Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:37 pm
Anyway, to continue to play devil's advocate: Putin expected capitulation by Friday, aaaaaand it's....Saturday. I think it's way too early to call whether or not he made a mistake. Obviously very much IMO.
He expected a cakewalk, not scores of burning tanks/IFVs, downed helicopters, and Russian prisoners telling the camera that they don't know why they're in Ukraine. Besides the fact that all that equipment is expensive, the impression that the Russian army is vulnerable and poorly led is a huge blow to the aura of strength Putin has been cultivating for years.
He very well might take Ukraine and clamp down on it, but his image and appeal are already weakened domestically. And (even more than what we like to claim about Ronald Reagan) discontent at home is what crumbled the foundations of the USSR.
And then there are international outcomes. Putin's efforts in supporting right-wing parties in Europe have all been aimed at making Russia a political and economic counterweight to the USA in Europe. Presumably this invasion was also meant to demonstrate his superiority. Instead, he's rapidly slipping into Pyongyang-style pariah status.
Holman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:24 pm
The initial planning (which goes all the way back to Paul Manafort's role in Trump's campaign and in weakening the 2016 GOP platform on Ukraine) was for Trump to weaken NATO, win a second term, and declare it None Of Our Business when Putin took the rest of Ukraine.
Exactly. After Trump withheld financial aid from Ukraine, it would seem the final piece of the puzzle was to get re-elected. But he failed that and I guess Putin has been waiting to see if it could somehow be reversed and now that it hasn't been, he's invading for whatever bigger picture reasons there are, despite not having Trump in power to help. Either he's made promises to others to deliver Ukraine at all costs or he's truly delusional in thinking he doesn't need whatever additional advantages Trump was providing and would continue to provide.
Is there an article online that describes this initial planning? Not that I don't believe you, but I'd love to be able to link to the article to rebut some high school friends on Facebook that want to blame Obama for this.
Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 3:02 pmThe sanctions? Very sure he was expecting those.
FWIW the sanctions being discussed prior to his de-nazification speech weren't anywhere approaching what we are seeing come together. It was trading restrictions on a few named banks and synchronization of sanctions against individuals. The US and UK/EU had slightly different lists of sanctioned individuals and institutions with gaps the oligarchs could drive T-72s through. Now we are talking about actions that very well might cause the collapse of the Russian banking system and personal sanctions against Putin. He surely expected a reaction but nothing on this scale or severity.
Edit: There is also a lot of talk about how this didn't work for Iran. The difference being that Russian banks have all sorts of collateralized instruments in western banks. Cutting them off from London, Frankfurt, and Cyprus will be a massive shock to their financial infrastructure. One theory we hear is that the Chinese might inject capital to shore up Russian finance. I haven't seen a ton of evaluation about how likely it is but if the Chinese won't to throw money into a flaming pit...all the better.
I'm looking for something to point to that ends the sentence: "Putin made a grave mistake in invading Ukraine, because....blank blank blank."
Yeah it is too early for that but things look bad for Putin if they truly bog down.
Sidenote: China might have fucked up too fwiw. Nothing will stick like it might stick to Putin here but China very well might have backed the wrong horse here. Their ridiculous statements over the last few days almost scream, "we traded a delay for the Olympics for a show of support."
Last edited by malchior on Sat Feb 26, 2022 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Especially if they advanced at breakneck speeds and never secured the routes. We're hearing stories that the Ukrainians are conducting lots of supply interdiction missions in the Chernobyl region right now.
Newcastle wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 4:03 pm
5. I really think he expected NATO, the US to roll over. They haven't.
But I think we have acted very predictably: condemning, strong words, and sanctions. Sure, maybe stronger sanctions than he thought, but still just sanctions and nothing more. Now if the SWIFT thing happens, it's a new ballgame.
Last edited by Carpet_pissr on Sun Feb 27, 2022 10:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Holman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 4:19 pmthe impression that the Russian army is vulnerable and poorly led is a huge blow to the aura of strength Putin has been cultivating for years.
Yeah, this is huge. Ultimately this is about pride, right? Dude is STILL bitter after all these freaking years, about the dissolution of the USSR, and has apparently dedicated his entire life to restoring the perceived greatness of that power. ANY ding to this image he's desperately trying to project is probably like someone punching him in the face.
--------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.
I guess Ray Butts has ate his last pancake. http://steamcommunity.com/id/daehawk
"Has high IQ. Refuses to apply it"
When in doubt, skewer it out...I don't know.
There are rumors flying about the Chechen fighters. They are allegedly in Ukraine and there are claims one of Kadyrov's top generals and perhaps a regiment sized force of Chechen fighters were decimated over the last few hours in continuing fighting in vicinity of Hostomel airfield.
"We have captured around 200 Russian soldiers, some around 19 years old. Not trained at all. Badly equipped." Ukraninan Major General Borys Kremenetsky says. "We allow them to call their parents. Parents completely surprised."
Especially if they advanced at breakneck speeds and never secured the routes. We're hearing stories that the Ukrainians are conducting lots of supply interdiction missions in the Chernobyl region right now.
And the gorillas should be able to re-stock their own supplies from the raids.
(Seeing some media outlets confirm that the sites have been hacked or gone down, at least.)
It really seems like the Kremlin wasn't ready for the war they started.
All this lends credence to the Putin as madman theory. He has more money than he could spend in a hundred lifetimes. Too bad he didn't set his sights on flying to Mars.
Maybe they can bury Putin with Hoover's bones and dress.
--------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.
I guess Ray Butts has ate his last pancake. http://steamcommunity.com/id/daehawk
"Has high IQ. Refuses to apply it"
When in doubt, skewer it out...I don't know.
Looking at the SWIFT action it looks fairly limited. "Selected institutions" but not the ones around energy purchases or raw materials. It makes sense in some respects but the impact feels a lot lighter. We might see some banks creak significantly but this isn't any sort 'nuclear' financial option. Doing more is on the table but this seems to be more in line with something Putin might have expected and priced in.
Ukrainian border guards who insulted Russian forces this week in a recorded exchange that went viral may not have been killed, Ukrainian officials said Saturday, contradicting an earlier claim by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
The State Border Guard Service of Ukraine said in a statement posted to their Facebook page that the guards may be alive, after Russian media reported that they were taken as prisoners from their base on Snake Island in the Black Sea to Sevastopol, a port city that Russia controls on the Crimean Peninsula.
Why isn't sending Ukraine support (especially weapons) seen as more of an aggression? This is a general geopolitical question I guess. There's obviously a difference between sending arms and actual military aid, but you're still contributing to the same thing.
I saw a commercial on late night TV. It said, "Forget everything you know about slipcovers." So I did. And it was a load off my mind. Then the commercial tried to sell me slipcovers, and I didn't know what the hell they were. -- Mitch Hedberg
malchior wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 8:51 pm
Looking at the SWIFT action it looks fairly limited. "Selected institutions" but not the ones around energy purchases or raw materials. It makes sense in some respects but the impact feels a lot lighter. We might see some banks creak significantly but this isn't any sort 'nuclear' financial option. Doing more is on the table but this seems to be more in line with something Putin might have expected and priced in.
The Russian economy is set to collapse. More important than SWIFT, the West has cut off the Russian Central Bank From its reserves. Putin had built up a total of $630 billion to help weather the storm of sanctions. But now with the cut off of the central bank, they are limited to the cash on hand, $12 billion. One economist has said Russia could be facing a melt down on the scale of 1991, when the Russian economy collapsed after the end of communism.
More info here, read the thread:
Last edited by Grifman on Sat Feb 26, 2022 10:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
Sudy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:24 pm
Why isn't sending Ukraine support (especially weapons) seen as more of an aggression? This is a general geopolitical question I guess. There's obviously a difference between sending arms and actual military aid, but you're still contributing to the same thing.
If you are going to treat that as the same as sending troops, then there’s no further disincentive to actually sending troops. Which would you rather have - Ukrainian troops with western weapons or western troops in Ukraine? Do you want to be seen as the aggressor by attacking the West on their territory? You’ve got your hands full with Ukraine already. And are you going to threaten nuclear war because the West is supplying Ukraine with weapons? I mean you could do all this but none of that seems like the better choice.
Last edited by Grifman on Sat Feb 26, 2022 10:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
Grifman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:31 pm One economist has said Russia could be facing a melt down on the scale of 1991, when the Russian economy collapsed after the end of communism.
I’m not saying the extensive sanctions aren’t necessary, but I do worry what will happen when an obviously unhinged autocrat feels cornered and desperate.
Grifman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:31 pm One economist has said Russia could be facing a melt down on the scale of 1991, when the Russian economy collapsed after the end of communism.
I’m not saying the extensive sanctions aren’t necessary, but I do worry what will happen when an obviously unhinged autocrat feels cornered and desperate.
Yeah, Florida Man is worried they might call in his loans. And it's not like stiffing contractors or an attorney.
malchior wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 8:51 pm
Looking at the SWIFT action it looks fairly limited. "Selected institutions" but not the ones around energy purchases or raw materials. It makes sense in some respects but the impact feels a lot lighter. We might see some banks creak significantly but this isn't any sort 'nuclear' financial option. Doing more is on the table but this seems to be more in line with something Putin might have expected and priced in.
The Russian economy is set to collapse. More important than SWIFT, the West has cut off the Russian Central Bank From its reserves. Putin had built up a total of $630 billion to help weather the storm of sanctions. But now with the cut off of the central bank, they are limited to the cash on hand, $12 billion. One economist has said Russia could be facing a melt down on the scale of 1991, when the Russian economy collapsed after the end of communism.
I've seen some talk in that direction but I was just seeing that they'll have significant cash flow from energy sales and China might inject cash. They'll also potentially be able to route money through non-sanctioned institutions. That isn't foolproof - market surveillance would pick up a good portion of that. And we might let that go. It sounds like this is sort of a middle ground option since "the West" doesn't want the Russian economy to completely collapse. The Europeans still need LNG and we still need rare earth metals. When we first heard some of this talk it sounded like the US/Europe was willing to accept some level or even significant pain. That doesn't appear to be the actual case. It is still significant to be sure but it doesn't look like the ruin it was first staked out as.
Sudy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:24 pm
Why isn't sending Ukraine support (especially weapons) seen as more of an aggression? This is a general geopolitical question I guess. There's obviously a difference between sending arms and actual military aid, but you're still contributing to the same thing.
If you are going to treat that as the same as sending troops, then there’s no further disincentive to actually sending troops. Which would you rather have - Ukrainian troops with western weapons or western troops in Ukraine? Do you want to be seen as the aggressor by attacking the West on their territory? You’ve got your hands full with Ukraine already. And are you going to threaten nuclear war because the West is supplying Ukraine with weapons? I mean you could do all this but none of that seems like the better choice.
I could be wrong, but I took Sudy's comment/question to be taken more like this:
Why does Russia declare that X, Y, Z would be "an act of war!" and that if we did such things, we would regret it... but then it's full known that we have sent and send them weapons&training, etc - and, for example, Germany is about to send weapons - and yet while there is clearly some degree of concern that this will make Putin more upset, there seems to be some gentleman's agreement (or love for the war economy) that one is always permitted to send arms, and not be seen as 'directly involved'.
Sudy wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 9:24 pm
Why isn't sending Ukraine support (especially weapons) seen as more of an aggression? This is a general geopolitical question I guess. There's obviously a difference between sending arms and actual military aid, but you're still contributing to the same thing.
If you are going to treat that as the same as sending troops, then there’s no further disincentive to actually sending troops. Which would you rather have - Ukrainian troops with western weapons or western troops in Ukraine? Do you want to be seen as the aggressor by attacking the West on their territory? You’ve got your hands full with Ukraine already. And are you going to threaten nuclear war because the West is supplying Ukraine with weapons? I mean you could do all this but none of that seems like the better choice.
I could be wrong, but I took Sudy's comment/question to be taken more like this:
Why does Russia declare that X, Y, Z would be "an act of war!" and that if we did such things, we would regret it... but then it's full known that we have sent and send them weapons&training, etc - and, for example, Germany is about to send weapons - and yet while there is clearly some degree of concern that this will make Putin more upset, there seems to be some 'gentleman's agreement' (or love for the war economy) that one can always send arms, and not be seen as 'directly involved.
Uh, I am confused because I answered his question, even ax you rephrased it. I’m not sure what more I could say or add - I thought I was pretty clear.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
Again, I am not sure if it's what Sudy was asking....
But for myself - your answer seemed to answer the question from our point of the exchange.
Where as I was saying: Why doesn't Russia raise a massive hissyfit that we are giving them weapons designed to destroy their tanks.
YellowKing wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 11:07 pm
Even if Putin did see the US/Germany sending arms as an act of aggression, what the fuck's he going to do about it?
Well, what do you mean? He's (more or less) threatened that if certain lines were crossed this could go nuclear. Or space stations could fall from the sky.
He's not going to go nuclear. And if he did, we have nukes too. So does France. So does the UK. The nuclear option means the end of everything, and that's not a winning condition.
So what's next? Pick a conventional war with NATO? Good luck with that.
And honestly I don't even understand the space station threat. An uncontrolled space station crash, even in the unlikely event it hit a populated area, would be like dropping a couple of planes on a town. It's not like an extinction-level asteroid hit.
I mean anytime you have a deranged dictator with nukes, there's reason for alarm. But I see his threats as typical saber-rattling.
malchior wrote: ↑Sat Feb 26, 2022 8:51 pm
Looking at the SWIFT action it looks fairly limited. "Selected institutions" but not the ones around energy purchases or raw materials. It makes sense in some respects but the impact feels a lot lighter. We might see some banks creak significantly but this isn't any sort 'nuclear' financial option. Doing more is on the table but this seems to be more in line with something Putin might have expected and priced in.
It's very limited and it wasn't quick enough. Not that it would be completely effective anyway. China can always act as an intermediary and Russia still has SPFS.
SPFS (Russian: Система передачи финансовых сообщений (СПФС), romanized: Sistema peredachi finansovykh soobscheniy, lit. 'System for Transfer of Financial Messages') is a Russian equivalent of the SWIFT financial transfer system, developed by the Central Bank of Russia.[1] The system has been in development since 2014, when the United States government threatened to disconnect Russia from the SWIFT system.[2]
At the end of 2020, 23 foreign banks connected to the SPFS from Armenia, Belarus, Germany, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Switzerland.[9]
Economic warfare is a lot like conventional warfare. Quick and overwhelming offensives are more effective than slow, plodding, predictable ones. Sanctions needed to be shock and awe, not slow and piecemeal.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General "No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton MYT
I think it's way too early to call whether or not he made a mistake. Obviously very much IMO.
