Is Putin Mad?

[Biospace]

Not sure it's really a narrative that needs to be bolstered is it?

Politicians who choose to be involved in war usually prefer for there to be a simple narrative for the public, to minimise any doubters and the negative effect they could have, politically. Blair made it sound like we had no alternative other than to invade Iraq, that our security would be at risk if we didn't. As it turned out, our security has been compromised far more by his invasion.

Dr Johnson had something to say on war and truth, https://bit.ly/3RgHORB

[UpWrong]

Russia is a vast country which is wealthy in terms of natural resources. Why does it have to be expansionist when its lack of wealth is a result of its corruption and bad government?

[slowster]

Warren Buffet said “Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked.” Similarly the Rusian invasion of Ukraine is showing that a lot of so called experts in many fields have both a deeply flawed understanding of their subjects, and - much worse - an inability in the face of overwhelming evidence to recognise that they have been wrong, and to re-evaluate.

One of the best commentators on the war is Phillips Payson O'Brien, professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews. He was as surprised as many others at the ineptitude of the Russian military in the first few days of the war, but rather than clinging on to the belief that Russia was a first rank military power and would eventually win, as so many analysts and experts did, he did not hesitate to identify the evident failings and weaknesses of the Russian military, and to conclude very quickly that Russia could not win the war.

While many defence correspondents in the mainstream press and TV were describing the battle of the Donbas in exagerated terms that suggested the Russians were winning/had made breakthroughs etc., his dispassionate analysis on Twitter (https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien) was that the Russians were failing to achieve their objectives, and events have consistently shown his analysis to be good. This is his recent article debunking the self-styled 'realists' like Kissinger who have stated that Ukraine must cede territory to Russia:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... th/661452/

As for Russian/Putin's motivations, many commentators have pointed out that the argument that Russia's concern was the threat of NATO on its borders is given the lie by Putin stating that Russia is not particularly bothered by Finland and Sweden joining NATO. Putin said recently to an audience in St Petersburg that Russia 'is taking back what's ours'. As that statement indicates, this is a war of imperial expansion with the goal of Ukraine becoming a colony of Russia, just as Hitler wanted Ukraine for Lebensraum, and the suppression of the Ukrainian people through intimidation, violence, forced deportations and erasing of Ukrainian language and culture.

I think this article is probably close to the mark in explaining the outlook of many Russians and why/how they are so ready to support the war (or at least not protest against it), and there are a couple of interesting parallels/contrasts with British and US cultures:

https://wartranslated.com/what-might-be ... worldview/

This is a more pithy, similar analysis:

https://twitter.com/ABarbashin/status/1 ... D-muwqAAAA

A huge factor in everything that is happening, and has happened in the last couple of decades, is Germany. Just as russian 'identity' as described in the article above is a/the problem, so too german identity is undermining the West's support of Ukraine. It seems that many Germans, especially so called 'intellectuals', believe in a form of german moral superiority and exceptionalism which requires/allows them not to get involved. Recently Timothy Snyder, a Yale professor and author of 'Bloodlands' about Ukraine's history, wrote this criticism of one of the intellectual hand-wringers in chief:

https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/aus ... ageIndex_2

This Twitter thread about that article by a commentator on international security is more succinct and blunt in its criticism of Germany and those Germans who would sacrifice Ukrainians for their idea of 'peace':

https://twitter.com/bctallis/status/1543706011743256578

[Biospace]

Russia is a vast country which is wealthy in terms of natural resources. Why does it have to be expansionist when its lack of wealth is a result of its corruption and bad government?

Those within Russia say it has felt increasingly threatened by the West's moves Eastwards, both in defence and trade
It has lost its pride since the collapse of the USSR
It has felt isolated from its access to Europe through the Black Sea since the USSR collapsed
It says it has been concerned with several of Ukraine's more extreme political decisions
It says it has been concerned with massive cash inflow from America, together with American biological laboratories located in Ukraine.

Not many years ago, there were documentaries being made about Ukraine (incl by the BBC), covering the same concerns that people now ridicule the Russian leader for having.

It doesn't have to be expansionist. But Putin wants one of his lasting legacies to be a degree of restoration of Russia's wealth and power compared with the failed state it was in the 1990s. I think he's made a serious miscalculation.

[Biospace]

Warren Buffet said “Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked.” Similarly the Rusian invasion of Ukraine is showing that a lot of so called experts in many fields have both a deeply flawed understanding of their subjects, and - much worse - an inability in the face of overwhelming evidence to recognise that they have been wrong, and to re-evaluate.

Absolutely so.

As for Russian/Putin's motivations, many commentators have pointed out that the argument that Russia's concern was the threat of NATO on its borders is given the lie by Putin stating that Russia is not particularly bothered by Finland and Sweden joining NATO.

Not so sure that assessment hangs together, would Putin would publically announce that FInland and Sweden joining NATO worried him?

[Biospace]

The idea that he was somehow provoked into doing this is apologetic rubbish.

Lest we forget, I haven't been excusing Putin for any of this terrible behaviour.

If we choose to ignore the bigger picture and excuse a huge invasion as nothing but an act of madness, we're burying our heads in the sand. It's a fact of life that successful politicians are more likely to have pyschopathic tendencies, so perhaps someone like Putin should have been treated with a huge amount of caution a long time ago. I'm surprised he hasn't done this sort of thing sooner. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... hs/260517/


After WW2, our politicians understood the value of peace and costs of war, so worked hard not to tread on others' toes, to listen to their concerns and respect their feelings but also to act swiftly and decisively at the first signs of any aggression.

Since that generation vanished, The West's leaders appear to have grown increasingly weak-willed and self-centred. While our strategic business and defence borders rapidly expanded Eastwards through the USSR's old empire, our Armed Services were reduced relentlessly and we allowed Putin to publicly mock the UK with the Russian state seemingly killing whoever they wanted to on British soil. And the Germans allowed themselves to become overly reliant on Russian gas supplies. I'd call all of that ill-advised.

The irony of all this is that there's a far greater danger looming - China. Added to which, we risk driving what ought to be one of Europe's greatest assets - Russia - further into Beijing's influence.

[Stevek76]

Not sure it's really a narrative that needs to be bolstered is it?

Politicians who choose to be involved in war usually prefer for there to be a simple narrative for the public, to minimise any doubters and the negative effect they could have, politically. Blair made it sound like we had no alternative other than to invade Iraq, that our security would be at risk if we didn't. As it turned out, our security has been compromised far more by his invasion.

And Blair's efforts to drive that narrative didn't wash with a great deal of the British public, hence the damage it caused him politically and the massive protests in London at the time. I think there's a risk of overstating the power of government propaganda here.

It's not like any efforts to rinse hands of the historic cosiness with Putin is working either. Plenty of awareness around of the issues of german energy choices and the London laundromat etc.

Certainly there were plenty of geopolitical matters that could have been dealt with better (though hindsight etc) but when it comes to the antagonist here compared with other conflicts I think a big reason for public opinion being as it is on the matter is simply that it's fairly clear cut in this case.

Warren Buffet said “Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked.” Similarly the Rusian invasion of Ukraine is showing that a lot of so called experts in many fields have both a deeply flawed understanding of their subjects, and - much worse - an inability in the face of overwhelming evidence to recognise that they have been wrong, and to re-evaluate.

Absolutely so.

Yes, this was quite remarkable, particularly in the face of all of the 'on ground' evidence.

[Biospace]

Not sure it's really a narrative that needs to be bolstered is it?

Politicians who choose to be involved in war usually prefer for there to be a simple narrative for the public, to minimise any doubters and the negative effect they could have, politically. Blair made it sound like we had no alternative other than to invade Iraq, that our security would be at risk if we didn't. As it turned out, our security has been compromised far more by his invasion.

And Blair's efforts to drive that narrative didn't wash with a great deal of the British public, hence the damage it caused him politically and the massive protests in London at the time. I think there's a risk of overstating the power of government propaganda here.

Certainly there were plenty of geopolitical matters that could have been dealt with better (though hindsight etc) but when it comes to the antagonist here compared with other conflicts I think a big reason for public opinion being as it is on the matter is simply that it's fairly clear cut in this case.

Yes, it is very clear cut in this situation with regards to the appalling Russian invasion, there are no excuses whatsoever. But a series of decisions by The West which affected Russia's behaviour negatively cannot be labelled as 'hindsight' when there have been many learned people, both civilian and military, questioning the integrity of those decisions for years.

In my book, everything possible should be done to try and avert armed warfare. Lest We Forget. The effect on a population is so indescribably awful, from mental illness, orphaned children, physical disabilities and lawlessness to the ensuing, grinding poverty. I'm not at all convinced everything was done, but European leaders (and many American presidents) have been asleep at the wheel for far too long for them to actively realise they were not, increasingly they seem to speak and act from the same book, even using the same phrases.

As to the travelling showman Sir Tony Blair KG, there were millions who protested yet he stayed on as PM for years after we (illegally) invaded Iraq and destabilised the whole of the Middle East and other Muslim nations. The older I grow, the more politics looks more and more like it's a distracting sideshow to what those who hold the reigns of power are up to.

[Psamathe]

Back in the days when Putin's character and intolerance was directed against people who he can't understand, shortly before the Sochi Winter Olympics, Channel 4 did a brilliant short video celebrating


(It was broadcast most days up to the start of the Olympics at 19:00 so no "watershed" issues.
(Only reason I noticed it again was I was trying to clear some storage on my laptop and came across it).

Ian