I did Mark told me all you need do is click on the icon of the intended person which I did yours & sent you a message yesterday.
-
CLICK HERE To Join Broke Straight Boys & Instantly Get Full Access To Entire Site & 3 FREE bonus sites.
Russia & Ukraine War
- Thread starter BrokeStraightBoys
- Start date
Yes. That's an interesting cultural reference point for Russians. They know that if they see Swan Lake playing on Russian sate tv that something really bad, or some kind of political earthquake or upheaval has happened. It's never been a sign of good news so far. It has come to usually mean that something dark and forboding is afoot. When Leonid Brezhnev died, state tv played Swan Lake on a loop. When his successor Konstantin Chernenko died, state tv played Swan Lake. When his successor Yuri Andropov died, state tv played Swan Lake on a loop.
When Mikhail Gorbachev was briefly overthrown in a coup attempt by the military, and as tanks rolled into Moscow's streets, and with nascent democratic reforms on the verge of being snuffed out... State tv played Swan Lake on a loop. Russians knew instinctively from cultural context that something really bad had happened. Since the failed coup attempt in 1991 in particular, Swan Lake has come to usually mean that something dark and foreboding is afoot for the country.
When Putin announced that the invasion/"Special Miltary Operation" of Ukraine had begun, he ordered the dissolution of any remaining news media outlets still not under governement control. One of the casualties of that was a news channel called TV Rain. It was an independent news program run by mostly younger people who tried to push the limits of state censorship in order to bring more truthful sharing, and a less nationalistic propaganda spin, of current events.
They had one final broadcast before they were ordered to close down forever, as Putin began to wage his unprovoked war on a fellow Slavic neighbor. It was both a very defiant and very sad final broadcast for all involved. There's a poignant moment when one person even broke from Russian to yell the famous Spanish Civil War battle cry of, <<!No Pasaran!>>. Literally meaning, "They shall not pass!" But in more colloquial and less literal interpretations both during the civil war and after, it was (and presently is) meant to strongly convey the idea of, "The fascists will never beat us!" Or, "They won't win in the long run!" "This won't stand!" "We'll never give up the fight!"
As the studio lights at TV Rain dimmed, some staffers walked out highly irate, some tearfully, while some others knew they would personally need to flee the country immediately before they ended up in jail. They had one last defiant message to give Putin the finger in the last moments of their final farewell broadcast. The choice of their sign-off was an easy one.
Last edited:
Hopefully we'll see the day when Putin has his own Swan Lake moment. I really don't care if it's in the form of an announcement of his death, a forced "resignation", or his outright overthrow from power. If Russians see Swan Lake playing on state tv for hours on end in the future (for any of those above reasons) hopefully they'll find it an actual cause for real celebration -- rather than dread.
What rattles in my mind though is the saying, "Be careful what you wish for." Throughout the course of Soviet and Russian history they've often managed to find several despotic leaders. We can't be assured that the next leader of Russia post-Putin will be a huge improvement from the Western perspective. But Putin is so God-awful and hell bent on recreating the old Soviet Union, that it feels like right now anyone would be an improvement over him.
Agree!
I'm getting worried about these upcoming sham referendums Russia is planning in occupied sections of Ukraine. With at least 30% of the civilian population displaced from their homes in these regions, killed off, or otherwise living in terror of offending the occupying troops, there's no way in heck that they have any chance of these referenda being fair, clean or representative. Everyone knows that any and all referendums conducted by Russian troops will result in a resounding "majority" wanting to be annexed to Russia.
It will change the political equation once Putin insists that any "voluntarily annexed" areas that are attacked will be considered an attack on Russia itself. We don't want WWIII. It'll be interesting to see though how both Ukraine and the West react to this new political calculus. We'll have to tread carefully here to avoid this Russian trap. In the end though I don't see it stopping Ukraine from waging the war.
It will change the political equation once Putin insists that any "voluntarily annexed" areas that are attacked will be considered an attack on Russia itself. We don't want WWIII. It'll be interesting to see though how both Ukraine and the West react to this new political calculus. We'll have to tread carefully here to avoid this Russian trap. In the end though I don't see it stopping Ukraine from waging the war.
So he has gone and done it.
This could come to be seen historically as Putin's final act. (Before his eventual overthrow.)
Putin has declared a "partial" mobilization. Under Russian law this may require him to stop calling it a "Special Military Operation...and formally announce a declaration of war. It's an act of desperation because he has lost control of the battlefield. Adding sheer numbers at the front may help them on the battlefield in the very short term. But adding quantity to the number of troops in a poorly led, poorly trained and very poorly supplied force will likely just further expose and amplify the overall corruption and weaknesses of the current Russian military.
It doesn't solve any of the incompetence and the corruption, theft and embezzlement from politicians, to arms manufacturers, to contractors, to generals and the whole upper chain of command...that leads lowly Russian soldiers to cross the Russian border in desperation just to buy their own food, personal supplies and winter clothes in civilian retail stores. It doesn't solve the problem of Russian troops being sent no food...or being given field rations that expired 5-10 years ago. It doesn't solve the issue of low morale due to a lack of mission understanding among the troops as to why they are waging war on a fellow Slavic neighbor. Nor the issue of being very poorly and erratically paid, (and/or under-paid what they were promised) due to the theft of superior officers above them. It doesn't solve the issue of poorly designed tanks that have ammo stored in such a way that their own ammo explodes and blasts the turrets off of them with relatively minor enemy hits.
I could go on and on. But you get the picture. This could easily just blow up in Putin's face. (And humiliate Russia even further on the world stage.) We see how badly Russia is able to supply and care for its smaller force in Ukarine now. What makes them think that doubling or tripling the size of that force is going to miraculously solve those core problems? Many of the problems and pitfalls of a partial or full mobilization have been covered in earlier posts. The country's civilan and military infrastructure will not likely be able to handle masses of new troops being transported, fed, clothed and paid, to go to Ukraine. Pulling tens of thousands (or more) of prime age and healthy working employess from their civilan jobs will harm the economy even further. It will feel like another round of economic sanctions. Except it will be self-imposed.
This could come to be seen historically as Putin's final act. (Before his eventual overthrow.)
Putin has declared a "partial" mobilization. Under Russian law this may require him to stop calling it a "Special Military Operation...and formally announce a declaration of war. It's an act of desperation because he has lost control of the battlefield. Adding sheer numbers at the front may help them on the battlefield in the very short term. But adding quantity to the number of troops in a poorly led, poorly trained and very poorly supplied force will likely just further expose and amplify the overall corruption and weaknesses of the current Russian military.
It doesn't solve any of the incompetence and the corruption, theft and embezzlement from politicians, to arms manufacturers, to contractors, to generals and the whole upper chain of command...that leads lowly Russian soldiers to cross the Russian border in desperation just to buy their own food, personal supplies and winter clothes in civilian retail stores. It doesn't solve the problem of Russian troops being sent no food...or being given field rations that expired 5-10 years ago. It doesn't solve the issue of low morale due to a lack of mission understanding among the troops as to why they are waging war on a fellow Slavic neighbor. Nor the issue of being very poorly and erratically paid, (and/or under-paid what they were promised) due to the theft of superior officers above them. It doesn't solve the issue of poorly designed tanks that have ammo stored in such a way that their own ammo explodes and blasts the turrets off of them with relatively minor enemy hits.
I could go on and on. But you get the picture. This could easily just blow up in Putin's face. (And humiliate Russia even further on the world stage.) We see how badly Russia is able to supply and care for its smaller force in Ukarine now. What makes them think that doubling or tripling the size of that force is going to miraculously solve those core problems? Many of the problems and pitfalls of a partial or full mobilization have been covered in earlier posts. The country's civilan and military infrastructure will not likely be able to handle masses of new troops being transported, fed, clothed and paid, to go to Ukraine. Pulling tens of thousands (or more) of prime age and healthy working employess from their civilan jobs will harm the economy even further. It will feel like another round of economic sanctions. Except it will be self-imposed.
Last edited:
This is still both a proxy war and a war of attrition. Putin's only hope right now is that he can outlast this conflict by playing the long game. He hopes that eventually arms supplies and economic support to Ukraine from the West will wane. He hopes he can sowe enough discontent among other European countries to break the Russian sanctions and gradually slow down the reinforcements to Kyiv.
Actually I heard a report when I got up today saying the embargo is finally hurting the Russians.
Let us hope.
I need to add an adendum to my previous post.
The number of troops Putin wants called up in this "partial" mobilization/forced draft is 300,000 men. They started the war with about 150,000 troops on the Ukrainian border prior to the invasion. (Though that number may fluctuate depending on which internet sources you check.) I've also heard 120,000.
While it's the largest country on the planet, it's population is only roughly 140 M. (For comparison the U.S. population is about 338 M.) The demographics of Russia are such that it's also a graying population. They don't have a huge pool of healthy 20 and 30 somethings left to call up. Their society and economy cannot afford this for very long. If these 400,000 men are stuck fighting in Ukraine for 6 months or much, much more... Their economy is sunk. They'll go broke. Again, they are not a wealthy country. With all their natural resources they should be wealthy. But the money is stolen from the top leaving much less to trickle down.
Again, Putin alone in Russia is saId to secretly be the wealthiest man in the world. And there are bunches of other cronies and oligarchs stealing billions also. I looked it up and Elon Musk is considered to be the wealthiest man in the world right now with an estimated net worth of $219 Billion dollars. But Elon Musk has said that he thinks Putin is richer than him.
They've recently begun pulling troops out of Syria to send to Ukraine. That's another anecdotal sign of the level of desperation and unraveling taking place. As I've alluded to before, if terrorists or other anti-Assad opposition in Syria are taking note... They may decide that the Russians are weakened, distracted and don't have the stomach, the will or the money for another prolonged bout of fighting in Syria. They may rise up again and try to topple Assad.
Nearly tripling the number of troops on the ground in Ukraine may sound like a great idea (for them) on paper. But for all the reasons I outlined earlier... And others too numerous to mention... The Russians and their military will probably have triple or quadruple the mess from the same problems they already have right now. Their curent situation speaks volumes when they need such a large force to be called up, not for a true calamitous national emergency like a Chinese border attack, or a direct NATO attack... But just to conquer and subdue a much smaller border country like Ukraine.
The number of troops Putin wants called up in this "partial" mobilization/forced draft is 300,000 men. They started the war with about 150,000 troops on the Ukrainian border prior to the invasion. (Though that number may fluctuate depending on which internet sources you check.) I've also heard 120,000.
While it's the largest country on the planet, it's population is only roughly 140 M. (For comparison the U.S. population is about 338 M.) The demographics of Russia are such that it's also a graying population. They don't have a huge pool of healthy 20 and 30 somethings left to call up. Their society and economy cannot afford this for very long. If these 400,000 men are stuck fighting in Ukraine for 6 months or much, much more... Their economy is sunk. They'll go broke. Again, they are not a wealthy country. With all their natural resources they should be wealthy. But the money is stolen from the top leaving much less to trickle down.
Again, Putin alone in Russia is saId to secretly be the wealthiest man in the world. And there are bunches of other cronies and oligarchs stealing billions also. I looked it up and Elon Musk is considered to be the wealthiest man in the world right now with an estimated net worth of $219 Billion dollars. But Elon Musk has said that he thinks Putin is richer than him.
They've recently begun pulling troops out of Syria to send to Ukraine. That's another anecdotal sign of the level of desperation and unraveling taking place. As I've alluded to before, if terrorists or other anti-Assad opposition in Syria are taking note... They may decide that the Russians are weakened, distracted and don't have the stomach, the will or the money for another prolonged bout of fighting in Syria. They may rise up again and try to topple Assad.
Nearly tripling the number of troops on the ground in Ukraine may sound like a great idea (for them) on paper. But for all the reasons I outlined earlier... And others too numerous to mention... The Russians and their military will probably have triple or quadruple the mess from the same problems they already have right now. Their curent situation speaks volumes when they need such a large force to be called up, not for a true calamitous national emergency like a Chinese border attack, or a direct NATO attack... But just to conquer and subdue a much smaller border country like Ukraine.
Last edited:
Russia - Ukraine: China in danger of turning on 'weak, incompetent' Putin
news.com.au
By Jamie Seidel
24 Sep, 2022 02:56 PM
Is Chairman Xi Jinping poised to dump President Vladimir Putin? Or is their "no limits" relationship being precisely that?
Things have changed since the two leaders declared fast friendship at the Beijing Winter Olympics in February.
Days later, Putin invaded Ukraine.
Now, he's desperately trying to save face as his forces retreat in disarray.
And that's left international affairs analysts struggling to make sense of where the autocrats' bromance is at.
On the surface, all didn't appear well when the leaders of China, Russia and India met on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) in Uzbekistan last week.
"Putin may have been hoping for a continuation of the verbal, if not practical, support of Beijing and the ambivalence of New Delhi, but he received neither. Instead, both leaders expressed concerns over the invasion," Melbourne-based political analyst Grant Wyeth writes for Australian Foreign Affairs.
But Swedish Defence University senior lecturer Sheryn Lee argues in an Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) essay that too much should not be read into this frosty encounter.
"Russian President Vladimir Putin seemed to cower in front of Chinese President Xi Jinping as he acknowledged China's 'questions and concern' about Russia's situation in Ukraine," she writes. "But contrary to some expectations that China might see Russia as a strategic liability because of Ukraine, Ukrainian war, Beijing is likely to double down on the relationship in the short to medium term."
Between the lines
Last week, Xi urged Russia to jointly "assume the role of great powers" to introduce "stability and positive energy".
On Wednesday, Putin proclaimed his country's "partial mobilisation" by calling up 300,000 conscripts to reinforce his failing effort in Ukraine.
This seems odd after Putin chose to publicly admit Xi had concerns.
"It was quite interesting that President Putin made a remark that he knew that Xi Jinping had concerns about what he was doing in Ukraine," US deputy secretary of state Wendy Sherman said at the weekend. "Very interesting for Putin to say that."
Putin also apparently displayed displeasure at having his judgment questioned.
"Of course, we will explain in detail our position on this issue – although we have spoken about this before," he said of his meeting with Xi.
And he acknowledged that India's President Narendra Modi had "concerns, which you continuously express".
Such admissions demonstrate Putin's unease, says Wyeth.
"Even if Beijing continues to see Moscow as an important partner in reshaping international rules in its favour, Xi, for domestic purposes, now needs to put some distance between himself and Putin," he argues.
"The Russian president looks weak and incompetent for being unable to force Ukraine to submission – attributes with which authoritarian regimes cannot be associated. The calculation now for Beijing is how it can use Russia's weakness to its own benefit."
State of affairs
"Despite his seemingly unimpressed face at the summit, Xi is unlikely to break ties with Putin over the lack of Russian progress in Ukraine," argues Lee. "Russia simply remains too important a partner in China's strategy to challenge the United States' position in the Indo-Pacific."
But it is a balancing act.
China's foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin reacted to Putin's Wednesday mobilisation order to call for the resumption of peace talks.
"We call on all parties to achieve a ceasefire and stop the war through dialogue and negotiation, and to find a solution that takes into account the legitimate security concerns of all parties as soon as possible," he said.
But he also took an oblique shot at the US by supporting Russia's claim that it is behind the ongoing conflict: "We also hope the international community will create the conditions and space for this."
Evidence of a strengthening relationship abounds.
While Xi may have seemed less than enthusiastic at his face-to-face with Putin last week, his Communist Party mouthpieces continue to proclaim their enthusiasm for the partnership.
Chinese officials have pledged to strengthen military co-operation through defence exercises, technology transfers, and intelligence-sharing to counter 'foreign attempts to undermine the constitutional order' of both countries.
"China is making tactical gains from Russia's increasing reliance on it, which incrementally helps strengthen China's position in the Indo-Pacific," Lee argues.
"Defence co-operation and information-sharing agreements with Russia are contributing to China's overall goals of eroding US military superiority in the Indo-Pacific and exploiting vulnerabilities in relations between the US and its allies."
Economic consummation
While reluctant to publicly declare support for the invasion of Ukraine, China has been holding up its side of the relationship.
It has abstained from UN Security Council votes condemning the Russian invasion. It has opposed international economic and diplomatic sanctions. It has reinforced – through events such as last week's SCO conference – the idea that Beijing and Moscow offer a viable alternative to the "rules-based order" of the West.
But China's also been careful to be seen as a responsible world citizen.
"Beijing has limited collateral damage to its economic interests and diplomatic reputation by not assisting Russia to evade US and European sanctions, as well as restricting Chinese state bank financing for Russian commodity purchases," Adjunct Professor at the Australia-China Relations Institute at UTS, Dr Michael Clarke, argues in the Lowy Institute's Interpreter.
"Importantly, Chinese companies have also halted or paused projects with Russia."
But Lee argues that China is finding less obvious ways of providing direct support for Russia's war effort. "Through a network of subsidiaries, Chinese firms are exporting dual-use items to Russia, including diesel engines for ships, microchips, radar components, and aluminium oxide for weapons development."
And the benefit it offers to the two autocrats in control.
"Xi's driving agenda has been the 'struggle' to attain the 'China Dream' of 'great national rejuvenation', and the primary obstacle to that is a truculent and declining US hegemon," says Dr Clarke.
"Close Sino-Russian ties, from China's perspective, are judged to be important in this context so long as they contribute to China's economic and military strength and assist in constraining the United States."
news.com.au
By Jamie Seidel
24 Sep, 2022 02:56 PM
Is Chairman Xi Jinping poised to dump President Vladimir Putin? Or is their "no limits" relationship being precisely that?
Things have changed since the two leaders declared fast friendship at the Beijing Winter Olympics in February.
Days later, Putin invaded Ukraine.
Now, he's desperately trying to save face as his forces retreat in disarray.
And that's left international affairs analysts struggling to make sense of where the autocrats' bromance is at.
On the surface, all didn't appear well when the leaders of China, Russia and India met on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) in Uzbekistan last week.
"Putin may have been hoping for a continuation of the verbal, if not practical, support of Beijing and the ambivalence of New Delhi, but he received neither. Instead, both leaders expressed concerns over the invasion," Melbourne-based political analyst Grant Wyeth writes for Australian Foreign Affairs.
But Swedish Defence University senior lecturer Sheryn Lee argues in an Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) essay that too much should not be read into this frosty encounter.
"Russian President Vladimir Putin seemed to cower in front of Chinese President Xi Jinping as he acknowledged China's 'questions and concern' about Russia's situation in Ukraine," she writes. "But contrary to some expectations that China might see Russia as a strategic liability because of Ukraine, Ukrainian war, Beijing is likely to double down on the relationship in the short to medium term."
Between the lines
Last week, Xi urged Russia to jointly "assume the role of great powers" to introduce "stability and positive energy".
On Wednesday, Putin proclaimed his country's "partial mobilisation" by calling up 300,000 conscripts to reinforce his failing effort in Ukraine.
This seems odd after Putin chose to publicly admit Xi had concerns.
"It was quite interesting that President Putin made a remark that he knew that Xi Jinping had concerns about what he was doing in Ukraine," US deputy secretary of state Wendy Sherman said at the weekend. "Very interesting for Putin to say that."
Putin also apparently displayed displeasure at having his judgment questioned.
"Of course, we will explain in detail our position on this issue – although we have spoken about this before," he said of his meeting with Xi.
And he acknowledged that India's President Narendra Modi had "concerns, which you continuously express".
Such admissions demonstrate Putin's unease, says Wyeth.
"Even if Beijing continues to see Moscow as an important partner in reshaping international rules in its favour, Xi, for domestic purposes, now needs to put some distance between himself and Putin," he argues.
"The Russian president looks weak and incompetent for being unable to force Ukraine to submission – attributes with which authoritarian regimes cannot be associated. The calculation now for Beijing is how it can use Russia's weakness to its own benefit."
State of affairs
"Despite his seemingly unimpressed face at the summit, Xi is unlikely to break ties with Putin over the lack of Russian progress in Ukraine," argues Lee. "Russia simply remains too important a partner in China's strategy to challenge the United States' position in the Indo-Pacific."
But it is a balancing act.
China's foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin reacted to Putin's Wednesday mobilisation order to call for the resumption of peace talks.
"We call on all parties to achieve a ceasefire and stop the war through dialogue and negotiation, and to find a solution that takes into account the legitimate security concerns of all parties as soon as possible," he said.
But he also took an oblique shot at the US by supporting Russia's claim that it is behind the ongoing conflict: "We also hope the international community will create the conditions and space for this."
Evidence of a strengthening relationship abounds.
While Xi may have seemed less than enthusiastic at his face-to-face with Putin last week, his Communist Party mouthpieces continue to proclaim their enthusiasm for the partnership.
Chinese officials have pledged to strengthen military co-operation through defence exercises, technology transfers, and intelligence-sharing to counter 'foreign attempts to undermine the constitutional order' of both countries.
"China is making tactical gains from Russia's increasing reliance on it, which incrementally helps strengthen China's position in the Indo-Pacific," Lee argues.
"Defence co-operation and information-sharing agreements with Russia are contributing to China's overall goals of eroding US military superiority in the Indo-Pacific and exploiting vulnerabilities in relations between the US and its allies."
Economic consummation
While reluctant to publicly declare support for the invasion of Ukraine, China has been holding up its side of the relationship.
It has abstained from UN Security Council votes condemning the Russian invasion. It has opposed international economic and diplomatic sanctions. It has reinforced – through events such as last week's SCO conference – the idea that Beijing and Moscow offer a viable alternative to the "rules-based order" of the West.
But China's also been careful to be seen as a responsible world citizen.
"Beijing has limited collateral damage to its economic interests and diplomatic reputation by not assisting Russia to evade US and European sanctions, as well as restricting Chinese state bank financing for Russian commodity purchases," Adjunct Professor at the Australia-China Relations Institute at UTS, Dr Michael Clarke, argues in the Lowy Institute's Interpreter.
"Importantly, Chinese companies have also halted or paused projects with Russia."
But Lee argues that China is finding less obvious ways of providing direct support for Russia's war effort. "Through a network of subsidiaries, Chinese firms are exporting dual-use items to Russia, including diesel engines for ships, microchips, radar components, and aluminium oxide for weapons development."
And the benefit it offers to the two autocrats in control.
"Xi's driving agenda has been the 'struggle' to attain the 'China Dream' of 'great national rejuvenation', and the primary obstacle to that is a truculent and declining US hegemon," says Dr Clarke.
"Close Sino-Russian ties, from China's perspective, are judged to be important in this context so long as they contribute to China's economic and military strength and assist in constraining the United States."
I get New Zealand Herald on line daily and they often have items about Putin & the war.
Just r read an interesting article about Putin firing Russian generals and getting more directly involved himself, specifically rejecting the strong recommendations of his generals to withdraw from Kierson so they can safely regroup all their men and equipment on the east side of the river, because now they are cut off from supplies and support and vulnerable to the Ukrainians wiping them out. Putin ordered them to stay as he refuses to accept a third major military embarrassment. He may get a bigger third major embarrassment with that stupid order!
There is a growing fear a desperate Putin may turn to the nuclear option.
If he does that, then the rest of the world has no choice in the matter, if we don't respond he knows he can just do whatever he pleases with impunity.
Agree fully.
Biden has already told Putin in public statements that any use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine would bring about a U.S./NATO response. As well it should. Putin can't have the luxury of wondering if he can get away with using nukes without any outside military repercussions for Russia.
Similar threads
