billbindc

I can tell you that being au fait with traffic studies engenders the necessary level of humility and respect for complex systems and processes (check out the concept of “induced demand”) in which one should approach a military conflict.

Star forts are quite impressive...and came after the medieval era was well over. Your point remains accurate. Medieval Europe was a backwater militarily.

It's 8:54 am and I have a lot of meetings today so I'm just going to say you chaps should look up the technology of Chinese earthen fortifications and their advantages in the gunpowder era over vertical stone walls. That is all. Oh and one more thing...the oldest extant firearm is Mongolian. And has a serial number.

I would say that 'winning' in Ukraine is a precondition to Putin doing anything else. Russia's holding up better than we expected but it's still under immense strain and sovietizing its economy to stay in the fight (and also, let's face it, because somewhere in their hearts they were yearning to all this time). Russia cannot take the next step without force feeding coopted Ukrainians into the maelstrom in turn.

Concur with this except that should Putin prevail in Ukraine, things won't get much better for Russia or his political prospects. Yes, for a year or two he will bask in triumphalism but the fundamental demographic and strategic weaknesses of Russia will not go away and Putin will have merely whetted the appetite of the extremists in his own camp. Attacking NATO would be suicidal...in fact, attacking Poland and Finland alone would be pretty suicidal...but that doesn't mean a sclerotic Putin attempting to retain a grip on power won't do it. This isn't the Cold War and to the Kremlin this isn't a cold war. Sober calculation doesn't rule.

The best thing about letting this sovok stick around for a bit is that he illustrates exactly why Ukraine must fight and will win.

“I’m not a Russian propagandist…but as in Bucha the Ukrainian government…” Sure, Jan… (or perhaps Ivan)

Galeotti has a more measured take: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-putin-purging-his-generals/ Worth pointing out...this is not necessarily going to improve Russian war fighting at all. As Galeotti notes, Belousov has no loyal cadre to put into position to carry out his initiatives on the ground. Just the long arm of FSB. There might be less theft but morale, effectiveness and initiative are not created by audits.

It is not russian fear of nuclear catastrophe we need to worry about. It's a series of miscalculations and misunderstandings that lead to an irrevocable nuclear exchange.

I would be absolutely flabbergasted if this idea came from the US.

It could very easily have been a misunderstood target of opportunity but a blunder none the less. Also, it's *very* unlikely the Russians would advertently do this to themselves. They are already paranoid about regime survival and weakening their own strategic early warning systems is just not a thing.

Forgive me if that wasn't clear but I did not say they had violated an agreement. I said that it was deeply irresponsible to hit that particular target. It is of only marginal use to the Russian military vis a vis the war in Ukraine but is a significant strategic Russian asset that tracks incoming ICBMS. That's flat out destabilizing and provides fuel to those who want to limit ATACMs, etc.

If nothing else, this episode is a great example of why the US has legitimate concerns about the use of American weapons. The first and foremost priority is to avoid nuclear escalation. If Ukraine cannot commit to that principle in the use of aid then the US has every right to put limitations in.

No idea...but there should have been bright red "Do Not **** With This" warnings all over these targets on the Ukraine side. Kyiv actively hurt it's cause here. Acton with more detail:

This is an extremely stupid thing to do if you are trying to address American escalation concerns.

It's pretty simple in a certain way. This is a mafia state. Corruption is standard operating procedure. Fealty and money moves up while protection is provided down. Once Shoigu lost control of the MoD his 'tail' no longer had anyone to pay and nobody to provide krisha. Rule *by* law then applies. All of the obvious theft that was ignored when they were under Shoigu's wing suddenly becomes a state case and they are ejected in favor of officials who are of the newly favored faction. Here's where it gets interesting. Does Belousov have a faction with which to populate the ministry? I don't think so...at least not in the way in which the thoroughly political Shoigu did. I take that fact to mean that there will be more selections that answer directly to Putin. The goal being to coup proof things more thoroughly and also to attempt to streamline the Russian military industrial complex for a long war.

This is, or should be, embarrassing to you.

Exactly this. To the lay man, nukes are just a weapons system. In reality, they sit within a long thought out and tested set of systems and assumptions that every nuclear power devotes a military and political bureaucracy to. The entire structure is to ensure that nobody, ever, destabilizes the system because destabilization almost certainly leads to use. When that system collapses in any country, we are all in a hell of a lot of trouble.

Added to which while we've never seen a full bore civil war in a nuclear armed state we *did* see how vicious a Russian civil war can be from 1917 until 1923. Does anyone want to seriously claim that nukes would not have been used by the Reds or Whites had they been available in that conflict? The rule of un-rung bells says that nobody will get credit for working to avoid that extraordinarily bad outcome but from where I sit, they certainly should.

It's extremely important to note that the withdrawal was made in the context of what the Soviets believed was a retrenchment in a struggle with the West that would continue into the foreseeable future while they were leaving behind a government that looked pretty durable. It looked like a wise move to a new Soviet regime that was seeing economic dislocation and political unrest but it seemed like a *very* long way from a decisive loss.

"The Putin regime may not seem weak on the surface, but its stability is a mirage produced by the repression it exerts." https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/theory-victory-ukraine

For those folks who think there's anything like stability within the Russian state:

This feels right to me. It conforms with what seems to be happening in Xi's China at a slower pace but as Russia is in a nose to nose Darwinian struggle to remain competitive (it thinks in global terms but realistically more as a local spoiler) it is lunging backwards to the older silovik elite's half remembered Soviet bet on war economy productivity. In that light, putting in a grey economist to run the MoD makes perfect sense.

Similarities to the sidelining of Sergei Ivanov in 2016 seem to be happening today in Moscow. Worth noting that the direction of Russian policy didn't change appreciably but instead Putin curtailed the status of potential competitors: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/04/20/world/asia/myanmar-civil-war.html It will be weeks before the meaning of all of this will become clear but I'd say watch what happens with Patrushev's sons, watch Diumin, watch if there are any changes made in leadership at the Rosgvardia. And whatever you do, don't spend a second on what office Patrushev is offered when all is said and done. He's unlikely in any case to have the influence he exerted up until today unless he overtly or covertly usurps Putin.