This is a common tack among demagogues and propagandists: emphasize (or fabricate) uncertainty, throw up not one but many alternative narratives. Anything is possible, there's too much propaganda on both sides, we will never know the truth, it's all so confusing... When your position is weak, just upset the board.

↪ssu This is a common tack among demagogues and propagandists: emphasize (or fabricate) uncertainty, throw up not one but many alternative narratives. Anything is possible, there's too much propaganda on both sides, we will never know the truth, it's all so confusing... When your position is weak, just upset the board. — SophistiCat

By confidence the following was published today in The Guardian:

Nearly six months after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, there is still widespread disagreement in the west on Vladimir Putin’s motives.

This is of more than academic interest. If we do not agree why Putin decided to invade Ukraine and what he wants to achieve, we cannot define what would constitute victory or defeat for either of the warring sides and the contours of a possible endgame. — Philip Short - has written authoritative biographies including Putin

Why, then, did Putin stake so much on a high-risk enterprise that will at best bring him a tenuous grip on a ruined land?

At first it was said that he was unhinged – “a lunatic”, in the words of the defence secretary, Ben Wallace. Putin was pictured lecturing his defence chiefs, cowering at the other end of a 6-metre long table. But not long afterwards, the same officials were shown sitting at his side. The long table turned out to be theatrics – Putin’s version of Nixon’s “madman” theory, to make him appear so irrational that anything was possible, even nuclear war. — Philip Short - has written authoritative biographies including Putin

Then western officials argued that Putin was terrified at the prospect of a democratic Ukraine on Russia’s border [...]

The invasion has also been portrayed as a straightforward imperialist land grab. [...]

In fact, Putin’s invasion is being driven by other considerations. — Philip Short - has written authoritative biographies including Putin

Bill Burns, now the head of the CIA, who was then the US ambassador to Moscow, wrote at the time in a secret cable to the White House: “Ukrainian entry into Nato is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In my more than two-and-a-half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in Nato as anything other than a direct challenge to Russia’s interests … Today’s Russia will respond.”

All just "propaganda" a literal biographer of Putin pointing out we don't know Putin's objectives?

Casually mentioning successful "'madman' theory" a la Nixon:

The madman theory is a political theory commonly associated with US President Richard Nixon's foreign policy. Nixon and his administration tried to make the leaders of hostile Communist Bloc nations think he was irrational and volatile. According to the theory, those leaders would then avoid provoking the United States, fearing an unpredictable American response.

Some international relations scholars have been skeptical of madman theory as a strategy for success in bargaining.[1][2] One study found that madman theory is frequently counterproductive, but that it can be an asset under certain conditions.[3] — Madman Theory - Wikipedia

Though, of note, I like how some experts are "skeptical" about appearing insane and doing so is perhaps counter productive ... sometimes.

Unintended fireworks ...

, I don't think people generally think of Putin as mad insane.
At least, outside of the usual (sociopathic) authoritarian strategizing/manipulation.
Anyway, so, what's the simplest coherent explanation? (Or a coherent simpler explanation?)
Attempting to push Russia up the food chain?




"Russians and Ukrainians are one people" signs being put up in Kherson (Aug 18, 2022)

... both echoing and contradicting what Putin has said previously.

"Look what you caused, Putin."

Russian-speakers in Latvia told to pick sides in test of patriotism (Aug 19, 2022)

^{(by the way, I don't think such draconic measures would fly in the places I call home, then again, Latvia borders Russia and has lots of Russian-speakers)}

You are still on mute

Lithuania helps Ukraine

However, the truth is that the principle of "can't send NATO troops" or "can't send too many arms", to avoid WWIII, is simply used as a manipulation tool to calibrate the arms and intelligence support to maintain the war by propping up Ukraine, but not nearly enough support for Ukraine to have a chance of winning. — boethius

LOL. Just watch....

They turned us into savages’: Russian soldier describes start of Ukraine invasion
In this extract from former paratrooper Pavel Filatyev’s memoir, he recalls wild looting after soldiers entered Kherson

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/17/they-turned-us-into-savages-russian-soldier-describes-start-of-ukraine-invasion

↪boethius You are still on mute — SophistiCat

Again, if this is true, how are we talking.

Furthermore, my last post was simply quoting a literal "authoritative biographer of Putin" explaining basically the same thing.

So, please, explain how this biographer's article in The Guardian is propaganda and demagoguery.

LOL. Just watch.... — Olivier5

Watch Ukraine retake all the Donbas and Crimea?

Watch Ukraine march on Moscow?

Watch what?

I don't think people generally think of Putin as mad insane.
At least, outside of the usual (sociopathic) authoritarian strategizing/manipulation.
Anyway, so, what's the simplest coherent explanation? (Or a coherent simpler explanation?)
Attempting to push Russia up the food chain? — jorndoe

Insane - no. Isolated, poorly informed, surrounded by a small circle yes-men who tell him only what he wants to hear - much more likely.

Continuing the FSB theme, here are a couple of articles in a Russian investigative publication. The first is an OP by a journalist who has been covering Russian security services for many years, written in May (English version):

How Putin Decided to Go to War

Why was the war destined for failure from the very beginning, what sources of information did president Putin rely on before starting it, and why did nobody in the Federal Security Service [FSB] of the Russian Federation tell him the truth about the real situation in Ukraine

"As ridiculous as it sounds, the decision to go to war was made by the most uninformed person that could possibly have taken it. The president," my source sneers.

And a follow-up of sorts, published today and not yet translated:

Who controls Russian troops in Ukraine

Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu is out of favor with Vladimir Putin. The president confers directly with commanders charged with the conduct of the military operation.

The fact that the leadership is poorly informed is admitted even by the ex-Minister of State Security of the DPR, former commander of the Vostok brigade Alexander Khodakovsky. “One of the main problems with a closed system that took shape over decades and that is permeated by competing interest groups is an abject fear of being the bearer of bad news. Some highly placed generals who are capable of admitting certain issues in an intimate setting, when asked why they don't report them, reply: 'I'd be sacked if I did...'”

Watch Ukraine retake all the Donbas and Crimea? — boethius

And why not?

You considered Ukraine vanquished from day one of the invasion. And yet, didn't they repel the attack on Kiev? Didn't they bring the Russian steamroller to a halt in Dombass?

It's not over until it's over. Neither you nor I can tell the future.

a Russian investigative publication. ....

https://storage.googleapis.com/istories/index.html — SophistiCat

Looks like a pretty good source, thanks.

All just "propaganda" a literal biographer of Putin pointing out we don't know Putin's objectives? — boethius

Again the "Putin attacked Ukraine because of NATO-membership" argument?

I think everyone agrees that one single reason doesn't explain a decision to go to war and obviously Russia wouldn't like Ukraine to be a member of NATO. However this idea that this was the most important reason (or only reason) depends on the idea that Ukrainian membership was possible/realistic/imminent.

Let's notice just what actually was said before the war:

(Do note the date: before February 24th.)

(TASS, February 16th 2022) BERLIN, February 16. /TASS/. Ukraine’s NATO membership is not on the alliance’s agenda at the moment, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz told German reporters after talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"There is a fact, and the fact is: all parties know that Ukraine’s NATO membership is not on the agenda," the German leader said at a news conference, broadcast by WELT.

He went on to say that in this situation "everyone should step back a bit," and spoke against "a military standoff about an issue which is not even on the agenda."

Scholz made similar statements during a joint news conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier in the day.

What "not being in the alliances agenda" meant for Germany has been now cleared a bit:

(NEXTA) German @Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz said that before the war in Ukraine began, he had promised Putin that Ukraine would not become a NATO member in the coming decades, Die Welt reports.

If Germany was against the NATO membership of Ukraine (basically openly), I guess there would be other NATO members too, which have disputes with Ukraine and willing to be in good terms with Russia and hence wouldn't want to expand the organization. But of course this hasn't silenced the people who argue that this war happened because of NATO.

In my view the February 24th attack was simply a gamble where the risks didn't seem so huge as prior gambles had worked.

We forget just what have been the real military victories of Russia and Soviet Union after World War 2. The really successful large military operation was in 1968 the Occupation of Czechoslovakia. Such large attack that the Czech army didn't raise it's finger and not even the Czech people dared to fight with against the tanks as had the Hungarians in 1956. There wasn't any war, just a surrender, basically protests.

(And then, the tanks were in Prague)


Similarly the occupation of Crimea, when this war actually started, was actually huge military victory. Using overwhelming force and achieving strategic surprise, all the objectives, both military and political, were met. The surprise is best shown in the World media was confused about the who were "Crimean volunteers" or the "little green men".

Yet the similar things as then were present earlier when Soviet Union invaded Finland: A puppet government "so-called Kuusinen government" that portrayed to be Finland asking the help from the Soviet Union, the idea that the Finnish workers would rejoice being liberated and earlier Civil War "reds" joining the ranks of Kuusinen's government. And the Soviet troops were said it would be an easy march and that Finnish workers would welcome them. Now we just have the "People's Republics", which have been far more successful.

Yet same thing happened as now: it hasn't been a victory march into Ukraine as it wasn't into my country.

Yet, before the assault as war is only an option, why wouldn't people under Putin tell him what he wants to hear? That it will be a short quick war and Ukraine will fold when the going gets tough.And hasn't Putin modernized the Russian military and hasn't it shown it can fight well in Syria? Who's going to say to a President that has fought very successful wars that this one will be different?

Again the "Putin attacked Ukraine because of NATO-membership" argument? — ssu

That's not what I nor Philip short is stating.

The thesis is clear:

Nearly six months after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, there is still widespread disagreement in the west on Vladimir Putin’s motives. — Philip Short - has written authoritative biographies including Putin

We don't really know what the motives are, there is widespread disagreement, and several narratives have come and gone about it in the Western press.

I'm completely open to speculation of essentially any plausible motive.

I think everyone agrees that one single reason doesn't explain a decision to go to war and obviously Russia wouldn't like Ukraine to be a member of NATO. However this idea that this was the most important reason (or only reason) depends on the idea that Ukrainian membership was possible/realistic/imminent. — ssu

Again, neither I nor the author I cite is claiming this.

However, it's pretty clear that declaring Ukraine and Georgia will join NATO some day is the trigger that set's in motion the violent events that follow starting with the invasion of Georgia. Professor Mearsheimer point about that is that there is simply no evidence of any plan to invade Georgia nor Ukraine before declaring they would join NATO.

It is clearly a main driver of the hostilities and tensions.

The significant escalation in 2014 is again only after a violent coup against a "moderate" (from the point of view of Russian relations) and the rise of anti-Russian neo-Nazi groups who then start a forever war in Donbas against separatists, refuse all settlement proposals.

No one is claiming Russia engineered the coup, and there's literal audio evidence of USA "choosing their man" as president. Russia, Ukraine and EU came to a resolution before things got further out of control, then several peace processes failed, and people were being shelled and dying for 8 years.

Now, what to make of this context is of course up for debate. One can speculate that somehow it was Russia that engineered all these things to get to this point of invading Ukraine. But, it would speculation and there is no evidence for it.

The only prima facie interpretation of the context available is that Russia is reacting to clearly hostile moves. Ok, even if one accepts that, one can argue Russia has no right to react to such hostile moves, they're not "all that hostile" considering it's not realistic Ukraine will join NATO even if NATO is publicly saying that's the goal and Ukraine places it in their constitution.

However, the context is just facts and what the facts have issue with is a narrative of Russia suddenly and without provocation invading a weaker neighbour who then valiantly "stand alone".

There's of course lot's to debate; one can accept declaring Ukraine and Georgia will join NATO is a provocation without accepting that is reasonable or moral basis to invade, or even wise to invade even it if was just and reasonable to want to.

One can argue that somehow "this is what Russia wanted all along!" and has engineered events to go this way, knowing Ukraine would refuse all reasonable proposals for peace they keep proposing reasonable resolutions at every step of the crisis in a sort of bad faith prediction of the counter-party bad faith; it's certainly possible, I don't put anything past the cloak and dagger under world, but there's simply no existing evidence for that.

We don't really know what the motives are, there is widespread disagreement, and several narratives have come and gone about it in the Western press.

I'm completely open to speculation of essentially any plausible motive. — boethius

I think you and me will have to wait about 30 years before we have a reasonable view of what likely happened. It's true that only 50-100 years history usually has come to an overall conclusion and the historians are arguing about the minor details, but likely in 30 years we can see how it was.

It is clearly a main driver of the hostilities and tensions. — boethius

So your " completely open to speculation of essentially any plausible motive", yet you have decided that NATO expansion "is clearly a main driver of the hostilities and tensions". Well perhaps "a main driver" is better than "the main driver".

Well, if it was just NATO membership, Russia wouldn't be annexing parts of Ukraine. It is as simple as that you cannot deny that. You simply cannot. Regime change yes, annexation no.

The only prima facie interpretation of the context available is that Russia is reacting to clearly hostile moves. — boethius

By annexing territories of other sovereign countries. Right. :roll:

We've had this discussion in this thread of what Crimea meant for Russia, how Crimea is now seen as integral part of Russia and how it is now seen by Putin an illegal act and so on.

And how about Moldova? Has it tried to join NATO? No. Yet there the same strategy was implemented: Russian/Soviet troops presented as "peacekeepers", a separatist force backed by Russia. Just like in Georgia, actually.

And how about Armenia? Has Armenia tried to be a NATO member? In fact it's a member of the CSTO. Yet when Azerbaijan attacked (with the help of Turkey and oil money), Russia didn't help it's ally, because the government had tried to make perhaps better relations to the West. It played the role of a mediator.

If your are blind to the fact that Russia wants to dominate all of it's former states and does want parts of Ukraine, if it can, then there's not much to change your view.

But this is a minor issue as the war is going on.

We forget just what have been the real military victories of Russia and Soviet Union after World War 2. The really successful large military operation was in 1968 the Occupation of Czechoslovakia. Such large attack that the Czech army didn't raise it's finger and not even the Czech people dared to fight with against the tanks as had the Hungarians in 1956. There wasn't any war, just a surrender, basically protests. — ssu

And before WW2 there were the three Baltic states that USSR occupied without a fight. The disastrous Winter War that preceded this didn't discourage the Soviets - and the gamble payed off. They installed puppet governments, which promptly held "elections," followed by a vote to become new Soviet Socialist Republics (with 90+% voting in favor).

So yeah, they've learned all the wrong lessons from history, if they learned at all.

Another aspect of the war ... via UNICEF

Over half of Ukraine's children are now refugees or fleeing (some more or less kidnapped), with no light at the end of the Ukrainian tunnel.

As seen before, a generation could be lost, while Putin's machinations bomb away, allegedly to deNazify and/or out of fear of NATO.

The right thing to do in the immediate term would be for Putin to turn the volume down, simple as that.

So far, UNICEF et al arranged for schooling/education for some 600,000 children having fled Ukraine.

I think you and me will have to wait about 30 years before we have a reasonable view of what likely happened. — ssu

Sure, it might be so.

So your " completely open to speculation of essentially any plausible motive", yet you have decided that NATO expansion "is clearly a main driver of the hostilities and tensions". — ssu

Obviously NATO expansion is a plausible motive and clearly a main driver of hostilities and tensions over the decades since the end of the cold war.

It's clearly a main driver of events.

Well perhaps "a main driver" is better than "the main driver". — ssu

Exactly why I say "a" instead of "the", as other plausible ideas of motives still feature NATO expansion as a main driver, and certainly legitimate to some degree, but serving more as pretext for the real main drivers (such as imperialism or Putin's legacy and the like). And even if one were to posit that invasion would occur regardless of NATO expansion in the counter-factual, the fact NATO does expand makes it at least a main driver of the events we actually see.

I would not find it credible a theory that proposed NATO expansion has nothing to do with it and is not a main driver of events. Certainly Russian policy vis-a-vis NATO expansion (or then because they will invade anyways) is also a main driver, but the speculative part we're considering is what's exactly the motive behind the Russian policy.

The point I was making in my last post is that the context is still NATO expansion over decades, these are facts, so any explanation of motive needs to account for this (whether some sort of good faith, bad faith, or even nefarious "Russia engineered NATO expansion" somehow), to contrast with a popular Western framing that presents the invasion as essentially out of the blue (no invasion of Georgia after the NATO announcement, no coup in 2014, no civil war against ethnic Russians since, no advanced Baltic missile bases to protect against Iran and so on).

Well, if it was just NATO membership, Russia wouldn't be annexing parts of Ukraine. It is as simple as that you cannot deny that. You simply cannot. Regime change yes, annexation no. — ssu

For certain there are other considerations. NATO expansion I mentioned as main driver since the end of the cold war, at least of the particular events as they particularly occur. Of course, the counter factual of no NATO expansion is completely legitimate to argue would be "Russian imperialism unleashed" as much as mundane EU integration.

Regime change has obviously failed. However, Russia did offer to completely withdraw for recognition of Crimea, neutral Ukraine, independent Donbas (within Ukraine) and Russian speaker rights protected.

There are several interpretations of the annexations, ranging from leverage to still try just to achieve above, to Crimea being a completely legitimate critical security issue that then needs water, to the plan was to start annexing more and more of Ukraine whenever the opportunity arises.

By annexing territories of other sovereign countries. Right. :roll: — ssu

Definitely you can say the reaction is unjustified, I go to some length to explain that.

For example, I would certainly agree I have provoked more than a few people on this forum from time to time, and if one of them came to my door and shot me, I would not agree that's reasonable or justified, but it is still true I provoked them.

Provocation does not entail some moral fault. Pretty much any protest is provocative vis-a-vis police and whoever's being protested against.

However, the only evidence available is that NATO / Ukraine does something provocative, and then Russia reacts to that provocation. Saying annexing territories is totally "out of line" is of course a legitimate line of argument.

Where provocation is relevant is in terms of evaluating pre-planning which is the narrative I have issue with. If you go to a bar and get provoked and get into a fight, even if totally overreacting and committing crimes where the provocation is legal, it still demonstrates you didn't go to the bar with the intention of getting into a fight. Of course, unless you go to a bar that you know you'll get provoked in so as to have an excuse to punch a guy.

We've had this discussion in this thread of what Crimea meant for Russia, how Crimea is now seen as integral part of Russia and how it is now seen by Putin an illegal act and so on. — ssu

I have zero problem with the idea that Russia "wanted" Crimea anyways. The debate (between plausible theories) could be framed as whether Russia is using events as an excuse to overreact and Annex territory or then had no such plan but feels it necessary as events unfold. I.e. is the 2014 coup a genuine surprise and the annexation of Crimea a snap reaction to secure critical defence positions, or was it the plan all along and simply waiting for the reason to do so.

Professor Mearsheimer does not exclude this latter scenario, just that there's actual evidence supporting it. However, even if Russia is reacting, again, doesn't mean Russia is the victim or that the reactions are justified.

If your are blind to the fact that Russia wants to dominate all of it's former states and does want parts of Ukraine, if it can, then there's not much to change your view. — ssu

I have zero problem accepting such a premise.

The question is what to do about it.

I go to some length to develop the feasibility of having implemented (more difficult now but could still be arranged as a "peace keeping" thing) a military standoff with Russia by sending in NATO troops, thus daring Putin to attack NATO. Sending boots on the ground in Ukraine is obviously not directly attacking Russia, it would still be Russia starting a conflict with NATO if it were to attack Ukraine and whatever soldiers are there.

Of course, as a some sort of ballsy Western cowboy move, probably would result directly in WWIII as other posters have mentioned.

However, accompanied by a diplomatic theory more sophisticated than kindergarten name calling, with enticing compensatory offers to Russia (Nord Stream 2 and so on), not only would I expect that to work, but I still, even now, would evaluate it as more stabilising and less risky than the current policy (which, as we've seen, gets us super close to WWIII anyways as well as a chaotic and destructive war, in itself a risky thing).

What I have issue with is the "well, we won't actually take risks ourselves to prevent the war using 'force', the only language Putin understands and respects according to our narrative, so we'll just pour arms into an incredibly unstable and destructive process that affects the entire globe in terms of food and energy prices, triggering the first event we could consider global famine."

If protecting Ukrainian sovereignty is a moral imperative, then y'a gotta do what y'a gotta do and send in troops to do that protecting.

If avoiding WWIII is the moral imperative and a conflict with Russia over Ukraine is a pathway to that ... then gotta compromise and basically let Russia have major concessions concerning Ukraine to avoid war; and indeed, concessions would involve ceding territory, such as Crimea, and accepting the risk Russia may take more land later.

It boils down to simply both principles being in conflict and you can't have both; you can't minimise conflict with Russia to avoid probability of WWIII but then also stop them militarily taking what they want to take.

Pouring in arms is a worst of both worlds in my opinion: widespread destruction, Ukraine loses territory, and still incredibly unstable situation (globally) that can lead to WWIII anyways.

Today marks half a year since the start of the invasion, and by coincidence (or not?), today is also Ukrainian Independence day. So, many specials and retrospectives in various media.

Big WoPo article: Battle for Kyiv: Ukrainian valor, Russian blunders combined to save the capital

According to several Ukrainian officials, on the day of the invasion they were contacted on Russia's behalf with an offer of surrender. (The Minister of Defence says he made a counter-offer to accept Russian surrender.)

Over half of Ukraine's children are now refugees or fleeing (some more or less kidnapped), with no light at the end of the Ukrainian tunnel.

As seen before, a generation could be lost, while Putin's machinations bomb away, allegedly to deNazify and/or out of fear of NATO.

The right thing to do in the immediate term would be for Putin to turn the volume down, simple as that.

So far, UNICEF et al arranged for schooling/education for some 600,000 children having fled Ukraine. — jorndoe

I remember when they studied the effects of WW2 on children in Finland, they found that the most traumatic experiences were with those children that were evacuated to Sweden and were separated from their families and parents. No civilians were left to the hands of Russians as the civilian population was evacuated from front. At least now it has been mothers with their children that have been evacuated from Ukraine.

(Not like this...)


(Better like this for the child.)


And with this rate, likely about 100 000 or over will be killed in the first year of the war.

The disastrous Winter War that preceded this didn't discourage the Soviets - and the gamble payed off. They installed puppet governments, which promptly held "elections," followed by a vote to become new Soviet Socialist Republics (with 90+% voting in favor).

So yeah, they've learned all the wrong lessons from history, if they learned at all. — SophistiCat

There is a very interesting longue durée in the way Russia works it's imperialistic goals. The methods and tactics are basically same. From Putin's speeches the historical viewpoint is evident, something that rarely Western politicians use, but is very common for example in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, Putin is trying to enlargen the armed forces:

Aug 25 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree on Thursday to increase the size of Russia's armed forces from 1.9 million to 2.04 million as the war in Ukraine enters its seventh month.

Moscow has not revealed any losses in the conflict since its first weeks, but Western officials and the Kyiv government say they number in the thousands.

The increase includes a 137,000 boost in the number of combat personnel to 1.15 million. It comes into effect on Jan 1, according to the decree published on the government's legislative portal.

Even in the spring draft the objectives weren't met. So easier said than done.

Even in the spring draft the objectives weren't met. So easier said than done. — ssu

Why not? Do people just flee to the Eurasian steppes and live with camels to escape the draft?

Or do they dress like Cossacks and get so drunk their hearts stop beating?

I'm very familiar with Russian life, as you can tell.

Peripheral to the thread, about ambitions and moves (and pushing it or gambling perhaps) ...

^{• Russia extends its claim to the Arctic Ocean seabed (Apr 4, 2021)
• Satellite images show huge Russian military buildup in the Arctic (Apr 5, 2021)
• Russia wants more of the Arctic seabed — right up to Canada's 200 km offshore zone (Apr 12, 2021)
• What is behind Russia’s interest in a warming Arctic? (Mar 28, 2022)}

Back further south ...

^{• Russia is disappearing vast numbers of Ukrainians (The Economist; Jul 7, 2022)}

Sinister, but not unheard of :/

Why not? Do people just flee to the Eurasian steppes and live with camels to escape the draft?
Bu
Or do they dress like Cossacks and get so drunk their hearts stop beating?

I'm very familiar with Russian life, as you can tell. — Tate

:smile:

Well, people just evading authorities and moving into the forest is said to be one reason why Russia didn't have similar feudalism as in Western Europe.

But I guess the reason is that a) you can bribe the officers that are responsible of your draft, b) you can bribe a doctor (like Trump did to avoid military service in Vietnam) that you are unable to serve or c) you just don't show up and the government doesn't have the resources to hunt for every draft dodger there is. Or then work on an important sector (like information technology) where your employer can get you exempted.

Russia on Tuesday temporarily exempted young IT workers from military service after an exodus of programmers following Moscow's military operation in Ukraine.

That not all of able males do serve has been a problem in Russia for a long time:

(from 2015)

in Russia, military service is mandatory for men aged 18 to 27. But according to a recent European Parliamentary Research Service report, each year, half of all would-be conscripts—75,000 out of an annual intake of around 150,000 young men—are thought to be dodging the draft.

Now it is said that the drop out rate is only 30%, so basically the situation has improved from 2015 I guess.

Russian fighter Igor Mangushev tells what he thinks about the goals of the war, with a skull of an Ukrainian soldier as a prop:

Yes, I saw that too. Igor Mangushev is a mercenary who is currently fighting in Ukraine. He is said to be the founder of the mercenary company Yenot (Raccoon). Yenot mercs were there right from the start of the invasion, before Wagner got involved.

On a related note, here is a recent opinion piece by Fiona Hill and Angela Stent in Foreign Affairs: The World Putin Wants:

Vladimir Putin is determined to shape the future to look like his version of the past. Russia’s president invaded Ukraine not because he felt threatened by NATO expansion or by Western “provocations.” He ordered his “special military operation” because he believes that it is Russia’s divine right to rule Ukraine, to wipe out the country’s national identity, and to integrate its people into a Greater Russia.

This merc clearly had the right idea:

We are not at war with people of blood and flesh. We are at war with an idea: with an idea of Ukraine as an anti-Russian state. There can be no peace. We must de-Ukrainize Ukraine. The Russian land of Malorossia must be returned back to Russia...

This is why the tragedy for the Ukrainian soldiers is that we are fighting with an idea, and we don't give a shit how many of them we have to kill and how we have to kill them... Since we are fighting with an idea, all who share this idea must be destroyed like this poor sucker."

If Russia stops fighting there will be no more war. If Ukrainians stop fighting there will be no more Ukraine. — GA: Ukraine (Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden, Denmark · Feb 28, 2022)

(don't know the origin, allegedly a protester's sign)

As mentioned before in the thread, this does put a liability/accountability/onus on Putin.

Igor Mangushev is a psychosociopath or whatever the right term is. I guess they tend to come out of the woodwork when the opportunity arises.

Video Shows Russian Fighter With Ukrainian Skull, Says He'll Make a Goblet (Newsweek; Aug 28, 2022)

#StandWithUkraine

Again, no one is actually "standing" with Ukraine, except a few foreign fighters.

If Norwar and other NATO countries were actually standing with Ukraine, then Ukraine could easily be defended.

Which then brings no the retort that that would start WWIII.

Ok, but if "Standing with Ukraine" that way may start WWIII, then doing so in a substitute way has the same risk.

Solution, no matter how "bad" Russia is, arm Ukraine just enough to reduce Russia war aims ... but not enough to actually be any sort of loss.

Currently Russia has nearly all of the Donbas, Crimea, Kershon, and Ukraine has not been able to budge Russian lines West of the Dnieper.

Literally since day one of the war we are told Russian military morale is bad and will collapse any day, sanctions are hitting and Russian state will collapse any day.

On a related note, here is a recent opinion piece by Fiona Hill and Angela Stent in Foreign Affairs: The World Putin Wants:

Vladimir Putin is determined to shape the future to look like his version of the past. Russia’s president invaded Ukraine not because he felt threatened by NATO expansion or by Western “provocations.” He ordered his “special military operation” because he believes that it is Russia’s divine right to rule Ukraine, to wipe out the country’s national identity, and to integrate its people into a Greater Russia. — SophistiCat

We see statements like this, but never see any evidence.

People in the West are living in a fantasy world where the war can be won on social media.

Meanwhile tens of thousands of Ukrainians have been killed, many more traumatised and displaced, as a consequence of social media bloodlust.

The narrative doesn't even make any sense, since if the first phase of the war was a disaster for Russia, then easy to negotiate a peace on good terms.

Of course, Russia would never give back Crimea, so if your bloodlust extends to that, then at least have the decency to append "with hundreds of thousands of lives spent doing it".