eastsideTim said:
On a larger geopolitical scale, it does not matter what Putin thinks. If the world is ever going to move forward, wars of conquest need to be dealt with harshly.
Love this.
eastsideTim said:
On a larger geopolitical scale, it does not matter what Putin thinks. If the world is ever going to move forward, wars of conquest need to be dealt with harshly.
Love this.
06HHR (Forum Supporter) said:The Washington Post reports that a member of Putin's inner circle confronted him over his handling of the Ukraine war. U.S. Intelligence deemed the incident significant enough to include it in the President's daily intelligence briefing. I would link the article but it's behind a paywall..
Found the story on another website https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-confronted-by-kremlin-insider-over-ukraine-failings-report-2022-10
In reply to GameboyRMH :
That article cites the problems with Wagner troops as almost exclusively lying on the Russian side of operations--it doesn't reference any causes of problems with the Wagner units as the impact of fighting the Ukrainians. I have to wonder if there are other factors at play, e.g. the effectiveness of the Western-supplied arms/intelligence used by Ukraine or possibly the motivation of the Ukrainian troops. After the atrocities seen so far, it wouldn't surprise me if the Ukrainians weren't taking prisoners from Wagner units.
06HHR (Forum Supporter) said:06HHR (Forum Supporter) said:The Washington Post reports that a member of Putin's inner circle confronted him over his handling of the Ukraine war. U.S. Intelligence deemed the incident significant enough to include it in the President's daily intelligence briefing. I would link the article but it's behind a paywall..
Found the story on another website https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-confronted-by-kremlin-insider-over-ukraine-failings-report-2022-10
They should avoid drinking tea or standing near windows for a while.
In reply to alfadriver :
Don't discount the cultural aspect. Historically, Ukraine has had considerably more contact with the West (in the broadest sense) over the centuries. Cities like Odessa had much closer ties with Constantinople and the Mediterranean than they ever did with Moscow. The same holds true for the Baltics and their Western ties via the Baltic. Moscow was much more isolated from external influences, and those that it had tended to be hostile, not commercial.
In reply to tuna55 :
You stated "Make his own country better and quit worrying about imaginary boogeymen" - this is precisely the singularly Western point of view that assumes that the whole world operates by the same logic, has the same priorities, and wants the same things. Your definitions of "better" and "imaginary" are very likely not shared with Putin, or indeed many Russians.
In reply to eastsideTim :
There's always an off-ramp, though you may be correct that it will not be Putin who is able to take it (just as LBJ was unable to effectively exit Vietnam). It won't be easy or pretty, but as I've said before, if you want to end the conflict (versus achieving all your objectives; in other words, ending the fighting has become the primary object of policy), it is in the West's interest to facilitate a means by which Russia can get out.
I do not see human history as linear, so I have zero expectation that the world is going to "move forward" (and again, by what definition?). The only permanent factors are interests.
In reply to 02Pilot :
In terms of the western tilt of Ukraine, sure, in the really long term. But Russia and Ukraine were more than tightly put together for 70 years. To the point where they traded citizens across the border, as freely as if it was the United States.
You've pointed out that offering a better alternative to the west is a west view of russia/Ukraine- what is the russian view of it to not forcefully keep the former USSR together? Just force?
If that's vlad's view, well, I'm not sure how to accept it as valid. In the 30 years the Russian Federation has existed, the corruption of the USSR basically accelerated to the point where a handful of men have made massive, massive amounts of money and kept the rest of the population down. Which is exactly like almost all authoritarian government around the world in history.
So vlad is an authoritarian, and the fact that his former allies have turned to a different view is quite logical to me. And his reaction to that *seems* to be classic authoritarian- threat and then use force to get your way. Let alone make excuses that there's evil doers that need to be defeated- those evil doers are the ones eliminating corruption- terrible people.
And lets not include "many russians" in this- they've had 30 years of vlad telling them they are doing ok, and they are the best in the world. And they have clearly bought it, in spite of seeing their former states doing much, much better. Maybe they all just desire autoritarianism? Not sure. China does because they have actually made the average life better- not great, but better. vlad hasn't done that.
alfadriver said:In reply to 02Pilot :
So what turned the former Soviet states to the west? That's what we are talking about here, and vlad's paranoia around it.
The news from Ukraine was that they were tired of the corruption and wanted real opportunity- which is something vlad was not offering.
There's two reasons that I see countries associate with other countries- security and opportunity. There's not an "ism" that is a factor anymore.
Money and opportunity. More money and more opportunity the further "West" you went.
Ukraine specificially had been a major brain drain for Russia, a lot of technically skilled Russians bailed for Ukraine in the past ten years because they could make a lot more money there.
alfadriver said:In reply to 02Pilot :
If that's vlad's view, well, I'm not sure how to accept it as valid. In the 30 years the Russian Federation has existed, the corruption of the USSR basically accelerated to the point where a handful of men have made massive, massive amounts of money and kept the rest of the population down. Which is exactly like almost all authoritarian government around the world in history.
So vlad is an authoritarian, and the fact that his former allies have turned to a different view is quite logical to me. And his reaction to that *seems* to be classic authoritarian- threat and then use force to get your way. Let alone make excuses that there's evil doers that need to be defeated- those evil doers are the ones eliminating corruption- terrible people.
So corruption and evil doers are to blame for this, but it's only Putin? I agree with the former, but it's far beyond Puty alone. You should look around more. Our own Congress is filled with people worth $10s of millions on a $140k a year salary while living in the most expensive place in the US and maintaining multiple households. Many of them are in love with this war too. Some Ukrainian dude has multi million dollar estates all over the world after a short time in office via some miracle. But it's just Putin that's the problem.
There are lots of greedy evil people in love with this war on all sides. They care nothing about you, me or any number of dead Ukrainians or Russians. They only care how this benefits them.
I dunno about anyone else, but the thought just occurred to me (as a child of the 60's watching Walter Cronkite every night) that it sure is nice giving weapons to people to defend themselves and seeing them actually do so, unlike our experience in Vietnam. I know the situation isn't apples to apples, but...
In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
If you look into US Congress, you will probably find most of them are rich from birth. Or they had a successful business before they got into congress- how many went based on "I'm a busness owner, and know what I'm doing" theme?
Are there evil and corrupt people in the US? Sure, but if you honestly think it's anywhere near the degree it is in russia, I have a bridge to sell you.
vlad was a freaking KGB agent. And russia came from the USSR, which was supposed to be communist- how in the world has that produced billionaires so very quickly?
Honeslty, it's kind of scary to me that you could think to compare Congress to the oligarchs that run russia.
And I do think there are some massive evil and corruption in Ukraine- but that's hardly justifies a russian invasion. Last I checked, it was russia that invaded Ukraine, not the other way around. And I've not heard reports of russian citizens being murdered by Ukrainian sodliers. If you have data on Ukraine doing war crimes in russia, feel free to tell us all about it.
russia vs Ukraine is a pretty easy choice at this point.
And once this is over, the west should not walk out of Ukraine like we did in Afghanistan.
alfadriver said:In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
If you look into US Congress, you will probably find most of them are rich from birth. Or they had a successful business before they got into congress- how many went based on "I'm a busness owner, and know what I'm doing" theme?
Are there evil and corrupt people in the US? Sure, but if you honestly think it's anywhere near the degree it is in russia, I have a bridge to sell you.
vlad was a freaking KGB agent. And russia came from the USSR, which was supposed to be communist- how in the world has that produced billionaires so very quickly?
Honeslty, it's kind of scary to me that you could think to compare Congress to the oligarchs that run russia.
I think just skipping over comments like this may be helpful.
In reply to tuna55 :
Yea, probably. I should not go back and edit it.
stroker said:I dunno about anyone else, but the thought just occurred to me (as a child of the 60's watching Walter Cronkite every night) that it sure is nice giving weapons to people to defend themselves and seeing them actually do so, unlike our experience in Vietnam. I know the situation isn't apples to apples,
In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
The level of corruption in the US I've either encountered directly, received firsthand stories from those who have, or have seen on the news, sadly makes me think it really does reach all the way to the top.
Fortunately I'm not aware of it reaching all the way down to the lowest levels of bureaucracy like some countries - like having to pay a bribe just to renew your license. I also believe our electoral system somewhat limits the level of corruption, since publicity of it would likely prevent reelection.
In reply to Pete Gossett (Forum Supporter) :
The corruption in the US happens mainly in areas with long term employment (as detailed in a really good video about Russian corruption in the miltary) and also where there is effectively one-party rule. People just have to stamp the right letter next to their name on the ballot box and they are a shoo-in, so they can do whatever the hell they want because they know they will get elected/re-elected. Because other people know this, they have to pay favors to be able to get on the ballot in the first place. Effectively the election is not at the ballot box but in the back rooms.
Now picture a system where there legally is only one party, everywhere. Yeah. Recipe for deep systemic corruption.
This is why good institutions have a "move up or move out" mindset. The continual promotion also serves as a way to ensure nobody is ever in the same place for too long, and if they do anything hinky then their successor will find out about it. There are downsides but they are outweighed by the suppression of corruption.
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
People also forget that lots of corruption ends up in prison. Detroit had a mayor that went to prison. A former rep/veteran went to prison. Not to say it doesn't happen, but people also should be calling the FBI if they encounter corruption.
And it's does not add up to the money that former commuist leaders had quickly gotten in russia.
May be the same word, but it's nowhere near the same thing.
The was an explosion on the Kerch Strait bridge. Official story so far is that a truck exploded on the westbound lanes, and caused fuel tanks on a train on the bridge to explode. Two car lanes of the bridge are out of commission. No one is taking responsibility yet.
Edit: Video on Twitter
stroker said:I dunno about anyone else, but the thought just occurred to me (as a child of the 60's watching Walter Cronkite every night) that it sure is nice giving weapons to people to defend themselves and seeing them actually do so, unlike our experience in Vietnam. I know the situation isn't apples to apples, but...
As well as Afghanistan.
Very exciting news to wake up to. The Ukrainians blew up fuel trucks taking out to Kherson bridge from Russia to Crimea. Apparently they also took out a major rail line in Donetsk.
The snippet of the burning bridge on twitter posted by Ukraine was fantastic. Two words "Sick Burn".
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-10-08-22/index.html
eastsideTim said:The was an explosion on the Kerch Strait bridge. Official story so far is that a truck exploded on the westbound lanes, and caused fuel tanks on a train on the bridge to explode. Two car lanes of the bridge are out of commission. No one is taking responsibility yet.
Edit: Video on Twitter
No official statement of responsibility from Ukraine, but the gloating is going full tilt.
This is a new stamp that is being released.
The Kerch Bridge strike is likely to have significant repercussions, well beyond logistics. The rail line being out of action is a huge problem for the Russians on the southern front (Kherson), as that is the primary supply artery on that axis. The Russians claim the rail line will be operational by tonight, which seems hugely optimistic based on the footage, but getting it open will be a top priority.
The greater impact long-term, however, will be the psychological effect on civilian residents of Crimea, who were already increasingly nervous about the situation and will be very aware of their increasing isolation. The attacks on Saki Airbase, Black Sea Fleet HQ, and other high profile targets, the constant military activity and traffic, and the omnipresent concern about water, are likely to have created a sense of foreboding; the demonstration of the vulnerability of the Kerch Bridge, the only means of rapid escape from the peninsula, will only have added to that.
My sense is that civilian morale, inside Russia proper and especially in Crimea, is the real target of this operation. The Ukrainians are working to minimize the value of Crimea to Russia, and maximize the difficulty in maintaining it as a Russia territory. If a significant portion of the Russian population evacuates (which Russia now has a very convenient excuse to block, BTW) it will not be easy for Russia to keep things there functioning normally, except for isolated areas under military control. All of this facilitates the eventual return to Ukrainian control that is driving strategy here - every Russian that leaves is one the Ukrainians don't have to worry about once they take over (if they take over).
How Russia reacts is an open question. They are publicly downplaying the severity of the damage (as they did with the drone strike on Shaykovka Airbase a couple days ago), but that means nothing in terms of the scale of the response. They don't have a lot of options, which is a concern, since some of the options they have left are not pleasant. At a minimum I would expect considerable retaliatory strikes on multiple Ukrainian cities.
The bridge also contained a major water pipeline, by what I am told.
Also, blast effects on the supports and the weakening of the concrete by the fire suggest that no, they will not be operational in a week. At least not for very long.
Some good pics and vid's (even of the actual explosion) here. It's a pretty big explosion (looks to be the car bridge side). Not sure if the train fire is a side effect or not. The way it collapsed, explosives on the support pillar, or car bomb (?)
Long queues form as Crimeans stock up on gas & non-perishables at supermarkets & gas stations, Baza reports The occupation governor of Sevastopol says gas will not be sold to fuel canisters, claims gas supplies will last 40 days, flour supplies - 20-30 days
Apparently special forces have been pretty active in the Sea of Azov, using small patrol boats, and this is likely the result of that.
The video I saw from what looked like a stationary security cam suggested that the explosion was on the train bridge, with lots of "sparklies" that people smarter than me say are incendiary flares, probably intended to ignite any fuel if there were breached tankers.
You'll need to log in to post.
