NATO’s leaders take it?" Economist 2021, also paywalled
"As a candidate in 2016, he growled that only those allies keeping a political pledge to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence—“paying their bills” as he put it—should count on America coming to their aid" Economist 2017, also paywalled
He liked to publicly boast and stretch the truth, but none of that shows that he was "was very damaging to NATO" and both the NATO and Oxford links specifically refute that.
EDIT: I've just spotted a load more links, I'll pass on any more, thanks 🙂
Well you did ask! ☺
But also, quite off topic.
timba,
I don't think it's as either or as you describe.
Did Trump's actions lead to European countries upping their defence spending?... Yes.
Did Trump's rhetoric and general stance towards NATO encourage Putin?.. Yes.
On the Taleb theme, it is dangerous to look for too much cause and effect, outcomes and intentions are different things but rash actions can and often do lead to random consequences.
Like your Swan Lake analogy though!
I see another Russian has died, with no explanation given…
@shermer75 - I have to say I’m surprised you don’t know about the Skripals and the Salisbury poisonings, because the entire centre of the city was completely closed down, and it was a major news story for ages, and an excellent tv drama was made about it.
There were also lots of news reports about the two GRU agents and the way they were tracked to and from Moscow, along with references to ¿Bellingcat, who I wasn’t familiar with at the time.
It was of particular interest to me, because of my connection to Salisbury through my late partner, and we were in the city at one point while it was all happening.
This is a fairly ominous article about who might replace Vlad should he suddenly discover a penchant for short, sharp flights from 4th floor windows..
Better the devil you know??
I haven't read that article, but I suspect it's similar to other analyses that I've seen. The idea that Putin will be overthrown and replaced by a liberal democrat who tries to reintegrate Russia into the international system is a Western fantasy. Anyone with a powerbase within Russia is a hard-right nationalist, the crazy clips you see from Russian tv are those people positioning themselves as being tougher than their rivals for power. They don't believe most of the stuff they say, but they know that the only way to survive is to be a more strident nationalist than everyone else. So, whoever takes over from Putin will have succeeded by being an extremist, not a moderate. They will struggle to adopt more moderate positions because there will be a crowd of rivals looking for any opening to make their own move. Signing a peace treaty with Ukraine will be political suicide for any Russian leader for the next few decades.
I don’t think it’s as either or as you describe.
Did Trump’s actions lead to European countries upping their defence spending?… Yes.
Did Trump’s rhetoric and general stance towards NATO encourage Putin?.. Yes.
We'll never know on the second point 🙂
On the Taleb theme, it is dangerous to look for too much cause and effect, outcomes and intentions are different things but rash actions can and often do lead to random consequences.
Like your Swan Lake analogy though!
Again, we don't currently know because Christo Grozev said that there isn't a hidden meaning. He hasn't tweeted for a couple of days
"SOFIA, Dec 29 (Reuters) - Bulgaria protested to Russia on Thursday for putting Bulgarian investigative journalist Christo Grozev on a wanted list, with its prime minister criticising the move as an intimidatory tactic designed to muzzle free speech" https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/bulgaria-summons-russian-envoy-over-bellingcat-journalist-grozev-2022-12-29/
That’s behind a paywall…can you summarize?
Basically it’s saying, the replacement options are worse.
Patrushev has long called for Russia to have the right to use nuclear weapons in local conflicts on a ‘first strike’ basis. He seeks an even larger mobilisation of the Russian population – and has stressed the war will only end when Ukraine’s ‘Nazism’ has been ‘100 per cent’ eradicated.
However, the article focuses pretty much solely on Patrushev, and gives little room for anyone not as Hawkish.
His chances of succeeding Putin rest on two pillars: at the moment, the ousting of Putin by hardline nationalists appears more likely than a coup by peace-seeking doves
Which from another article I’ve read misses out a faction, that although not peace loving doves may offer a different route out if the conflict and are arguably better placed than Patrushev. (Caveat being, that was another “opinion” piece)
To a degree, the article is/may be focused on clicks rather than an honest assessment. But y’know, that’s just my opinion.
What I am certain of, is there are no “good” options. Russias problems during, and after the war, will be pinned on the West by whoever is in charge. Even if it’s someone “moderate” rearmament will still be top of their agenda, as will trying to destabilise and weaken the west. And we’ll be dealing with a hostile neighbour for the foreseeable future. It’s the main reason I view the return of pre war energy imports from Russia as something that will never recover.
It is possible that a successor doesn't command enough support which leads to another coup and then another until the whole lot collapses. That could be a route to a complete reset with a more moderate leadership.
That could be a route to a complete reset with a more moderate leadership.
Russia hasn't experienced democracy. Ever. They went straight from serfdom to communism. There's no weight of social historical norms to fall back on that will result in "moderate leadership" In the late 90's when the race was to replace Yeltsin, one of the contenders who very nearly got to power, was openly promising to folks that a vote for him meant that you wouldn't have to bother with all that voting nonsense again, as he's ban it. He was pretty popular
There’s no weight of social historical norms to fall back on that will result in “moderate leadership”
I'd love to be proved wrong but this is the way I see it too
So, whoever takes over from Putin will have succeeded by being an extremist, not a moderate
This seems the far more likely scenario to me. Which makes the US policy in Ukraine the smart move so far- depleting Russian military capability so that when the next tyrant grabs power they are less able to cement their powerbase with an expansionist agenda
That Telegraph article in full. It’s an opinion piece by their foreign affairs editor
On 21 February 2022, General Nikolai Patrushev advised Vladimir Putin to hold back. The bald, thin-lipped head of Russia’s security council was one of few top officials at a televised meeting in the Kremlin who did not call for the immediate recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk as ‘independent’ republics, a step that would presage war with Ukraine. Instead, Patrushev, 71, suggested one more round of negotiations directly with Joe Biden.
As rumours swirl that Putin may lose his grip on power next year on the back of the poor progress of the war, this scene has drawn fresh examination. Could Patrushev, touted as a possible successor, be the man to sit down for peace negotiations with Ukraine next year? Indeed Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, has suggested that Putin will be consigned to a sanatorium before the year is out.
Unlike the other members of Putin’s inner circle, Patrushev is not a close personal friend of the Russian president; he does not play hockey with him, or wrestle on judo mats. The two share a bond forged in the Federal Security Service (FSB), Russia’s intelligence service. Patrushev ran the body from from 1999 to 2008 – one of five jobs over his career in which he has directly succeeded Putin. In 2016, the UK Government concluded that the 2006 FSB operation to kill Alexander Litvinenko was probably approved by Patrushev and Putin; numerous coups have followed, from the successful (Crimea, 2014) to the less so (Montenegro, 2016).
What most concerns Western observers, however, is Patrushev’s zealotry. Mark Galeotti, an expert on Russian politics, has described him as ‘the most dangerous man’ in the country, the ‘devil on Putin’s shoulder’. For years Patrushev has promoted the narrative that Russia is locked in an existential conflict with America (‘they spit in our eye, and call it God’s dew’). Among a raft of conspiracies he promotes is the claim that the US is pursuing a policy of population control called the ‘golden billion’ (wherein a cabal of one billion global elites seek to hoard the world's wealth and resources); is harvesting the organs of Ukrainian orphans; and trying to seize Siberia (this latter germinated from a mind-reader employed by the FSB to look into US officials). Even at the February 21 meeting, he ended on an often overlooked note: negotiations with the US were doomed to fail, he said.
Since the war began Patrushev has emerged as one of the most prominent hawks, alongside Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov and the mercenary Wagner Group’s founder Yevgeny Prigozhin. His chances of succeeding Putin rest on two pillars: at the moment, the ousting of Putin by hardline nationalists appears more likely than a coup by peace-seeking doves. And as a representative of the so-called “KGB clan”, Patrushev knows how to work the Kremlin’s internal politics to his advantage, unlike the other two who are loudmouth, martial outsiders.
Should he win out, the war will only worsen. Patrushev has long called for Russia to have the right to use nuclear weapons in local conflicts on a ‘first strike’ basis. He seeks an even larger mobilisation of the Russian population – and has stressed the war will only end when Ukraine’s ‘Nazism’ has been ‘100 per cent’ eradicated. The doll beneath Putin’s may be a fresh face, but it is perhaps an uglier one still.
As said above by piemonster, the likely scenario is that if/when Vlad takes the fall (hopefully quite literally), somebody at least as right wing headbanger will take over.
Scary thing about this guy that is that he may actually believe a lot of the more far out stuff. I’d take a cynical political player over an outright nutter every day of the week.
All this also poses the question of what happens to the wider Russian Federation. There is a tendency to see Russia as Moscow and St Petersburg and other bits West of the Urals, but of course the significant majority is in the East and is controlled by what is being exposed as the military myth. If that all collapses then the unrest will be enormous and prolonged
Russia hasn’t experienced democracy. Ever. They went straight from serfdom to communism. There’s no weight of social historical norms to fall back on
Every democracy has to experience it for the first time once. What you say does probably mean that they are more likely to accept non-democratic rule but it is also plausible that this war and subsequent isolation will precipitate a major change.
Every democracy has to experience it for the first time once.
Yep, look at Ukraine.
Like you say, not impossible, just less likely
Lots of media reports that US is going to transfer Bradley IFVs to UAF. They have 7000, with 2800 in storage, and the UAF have asked for 700 vehicles.
Bradley’s use a 25mm canon, and 2 ATGMs, plus machine guns. With a much bigger range than a tank, It is perfectly suited to the mobile Cossack Cavalry approach UAF like and can take out any RF armoured vehicle.
UAF are already using APCs thatvus3 the Bradley Chassis, so int3gration would be straightforward.
Every democracy has to experience it for the first time once
The change from control by Communist party to something approaching "democracy" was handled so badly (largely because of the very aggressive extreme capitalism as promoted by the Chicago School economists, and others) in the 1990's that I think still it would strike most Russians - who can remember the early 90's; as unwelcome. Even if there was a move towards it, I think it would be decades and decades before any like a multi party parliament/senate with peaceful corruption free elections would be the norm.
I don't think overthrowing/replacing Putin will automatically result in an up-swelling of popular democracy and withdrawal and peace negotiations
No, neither do I.
The thing is that global trade and integration has been increasing and some Russians saw the benefits of this. What happened with the fall of Communism? From what I understand (which is not a lot) the people got fed up of missing out on the good life, as they saw it, and when they got a sympathetic leader who made concessions it snowballed. Given time, that could happen again, and could be easier a second time around. Or harder.