It was written last year. I didn't bother reading it. — Olivier5

Again, context matters.

If you care enough about an article to cite it, you should respect the authors enough to read it and be somewhat confident to convey their meaning accurately (as much effort as you'd consider honorable in other people reporting your own words).

More fundamentally, however, your dismissal of this analysis "last year" neatly exposes your addiction to the news cycle.

As I've already explained in previous comments, theories about the fog of war (what we see today) are fraught with both bias, propaganda and overfitting sparse and dubious data points.

What provides far more insight are theories about the situation before the fog of war descends.

For several reasons:

1. The further into the past a theory is proposed, and more it comes true, the more predictive power it has.

2. Analysis is much higher quality, generally speaking, in a stable situation. Not only does each analyst in the conversation have no particular pressure to come to any conclusions, as the situation isn't changing much, but as importantly each analyst can respond and scrutinise other analysts about a situation that is not chaotically changing, and key facts are far easier to verify in a slowly changing situation than a rapidly changing one. Once chaos emerges, there is high pressure to come to conclusions rapidly for the purposes of decision making or the influencing of perceptions, and each response and rebuttal to previous analysis must take into account what has been changing since (people are no longer really talking about the same thing, as the situation changes between proposal and response: what was a good decision an hour ago, may no longer be a good decision now; so past analysis may have been correct, but new factors must now be taken into consideration - this sort of mental tracking of a changing context and what was a good and bad idea at what time and for what reasons and what, if anything, can be preserved given the new situation, is a cognitively challenging task ... for most people).

3. War, in particular, solicits intense amounts of propaganda and each side deliberately trying to deceive the other and shape public perception.

4. Active war creates significant amount of reporting of details (sparse data points) that not only do we not know is true, but are largely distracting for the purposes of analysis. Only insight into the large structures and factors have any predictive power; we obviously cannot predict every step, vehicle loss, advance, casualties and so on, in a war; so details on the ground have very limited insight and predictive power.

Hence, analysis undertaken in the past, in a calm and stable environment involving multiple people and even open scrutiny, will be higher quality.

The authors of the article in question, for example, do include full scale invasion in their analysis, explain the reasons it's a bad idea, explain the difficulties of limited excursion (response of the West maybe significant and so costs far outweigh the gains of a limited excursion), and correctly develop an "in-between" strategy that Russia does then utilise.

Although the authors can argue that their analysis of likelihood was correct (what they said was most likely was in fact most likely, but sometimes unlikely things happen), the counter argument to that is their own analysis more-or-less explains why Russia's current strategy is the optimum choice.

The only thing they leave out, or don't realise, is that multiple limited excursions and manoeuvres is a good idea to make appear like a full scale invasion.

In particular, if the Kremlin simply accepts ahead of time that pretty much any incursion into "unoccupied Ukraine" will be met with severe sanctions and Western arms supplies, that the West is bent on that, then there is zero value at all in a small limited excursion in the hopes of small and limited sanctions (sanctions will be severe and also arms will flood into Ukraine anyways).

Additionally, if the goal is to demolish Ukrainian war infrastructure, then a full scale invasion (that seems foolhardy) is an optimum choice in baiting the Ukrainians into a total war response and therefore opportunity to eviscerate their force potential long term.

In other words, escalate to a full invasion to then deescalate to just keeping a land bridge to Crimea that solves "a real problem" for Putin.

Escalate to deescalate, as @ssu has correctly informed us.

This is not how the English language works.

For example:

"I went to the shop yesterday, right. So, I'm in the shop, I pickup this bottle. I drop it and it explodes on the ground. I was so embarrassed."

And, to be clear.

Losses experienced around Kiev is certainly a factor in the current Russian withdrawal.

However, if the purpose was to apply political pressure and tie-up Ukrainian manpower and resources (dig in around and within Kiev and committing to fierce fighting, through artillery and high casualty, in both defence and counter offensives), then whether this manoeuvre was successful or not, in military terms, will depend on successes elsewhere in the "battle space", such as holding the Crimea land bridge and, most of all, encircling Ukrainian forces on the Dombas line.

Withdrawing from around Kiev simply minimises losses if Russian generals calculate those forces can no longer effectively reinforce Ukrainian lines in the East anyways (there is no need to tie up people who cannot be effectively redeployed elsewhere).

The Russian salient West of Kiev is the most exposed, farthest from the Russian border and air cover, and not only closest to Polish resupply but also closest to the largest city that can easily house the most amount of Ukrainian troops relatively comfortably. I.e. even if Ukrainian forces cannot undertake significant armoured counter-offensive manoeuvres, they can still inflict the most harassing losses on the Russian salient West of Kiev, and if it no longer serves much of a strategic purpose, then it is simply optimum use of one's forces to withdraw that salient.

The current phase of the war could be "Russia is losing".

Or it could be that Russia is consolidating its gains to minimise vulnerability to Ukrainian weapons and tactics, stabilising the situation to see if a peace deal can be reached, and preparing for the next phase of warfare if peace is not reached (which could include new offensives employing lessons learned so far, or then setting up heavily defended lines that Ukrainians cannot easily assault, and withdrawing from positions that cannot be easily defended, due to positional or then man-power considerations).

The only thing they leave out, or don't realise, is that multiple limited excursions and manoeuvres is a good idea to make appear like a full scale invasion. — boethius

The authors also don't include a second order analysis of what affect their, and similar, analysis may have on the Kremlin's decision making (regardless of whether the Kremlin have made the same conclusions independently or then just read the authors publicly available paper).

The Ukrainian Ministry of Agriculture has given its forecasts for the sowing of crops that farmers will be able to carry out this spring: a total of about 13.4 million hectares could be sown, including cereals, maize, beet and sunflower, which is 3.5 million fewer than in 2021. Ukraine, known for its highly fertile black soils, was the world's fourth largest exporter of corn and wheat before the war. — Olivier5

This is certainly good news. Which port will they use to export it?

https://www.producer.com/daily/map-of-ukraines-wheat-producing-districts/

"I went to the shop yesterday, right. So, I'm in the shop, I pickup this bottle. I drop it and it explodes on the ground. I was so embarrassed." — boethius

What follows has the same meaning: "I went to the shop yesterday, right. So, I was in the shop, I picked up this bottle. I dropped it and it exploded on the ground. I was so embarrassed.

This is certainly good news. Which port will they use to export it? — FreeEmotion

Odessa, when it's all over.

The authors also don't include a second order analysis of what affect their, and similar, analysis may have on the Kremlin's decision making (whether they have made the same conclusions independently or then just read their publicly available paper). — boethius

It is nice to have a scholarly analysis of the options that were available. How people can coolly discuss military actions that will kill and injure many thousands is really beyond me, however, I think anyone could come up with some sort of strategy, and I will aim to do so. The logistics, split second decision- making, contingency planning and so on will require much expertise, I would think, not to mention courage. I think it was General Patton who said "It is very difficult to look a man in the eye and send him to his death in battle"

So what sort of plan could we come up with? Obviously the 8 year war in the east of Ukraine was continuing to cause death and destruction to the people in that area, which was held by rebels supported by Russia. So how do we save that area? Invade and secure it. The rest of Ukraines's military then goes into an all out war to re-capture those areas : stalemates don't win wars. In that case, better to destroy Ukraine's military also, through air strikes and missile strikes.

What next? Well, there must be some way to ensure that a war won't start again, some sort of agreement must be reached with the Ukranian government. How to convince them? Well, surrounding Kyiv and might convince them, and seizing a few cities might convince them some more. There is no way the Zelenskky will misunderstand this. All horrific stuff.

Oh and of course, no to NATO membership.

So, the objectives: (from RT, not sure if it complete)

According to the Kremlin, the goal of the intervention is “to protect the people [of the Donbass] who have been tortured for eight years by the Ukrainian regime.”

Moscow has vehemently opposed NATO’s presence close to its borders, and embarked on a mission to obtain security guarantees that would halt the US-led military bloc’s expansion and block Kiev from joining its ranks.

Wikipedia reports that the people separatist movement in the east started as a result of political turmoil in the Ukrainian government.

I am not sure how de-Nazification fits into the propaganda machine, is this aimed at Russia or the West?
Whom is the message intended for, and how does President Putin know it won't be dismissed out of hand?

No good decision was ever made in a swivel chair.
George S. Patton

What follows has the same meaning: "I went to the shop yesterday, right. So, I was in the shop, I picked up this bottle. I dropped it and it exploded on the ground. I was so embarrassed. — Olivier5

Sure, nothing prevents you from placing everything in the past tense; it's just not obligatory in English and even the exception.

However, we're agreed that in many, many pages of analysis I carried out 4 weeks ago, the only criticism you can find is about grammar choices (that are not even grammar mistakes, but very idiosyncratic to English speech and writing).

Additionally, a criticism of grammar reinterpreting the conversation at that moment as being focused on to what extent "exactly" Russian forces will encircle Kiev without any intention of trying to conquer Kiev ... rather than the the Western media, and many here, claiming that the Russian column is on its way to a disastrous invasion of Kiev proper and they can't even get there! But once they do, oh boy, urban combat will make quick work of these bumbling fools stuck in the mud.

Here is a new one: BBC hosting a clip from Russian TV accusing the Nationalists of using human shields in effect. Whom does it help, really?

Russian state-controlled Rossiya 24 news channel


https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-60595215

a criticism of grammar — boethius

Not my beef at all. I was just trying to understand your post better. My apologies about that.

Be that as it may, the Russians can be argued to have functionally encircle Kiev with only 1 remaining road for supply, and the remaining south route in range of artillery.

Kiev is arguably under siege. Few sieges in history are "perfect". — boethius

Definition of siege:

a military operation in which enemy forces surround a town or building, cutting off essential supplies, with the aim of compelling those inside to surrender.

This hasn't at all happened, so what are you talking about? Quite baseless remarks.

The attempt of a siege isn't the act of successfully deploying a siege. Mariupol has been a siege.

I've explained my views already and don't wish to just to repeat them over and over. I'll just leave those people that don't think Putin is a dictator alone with their ideas.

And Chomsky has his well defined mission to criticize US policies. That's what he sees his role to be in order to improve his country. He's not going to comment on Russia's action as it's not his obligation or even agenda. The problem is that similar commentators like him from the Russian side are silenced, in exile or dead, which Chomsky sees as to be the one's to criticize Russian policy in similar vain. Or some "intellectuals" won't listen to them.

The truth is that this war isn't going well for Russia. And I've said from the start attacking Ukraine was an error for Putin. Ukraine's willing to defend their country has surprised not only the Russians, but also the West. The fact is that things can change in eight years.


Of course, we don't know yet what the end result will be.

The NY Times says that though he isn't going to end up taking over Ukraine, the war has consolidated his power in Russia. The sanctions have also done that: isolated Russia from the rest of the world in a way that Putin wants.

So it could be a success for him in ways other than militarily.

You are on heck of an optimist. Yes, I hope so, we all need to eat.

Another effect of Putin's war: the GOP goes to war with itself.

That favors a Biden win in 24 if the effect has legs.

When one has God and righteousness on one's side, who can be against one?! — baker

Absolutely correct.

George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month.

Mr Bush revealed the extent of his religious fervour when he met a Palestinian delegation during the Israeli-Palestinian summit at the Egpytian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, four months after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."

George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq' - The Guardian

America and its foreign-policy instrument NATO seem to always believe to "have God on their side". This is why IMO it can't be entirely wrong to define NATO as a jihadi organization. Though I'm sure NATO jihadis would disagree ....

I've explained my views already and don't wish to just to repeat them over and over — ssu

Yep, that's why you keep repeating your "views" over and over! :lol:

As for others being "trolls", I think that description fits you best. This is demonstrated not only by you constantly posting cut-and-paste "comments" with irrelevant pictures 24/7 but also by your geographical location in the Finnish outback which as everyone knows, is the traditional homeland of the trolls:

A troll is a being in Scandinavian folklore, including Norse mythology. In Old Norse sources, beings described as trolls dwell in isolated areas of rocks, mountains, or caves, live together in small family units, and are rarely helpful to human beings.
Trolls are sometimes associated with particular landmarks in Scandinavian folklore, which at times may be explained as formed from a troll exposed to sunlight ...

Troll - Wikipedia

So, you may troll as much as you like, but you ain't gonna fool no one .... :rofl:

Speaking of "being free of the authoritarian bullshit", in what ways are we in the West "free of the authoritarian bullshit"? — baker

Free speech and you don't get imprisoned or killed if you criticize those in power. It's quite clear what I'm speaking about, isn't it? The government won't kill or imprison you for what you write here on this forum for instance.

Because it's not possible, it's pragmatically not possible. Because Western standards are destructive. They destroy nature, they destroy people. — baker

That's an irrelevant blanket statement that doesn't really counter-argue my point here. You have no other alternative for any kind of society that has practical evidence of being better for people and the environment. Western societies are the only ones that also have the ability and potential to change if destructive ways are discovered. You think societies like Russia would care for actually changing transportation to renewable solutions? You think they would care about stuff like that or make any efforts to push for it?

Western societies have problems, of course, but blanket statements that western societies and standards are the worst things in the world while not even remotely presenting an alternative to that type of large-scale society just underlines my point. Dreaming of utopian types of societies that have no practical or realistic existence right now is irrelevant. We can start with every nation granting constitutional free speech, free and independent media, and serious efforts to fight back against corruption. Laws that do not protect politicians and people in power but regulate them instead. Those kinds of things exist in western societies primarily and those are the ones I'm advocating for. The question is if it's impossible to implement those things without everything else becoming western in standards.

I'm asking you to find a better alternative, that exists today. Please present an alternative that actually counters my argument here, because I still haven't heard any actual and realistic alternative yet. It's so irrelevant to just say "west bad" and present nothing else that is practically possible if the result is Russia's population being free of their authoritarian boot.

Are you actually worried about the Russian people? — baker

Uhhh, yeah, there are millions who don't want Putin and his bullshit, who want to live according to what I described as a free society. Why wouldn't I care for them?

What you're saying suggests that Russia would be healthier today if it would have taken a more western looking route.

I understand why it seems that way, but we don't truly know because we can't see an alternate history of Russia.

It's possible that profound corruption that leaves most of the population destitute was the only way to achieve stability.

How did you arrive at this dichotomy??? — baker

No, that's the one you're seeing. — baker

So give me an alternative then. Why can't you just do that in order to prove the dichotomy wrong? Because you've only presented two alternatives, either Russia as it is now or western standards which means it becoming a consumerist hell hole. Give me a third alternative then, where the people of Russia can be free and not face imprisonment or being killed, and where elections aren't controlled by a despot and media is independent and can criticize the government. If you have an option that is realistic that gives the people this protection, independence and freedom while not being a western society, then please provide that example, I'm waiting.

The majority of the population of any country are plebeians. If they are given the reigns, the society will sink further and further. — baker

That's why we have a representative democracy. But what are you actually saying here? Are you defending authoritarian dictatorship because giving the people power makes it worse? What's your point?

(By the way, this was the idea behind the US institution of the Electoral College: to make sure that some idiot wouldn't obtain a position of power simply because the majority of the people voted for him.) — baker

Representative democracy is bigger than the US. The US is one nation, you can look at far better examples of democracies if you want to find options that are better than alternative forms of government in the world (i.e other than western standards of representative democracies).

The total genius of Western democracies is that they outsourced government oppression to individual people. So that it isn't the government which oppresses people, it's Tom oppressing Dick and Harry. The government's hands are clean, but the people walk on eggshells and fear for their jobs and lives. At the same time, they are becoming more and more alike, the differences between them are superficial at best, one big mass of mindless drones. And what does it help if some politician can hold his elected position of power only for 4, 8 or, 10 years, or so, if the next one differs from him only by name? — baker

This is an extreme oversimplification of everything and you still have no alternative to western society. Give me an example of a practically working society on a large scale where people aren't under the pressure of a state boot? A western society may make "drones" out of the masses, but it also generates outliers that can drive society in new directions. In an authoritarian society, it is even more impossible to be different from each other, you need to stay in line, otherwise, you'll get shot or imprisoned. Why do you think ethnic cleansing is a common thing within these authoritarian societies? Because anything different is a threat to the power. This is less common in western societies.

What you are doing is making an argument against western society in a way I would too. But when I ask you to "grant Russia" a better society as an alternative to the authoritarian nightmare they're in now under Putin's boot, I want you to give me a pragmatic answer to that, because you can sit here and dream of utopias or just say that "everything is bad", but the reality is that there's bad and there's worse. The authoritarian reality of Russia makes its society worse than western societies, that is a fact. I can sit here and write openly with criticism against people in power and I won't get killed or become imprisoned, I can try and change things in society, but in Russia, I wouldn't be able to without risking a poisoned umbrella tip.

So, if there are no alternatives, Russia should really become a westernized country. Because it's a corrupt authoritarian pariah state now, where people get imprisoned on a daily basis and state critics are either dead or in Siberia. To say that westernizing Russia is worse than what they have now is a fucking joke.

Frees them from what? Frees them to do what? — baker

Of their authoritarian boot silencing them and making them unable to choose any other person in power than Putin. What the hell do you think I mean? Seriously do you have problems understanding this?

Or are you just apologetic about Russia/Putin and deny what is going on there?

I'm saying that the situation in Russia is actually not that different from the situation in the West. — baker

Tell that to state critics six feet under after getting poisoned or those in prisons or free media or the people getting dragged off the street in busses. Are you seriously saying that western societies and Russia are "basically the same". Seriously?

There is no country in this world where one could "speak up against the government" without this having some negative consequences for one. — baker

Of course there are! What the fuck are you even talking about? What kind of bullshit is this?

If not imposed by the government, then imposed informally, by one's employer, one's customers, one's friends, and relatives. One can simply never speak badly about those in power without this backfiring in some way. — baker

You absolutely can. I don't know what the fuck you are writing now but it's just nonsense blanked opinions as some kind of valid premises. Seriously, either you live in a nation with broken democracy and you're biased because of it or you are just blind to more perspectives than this. I can support whatever the fuck I want in my country and no one would do anything about it, I can write critically about the government or some party or leader or whatever and my employer can't do a thing about it. It's when people act out racist and degrading opinions that employers and others react and that comes from a moral perspective, not the kind of "boot" that I'm talking about in authoritarian systems like Russia.

Police fire tear gas as anti-Covid restrictions ‘Freedom Convoy’ enters Paris — baker

This is not an example of authoritarian power. It's an example of either a demonstration getting out of control or police going too far. Has nothing to do with state control of the people in the way that is going on in Russia. Seriously, are you unable to understand the differences here? Understand the grey area we're discussing? France is a fucking paradise compared to living in Russia now.

And so on. We can also look up how many times the police in Western countries have used real bullets against protesters, not just rubber bullets (which can sometimes be as dangerous as real ones), water cannons, tear gas, mass arrests. (Oh, and if the West is so wonderful, then why on earth are people protesting at all?!) — baker

Doesn't matter, the fundamental structure of a democracy that is free of corruption and people able to speak their minds without getting imprisoned is still there. Many nations have a variety of quality of this system, but it is still better than in Russia.

So you either say that Russia right now is a better society than the west.
Or you accept that the westernization of Russia is preferred to fix the problems with the authoritarian boot pressing down the people.
Or you present an alternative to western culture that still gives the people freedom from that boot.

I'm asking for a practical solution here, not some blanket statements of how the west is a hellhole and therefore Russia is fine without it.

What you're saying suggests that Russia would be healthier today if it would have taken a more western looking route.

I understand why it seems that way, but we don't truly know because we can't see an alternate history of Russia.

It's possible that profound corruption that leaves most of the population destitute was the only way to achieve stability. — frank

It wasn't. The economy was healing when Putin entered the scene, and then he consolidated his power over the course of 20 years.

That "we don't know if it would have been healthier today" is not a counter-argument really. We know the result of the corruption and despot move of Putin to consolidate his power. It's seen right now. That a westernized version of Russia with true democracy would have been worse needs a much better argument in support for it.

I'm absolutely certain that if Putin wasn't there and did his consolidating and established the corruption that is present today, it would have been much better and enabled people like Navalny to be elected instead of him being in prison.

I'm trying to get people to present alternatives to a western version of Russia, that exists without the corruption and without the shit the population has to go through whenever they speak their minds, but I don't ever get such an alternative. So what is your actual conclusion? That "we don't know if it would have been better"? What's your inductive reasoning? What's the most probable conclusion?

Take capitalism and socialism: they can be combined into any form of social-democracy. In this view, the values of socialism are combined with those of capitalism as a sort of ying yang. — Olivier5

I know, I live in arguably one of the best establishments of this kind of system and it ranks us very high on indexes of life quality and freedom. Why wouldn't I argue for something like that being better than what Russia has today?

The same applies to political systems: they can mix up various elements of strong leadership vs broad representation and consultation. What is important to realize is that our values as human beings are varied, and any society must find ways to combine sometime competing values, such as freedom vs equality. So this is about a combination of philosophies, rather than committing once and for all to one political philosophy only. That is what I was highlighting when i spoke of the first generation and second generation human rights: any manner of synthesis and variation is possible. — Olivier5

Yes, but regardless of how a democracy works in practice, the key elements that make up most functioning western societies are constitutional rights for the individual citizen and the ability to be protected from people in power rather than the people in power being protected from everyone else. If that is the foundation, then there's little chance that corruption takes hold, there's a better chance of the democratic functions actually working as a system without anyone able to steer the nation towards consolidation of power to one person or one party only.

It's just that it's more common that these traits of democracies are more common within western societies and my question was if there are any other types or forms of government and systems in the world right now that have the same strong constitutional protection of the people in that nation?

So far I haven't heard anyone give an example of something better, that lose the consumeristic hellhole part of the capitalistic west while still giving constitutional protection to the people.

What is the practical and real-world solution to an authoritarian state? An actual solution society, government, and system that get rid of despots and fascism etc.?

So far, western society and its standards is the solution. I think people just think about the US when thinking about western societies, but I would say, give the Swedish system of government to everyone, it clearly functions better than most nations in the world when it comes to the freedom of the people and their rights and protections as well as care for the sick and weak and making sure that as many as possible in society are well and looked after in a positive way. Of course there are problems to deal with, but so far I think the general line of thought in here is that "the west" is just "bad". No it isn't, Sweden is a much better nation than Russia when it comes to protection and care for the people in a nation.

It would require a moron to argue against that fact. So I have no problems saying that Russia is a cesspool right now and the solution is to rid itself of despot leaders, corrupt politicians and oligarchs, removal of state propaganda media, applying constitutional rights to the people with free speech and free media as major core functions of balancing against the state, while parts of the system actively work with governing the politician's practices so that no politician tries to consolidate their power and if they do they are removed. The basic pillars of a functional democracy that through the system governs itself to never let through any authoritarian fascism. And while we have problems in "the west", especially the US, it is still better than the system of actual fascist authoritarian control. And most importantly, it enables change in society if something is bad, which authoritarian dictatorships can never do.

There seems to be a confusion about "plans". In a game of chess, my plan is to win. To do that I implement an opening sequence of moves that is tried and trusted against any and every response. My plans never include planning for the opponent to make a blunder, but if they do, my plans will change. If they play well, I will have to adapt to the moves they make. I always hope for, but rarely expect, an easy win. by and large, once the opening moves are made, plans are developed and abandoned almost at every move until there is a simplification of the board that allows for the calculation of the end game.

Of course in a real war, even the definition of 'win' or 'stalemate' is flexible.

It wasn't. The economy was healing when Putin entered the scene, and then he consolidated his power over the course of 20 years.

That "we don't know if it would have been healthier today" is not a counter-argument really. We know the result of the corruption and despot move of Putin to consolidate his power. — Christoffer

I've seen that story bandied around, but it's not true. Yeltsin was corrupt af, and he chose Putin as his successor so he'd have protection from prosecution.

Putin has the same problem. He can't step down unless he has a successor who's loyal and corrupt.

So what is your actual conclusion? That "we don't know if it would have been better"? What's your inductive reasoning? What's the most probable conclusion? — Christoffer

It's possible that converting from socialist disaster to hot burning capitalism would have been too much of a shock. In Russia, there were places where people thought they owned the factories they worked in. They thought it was immoral for one person to own it.

The NY Times says that though he isn't going to end up taking over Ukraine, the war has consolidated his power in Russia. The sanctions have also done that: isolated Russia from the rest of the world in a way that Putin wants.

So it could be a success for him in ways other than militarily. — frank

Yet did Putin need to consolidate his power? I think after over 20 years he has consolidated power quite well. Of course, now after starting a large war, he can go against anybody on the basis of them being a fifth column.

Perhaps Putin will need a buzzer for the endless applause to end. Even that buzzer didn't work for one Georgian:

Yet did Putin need to consolidate his power? I think after over 20 years he has consolidated power quite well. Of course, now after starting a large war, he can go against anybody on the basis of them being a fifth column. — ssu

You know better than I do, I'm sure. There was one biography of him that said there is the perception of a legitimacy problem.

Ostensibly, there are elections, but they're overtly rigged.

In the old days, he'd be the top of an aristocracy ruling by divine right, but he doesn't have that either.

So it was an unresolved issue. The war gives him a way to finally resolve it. He's dictator for life because Russia is being attacked by NATO.

The bullshit wins.

Earlier Putin had a different and somewhat more clever strategy. He firmly controlled the TV and mainstream media, but did allow small independent media to exist or have non-governmental organizations like the human rights organization Memorial to exist. These weren't any threat to the regime, but Russian officials could by clear consciousness deny accusations that Russia didn't have free speech.

But I don't think Putin cares about appearances. Once his gamble hasn't given him huge successes like the annexation of Crimea in 2014, he likely sees a threat from domestic content.

Democracy and free public discourse give a safety valve for the society: if things are really going the way a lot of people don't like, it will show far earlier before there's a huge crisis. But once you take away the safety valve and any kind of indicators showing how the steam in the boiler is developing, your only indicator will be when the boiler explodes and then it's too late.

So we'll probably see a wave of assassinations?

But I would expect the average Russian to accept that the West is attacking them. I may be wrong.

What Russian withdrawal looks like...

So we'll probably see a wave of assassinations? — frank

A lot of the assassinations have been more warnings to others especially in the intelligence services. Some like the assassination of Boris Nemtsov or Anna Politovskaya have been major political events, but just who is behind them isn't so clear. It's not that Putin writes down a list of people, it can be also some parties in the security system who want gain the appreciation of Putin by taking out these traitors as Putin has often talked about. And of course it's not anything resembling the purges of Stalin.