How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Haiduk]

"You havn't a right to recognize Russian people responsible for this war! This is Putin only!" (C) Ru Liberals

Reaction of "usual Russian people" on the video with murdering  of UKR POW:

Edited March 6, 2023 by Haiduk

[Maciej Zwolinski]

56 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

If we cancel old Russian culture for anti-Ukrainism, well, let cancel also Polish writer Henryk Sienkiewich for his "By fire and sword" - pure anti-ukrainian thing, and director Hofman - who filmed a movie.

The book is anty-Khmielnitskyi, whom Sienkiewicz described as motivated by private conflict with vicecapitaneus Czapliński and excessive ambitions, but not exactly anti-Ukrainian: there are also positive Ukrainian figures (including the main love interest) and references to brotherly love being spilled, etc. The dividing line between good guys and bad guys is, unsurprisingly.  those who are in favour of PLC vs those who are against. 

[danfrodo]

So is the warcrimes of the past stuff done now, please?  Or start a new thread?   We can find crimes against humanity for bunches of countries: US, germany, belgium, UK, france, etc.  But here we're focusing on the UKR war where there's plenty of crime to keep us busy w/o bringing up cold cases.

RU breakup: we see lots of social media stuff of RU folks being super-nationalist, mothers saying it's OK if their sons die killing UKR people, etc.  But I wonder how much of that sentiment we would find in the hinterlands and less ethnically russian areas?  I say this because we know that Putin is grabbing many more per capita from these areas than from Euro-RU.  This could greatly add to grievances pushing areas toward revolt.

Here we are months into the Bakhmut fight and we still don't really know what's what.  UKR is bleeding RU white -- maybe?  RU is preempting UKR spring offensive by drawing in UKR mech brigades?  RU has ammo shortage?  No, wait, UKR has mortar shortage?  I suspect we'll see these varying opinions until the ground dries.  So I am going to try to not get too caught up in each day's events.  Which is actually a good thing to do in general -- there's lots of stories that make big headlines that are forgotten a few days later.  Sometimes good practice to wait & see what actually matters on the scale of a week, or a month.  Like Joe/Jill Biden ordering the same thing for dinner -- that one really really matters, it was good to see the media covering such important matters at such length (of course someone must've been clicking on it or watching it, f--ing idiots)

[Battlefront.com]

I'll try to wrap up this distraction.

7 hours ago, Yskonyn said:

Now we look at the military pilot. Do you really feel he singlehandedly should be held responsible for his actions he does under order of his superiors while his country is at war?

Absolutely not!  And this certainly is not the end of this.  However, this pilot is in Ukrainian hands and can be prosecuted right now, whereas Putin and the goons that report to him are out of reach (for now).

The civilian analogy is that a crime boss in Mexico orders a hit on a US citizen on US territory.  The gunman is caught and arrested.  I think it is more than a "cheap PR stunt" to prosecute the gunman even though the cartel leader is outside of reach for the time being.

7 hours ago, Butschi said:

I won't get involved in this discussion further as it is leaning towards whataboutism. But to be fair: The US did wage quite a few wars that violated international law. By your own admission, this would make all US soldiers who fought in one of those war criminals.

The past is behind us.  But going forward?  Yes, I think the US needs to follow international law FAR better than it has in the 20th century.  And yes, I think the US military should be institutionally conditioned to reject politicians obligating their personnel violate international law.  The military leadership of the Pentagon has the Constitutional authority to refuse illegal orders, therefore it should use that authority.  I am all for holding the US to the same standards as everybody else.

7 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I don't think it's a thing of the past at all. Whether someone ends up a convicted war criminal or a decorated war hero depends entirely on which side wins.

Right, but let's remember here that the Russian pilot was *not* charged with warcrimes.  He was charged with the destruction of civilian infrastructure, just as a domestic criminal would be.  It's a very simple thing... the pilot knowingly destroyed something of monetary value and he has no legal defense for doing so.  Therefore, he should be held accountable in an appropriate judicial setting just like anybody else would be for deliberately causing such damage.

Steve

[sburke]

53 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

"You havn't a right to recognize Russian people responsible for this war! This is Putin only!" (C) Ru Liberals

Reaction of "usual Russian people" on the video with murdering  of UKR POW:

for what it is worth you can go to comments sections in yahoo articles/reddit etc and find tons of responses from wingnuts.  It doesn't really tell me much what the average person who isn't sitting around posting on social media all the time thinks.

Also as an aside on this "cancel culture" thing.  Understanding history is important. period.  Whether it makes your guy look good or not, the details matter in understanding motivations and actions.  It is also important to establish context.  Growing up as a kid about all I knew of George Washington was that he cut down a cherry tree and then admitted his fault honestly.  later I learned he had wooden teeth.

I grew up in Phila, in easy driving distance of Valley Forge.  Independence hall was a rail line ride away. As I got older and lived in the DC area I got to visit Mt Vernon a lot.  (they used to make a great peanut soup).  I also got to visit other places like Jefferson's. I slowly got to learn more about these folks, both the good and bad.  These guys weren't saints.  They also however established a nation founded on some really important principles even if they applied those principles unevenly. As a history buff I want to know the whole story.  If that offends someone that wants to maintain some bogus unblemished view of them.  Well too bad.  All of us humans are flawed, we shouldn't be afraid to understand our flaws.

[danfrodo]

12 minutes ago, sburke said:

I grew up in Phila, in easy driving distance of Valley Forge.  Independence hall was a rail line ride away. As I got older and lived in the DC area I got to visit Mt Vernon a lot.  (they used to make a great peanut soup).  I also got to visit other places like Jefferson's. I slowly got to learn more about these folks, both the good and bad.  These guys weren't saints.  They also however established a nation founded on some really important principles even if they applied those principles unevenly. As a history buff I want to know the whole story.  If that offends someone that wants to maintain some bogus unblemished view of them.  Well too bad.  All of us humans are flawed, we shouldn't be afraid to understand our flaws.

Dang, well said.  Or as Bruce Springsteen said "my songs are about the distance between the american dream and the american reality"

[DesertFox]

CM:CW fame stuff...

https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1632789700514574337?s=20

 

Edited March 6, 2023 by DesertFox

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

With you right up to here.  We only have to be wrong once and having seen the Yugoslav scenario up close and personal, we can pretty much toss “rational” out the window as a foundation of calculus.  

For sure that is the risk.  Mismanagement of the "bargaining chips", leading to one going boom, is also a possibility.  Though in that case it is unlikely to be detonated on someone else's territory, more likely self inflicted wound.  What would dramatically change the overall situation, but not in a way that invites a nuclear strike exchange.

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Back to my previous point - so what are we doing to engineer the Russian defeat we want?

I don't think there is much we can do except engineer Russia's military defeat in Ukraine while also dismantling its economy to the fullest extent possible.  I'm sure there's lots of talk in the shadows with individuals in Russia, but there is nobody to coordinate policy with at any meaningful level.

At present the United States and its allies can not openly make any references to planning for the Russian Federation breaking apart.  That would be a massive propaganda gift to Putin's regime as that is what he says the West wants.  This is used to further keep Russians fighting despite there being no real incentive to do so.

What I hope is happening deep underground in various Western agencies is sussing out which parts of Russia have the most likelihood of pushing for independence and developing tailored strategies for each.  The presence of nuclear weaponry being one of the major factors.  But I do not think we should see any of this out in the open at this time.

Steve

[sburke]

7 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Dang, well said.  Or as Bruce Springsteen said "my songs are about the distance between the american dream and the american reality"

Did you know Angela Davis is a direct descendant of a passenger on the Mayflower?  History is freakin awesome.

Angela Davis 'Can't Believe' Ancestry Discovery About Mayflower Relative (today.com)

 

[The_Capt]

7 hours ago, BletchleyGeek said:

Boots on the ground...

 

Haven’t we been here before?  Back at Severodonetsk were we not told at length how Russia had reframed this war in their favour?  And back then the RA still had massive artillery in play, now their indirect fires appear in trouble.

Regardless, we got the same stories of the UA bleeding out and “behind the curve”…and then Kharkiv and Kherson happened.

Here we are again. I am almost at the point that I am thinking this is a blue disinformation op aimed at getting the RA to keep pushing (and dying) at Bakhmut in order to weaken the line elsewhere.  The reported Russian losses are staggering and unlike the poorly mobilized infantry, all those vehicles and equipment are not things the RA has a “bottomless sea” of within its inventory.

UA is going to take losses and frankly it is in their best interests to look desperate - just keeping that big win slightly out of reach while the RA continues to bleed out.

Here is an actual metric of the UA bleeding out: when they stop sending thousands of troops to western training centres.  Once we can no longer load Ukrainians on these course streams because there are none left willing or able to fight, we know that the UA is actually in trouble.  That or some sort of RA break through.

[Battlefront.com]

Just now, The_Capt said:

Haven’t we been here before?  Back at Severodonetsk were we not told at length how Russia had reframed this war in their favour?  And back then the RA still had massive artillery in play, now their indirect fires appear in trouble.

Regardless, we got the same stories of the UA bleeding out and “behind the curve”…and then Kharkiv and Kherson happened.

Here we are again. I am almost at the point that I am thinking this is a blue disinformation op aimed at getting the RA to keep pushing (and dying) at Bakhmut in order to weaken the line elsewhere.  The reported Russian losses are staggering and unlike the poorly mobilized infantry, all those vehicles and equipment are not things the RA has a “bottomless sea” of within its inventory.

UA is going to take losses and frankly it is in their best interests to look desperate - just keeping that big win slightly out of reach while the RA continues to bleed out.

Here is an actual metric of the UA bleeding out: when they stop sending thousands of troops to western training centres.  Once we can no longer load Ukrainians on these course streams because there are none left willing or able to fight, we know that the UA is actually in trouble.  That or some sort of RA break through.

My first thought when I read Kofman's post was "well, if this is what Ukraine can do from unfavorable terrain, that bodes well for the near future!".

The conversation over the past 2-3 pages, peppered with Grigb's translations of Ukrainian and Russian sources, makes me more confident that Ukraine is handling this situation correctly.  It isn't ideal and there's plenty of room for being critical, but strategically it is sound.  This recent discussion reinforces the underlying belief amongst several of us here that:

1.  Ukraine is bleeding Russia's forces white while the same time minimizing the distraction from Spring and Summer offensive operations

2.  Russia is showing ever growing signs that it is running out of the ability to keep this war going in the short to medium term.  Its losses of equipment and exhaustion of munitions is not something it can recover from within the scope of this war

What Ukraine needs to do, more than anything, is hit Russia hard as soon as the weather is stable.  I think Russia will lose significant ground and forces in the process.  Neither of which it can afford to lose.

Steve

[The_Capt]

9 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

For sure that is the risk.  Mismanagement of the "bargaining chips", leading to one going boom, is also a possibility.  Though in that case it is unlikely to be detonated on someone else's territory, more likely self inflicted wound.  What would dramatically change the overall situation, but not in a way that invites a nuclear strike exchange.

I don't think there is much we can do except engineer Russia's military defeat in Ukraine while also dismantling its economy to the fullest extent possible.  I'm sure there's lots of talk in the shadows with individuals in Russia, but there is nobody to coordinate policy with at any meaningful level.

At present the United States and its allies can not openly make any references to planning for the Russian Federation breaking apart.  That would be a massive propaganda gift to Putin's regime as that is what he says the West wants.  This is used to further keep Russians fighting despite there being no real incentive to do so.

What I hope is happening deep underground in various Western agencies is sussing out which parts of Russia have the most likelihood of pushing for independence and developing tailored strategies for each.  The presence of nuclear weaponry being one of the major factors.  But I do not think we should see any of this out in the open at this time.

Steve

Kinda dropping a few hints here:

“Finally, the United States will sustain and develop pragmatic modes of interaction to handle issues on which dealing with Russia can be mutually beneficial.

The United States respects the Russian people and their contributions to science, culture and constructive bilateral relations over many decades. Notwithstanding the Russian government’s strategic miscalculation in attacking Ukraine, it is the Russian people who will determine Russia’s future as a major power capable of once more playing a constructive role in international affairs. The United States will welcome such a future, and in the meantime, will continue to push back against the aggression perpetrated by the Russian government.”

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Biden-Harris-Administrations-National-Security-Strategy-10.2022.pdf

They had better be going nuts in the back channels and under the radar right now.  This is not a “watcha gonna do?” type situation.

The loss of centralized control of WMDs is just one dance on this floor that could go badly.

[Battlefront.com]

Specific thought about Russian AT weaponry.

We've remarked many times that it appears that the Bakhmut Human wave attacks seem to lack much beyond small arms and hand grenades.  We've also wondered why we've not seen more Ukrainian vehicles popping their tops to Russian AT weaponry since the war started.  Not even the cheap RPG-7 seems to be employed as it should be.  By that I mean every Russian rifle squad is supposed to have at least one, yet when we see even platoon sized units there's not much evidence of even one in use, not to mention 3 or 4. 

I wonder if Russia sold more of their AT weaponry off to the Syrians and others than they should have and didn't replace them when they had the chance?

Here's an image from a shipment to Yemen that the US Navy intercepted.  Chinese and Russian weapons:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9558419/US-Navy-seizes-arms-shipment-Arabian-Sea-amid-Yemen-war.html

Steve

[TheVulture]

24 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I am almost at the point that I am thinking this is a blue disinformation op aimed at getting the RA to keep pushing (and dying) at Bakhmut in order to weaken the line elsewhere.  The reported Russian losses are staggering and unlike the poorly mobilized infantry, all those vehicles and equipment are not things the RA has a “bottomless sea” of within its inventory.

UA is going to take losses and frankly it is in their best interests to look desperate - just keeping that big win slightly out of reach while the RA continues to bleed out.

Here is an actual metric of the UA bleeding out: when they stop sending thousands of troops to western training centres.  Once we can no longer load Ukrainians on these course streams because there are none left willing or able to fight, we know that the UA is actually in trouble.  That or some sort of RA break through.

That's what I hope is going on: Ukraine saying that they're under pressure, under equipped and on the verge of withdrawing, to try and get the Russians to throw more resources away.

Meanwhile we get regular reports of hundreds, or thousands, of Ukrainian infantry training in various European countries, people training on the Bradleys, Leos and Challengers. They are clearly assembling a trained mechanised force, and feel they have the manpower to spare for this longer term training rather than having to throw every available soldier in to try and stop the Russian advance.

It might suck for the poor sods in Bakhmut (regardless of how accurate the stories are, the casualty rate is still high), but it's not like AFU are on the verge of a collapse, which is what some of the recent reporting seems to sound like.

But as always we won't really know until months down the line, when we see who has made meaningful progress by the summer, not by next week.

Edited March 6, 2023 by TheVulture

[sburke]

12 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Specific thought about Russian AT weaponry.

We've remarked many times that it appears that the Bakhmut Human wave attacks seem to lack much beyond small arms and hand grenades.  We've also wondered why we've not seen more Ukrainian vehicles popping their tops to Russian AT weaponry since the war started.  Not even the cheap RPG-7 seems to be employed as it should be.  By that I mean every Russian rifle squad is supposed to have at least one, yet when we see even platoon sized units there's not much evidence of even one in use, not to mention 3 or 4. 

I wonder if Russia sold more of their AT weaponry off to the Syrians and others than they could should have and didn't replace them when they had the chance?

Here's an image from a shipment to Yemen that the US Navy intercepted.  Chinese and Russian weapons:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9558419/US-Navy-seizes-arms-shipment-Arabian-Sea-amid-Yemen-war.html

Steve

does this mean an adjustment to the ToE for BS so I don't see Russians firing off so many RPGs?  

and on that note

US-sanctioned Russian ship loaded with military cargo enters Black Sea – media reports (yahoo.com)

 

and another ToE adjustment item?  

Russia's elite tank unit was meant to get its most advanced armor. Instead it's fighting with obsolete Soviet tanks from the '60s, UK intel says. (yahoo.com)

Quote

 

The MOD said in an intelligence update on Monday that even the 1st Guards Tank Army, which has long been considered an elite Russian unit, is being reequipped with dated Soviet-era T-62s.

The 1st Guards Tank Army was due to receive next-generation T-14 Armata main battle tanks – Russia's newest and most powerful tanks – starting from 2021, the intelligence update said. The T-14 is a high-tech vehicle with defense systems that have the means to shoot down anti-tank rockets, as well as sophisticated sensors, onboard drones, and a high level of automation, as Insider's Sophia Ankel previously reported.

But, instead, it is receiving T-62 tanks, which were first adopted by the Soviet Union in 1961, and ceased production in the 1970s.

 

 

Edited March 6, 2023 by sburke

[Battlefront.com]

5 minutes ago, sburke said:

does this mean an adjustment to the ToE for BS so I don't see Russians firing off so many RPGs?  

and on that note

US-sanctioned Russian ship loaded with military cargo enters Black Sea – media reports (yahoo.com)

Interesting.  We've seen comments about Russia withdrawing military personnel and equipment from Syria for months now.  If the above cited report is accurate, I'm wondering how much Russian military capacity remains in Syria?  Assad must not be too happy about Russia's change in priorities.

Steve

[sburke]

Russian media report assassination attempt on Russian oligarch Malofeev, who financed Russian militants (yahoo.com)

interesting the video supposedly shows the guy planting the bomb outdoors, then they are removing the bomb in an underground garage.  Who was the brave soul that moved the car and went through the effort to back in the parking spot?

[sburke]

Coke and gas plant catches fire after explosion in Russia’s Moscow Oblast – social media (yahoo.com)

smoking is hazardous to your war effort.

[sburke]

6 hours ago, Grigb said:

There are rumors. And there are my rumors. That's two different kinds of rumors.

[EDIT] To clarify - there is specific context that confirms this rumor. Since rumor appeared Wagnerites were cut off from recruiting zeks and were cut off from generous ammo supply. Their core units were litteraly thrown at UKR with little arty support.

 

your rumor seems to have some legs.

Russia Bars Its Own Shadow Army Rep in Explosive Public Feud (yahoo.com)

Quote

 

A representative for Wagner Group boss Yevgeniy Prigozhin was reportedly denied access to Russia’s military command in Ukraine Monday, in the latest sign that Moscow is sidelining Prigozhin’s mercenary fighting group in the war in Ukraine.

The apparent snub comes as Prigozhin pleads with Moscow to provide Wagner Group with ammunition it desperately needs in the war. The ammunition, though, has not been delivered—an act Prigozhin said could either be “ordinary bureaucracy or betrayal.”

“On March 5, I wrote a letter to the commander of the SMO grouping about the urgent need to allocate ammunition. On March 6, at 8 a.m., my representative at the headquarters had his pass cancelled and was denied access,” Prigozhin in a Telegram post, according to a Reuters translation.

 

 

[Grigb]

12 hours ago, dan/california said:

Seven things I think are important, and I don't know how good our info is on any of them.

1) To what extent have the ultranationalist quietly co-opted the mid levels of the security services?

2) To what extent is anyone besides the ultranationalist willing to really fight for power? Clearly the people at the very top of the regime are, and so far the apparatus has followed orders, does that hold?

3) Is the war making the ultranationalist stronger or weaker? I mean at least some of the real fire breathers have been killed in Ukraine. 

4) Is the war convincing what passes for the broad middle that the ultras are the solution, or the problem?

5) Is there actually real separation between the ultras, and the FSB/GRU?

6) Are the FSB and GRU cultivating separate ultra communities as their "private" foot soldiers?

7) How is the relationship between the FSB and the GRU anyway?

 

Grigb it is great to have you chiming in again! any chance to could opine on any of these, at least very briefly?

 

1) It is informal alignment of people with the same values and aims. They are frequently former coworkers, close friends, and generally like-minded people. As a result, in many situations, they would prefer to act as a single entity. There is, nevertheless, some difference. Ultras have ambitions and prefer the freedom to act in their own way for the glory of RU. Nationalists from mid-level positions are by nature more compliant with society's rules and less ambitious.

2)That is a very interesting question. I believe Prig with his mouth managed to stir a RU pot. He directly threatened:

• RU generals
• RU local civilian authorities (governors and mayors but also hinted at various smaller officials)
• RU so-called oligarchs and simply rich people

All of these folks (and their subordinates) received a clear message: if Prig gains power, they will very certainly get a hammer to their skulls. So, I believe once Putin is gone the struggle for power would be much more intense with much more actors involved because avoiding power struggle seems to be not an option anymore.

3) War makes their conventional power weaker - they are suffering losses and their fallen brothers are being replaced with much less motivated Mobiks. Their weapons and vehicles disappear in battle often without replacement. 

On other hand their support network strengthens, their non weapon equipment including comms improves, internal organization hardens. I would say they are slowly morphing from conventiontal force into an insurgent/partisan/terrorist force.  

4) War strengthens their case as Putin and the generals are clearly failing to win it. But it is more complicated than that - Ultras publicly demand to send as much men as possible to "meat assaults" and that makes broad middle a bit weary of Ultras. 

5) I believe yes. UKR believes no. Most likely FSB/GRU control some key figures but that's it. Or rather they think they control.  

6) Yes, FSB leans toward younger big city type ultras. GRU leans toward older ultras from small cities/villages.

7) Difficult to say but cannot be good. FSB-linked Prig military humiliates RU military, publicly calls RU generals f*cktards and promises to hammer them. They should be extremely pissed and given the current Wagnerite shell scandal they are. 

Quote

A message from Evgeny Viktorovich Prigozhin:

"On 5.03.2023, I wrote a letter to the commander of the SMO grouping about the urgent need for the allocation of ammunition. 6.03 at 8 o'clock in the morning, the access of my representative to the headquarters was revoked and he was denied entry to the headquarters of the group...

 

[Kinophile]

German engineering without the German military beaurocracy... 

https://en.defence-ua.com/industries/ukraine_may_get_rheinmetall_armor_plant_and_new_lynx_120_combat_vehicle_on_top_a_hybrid_of_leopard_2_and_lynx_ifv-5955.html

**** yeah.

Still, it's large scale drone manufacturing they need as well. 

Edited March 6, 2023 by Kinophile

[Vet 0369]

On 3/5/2023 at 11:45 AM, Maciej Zwolinski said:

I very much doubt if any elections under a communist regime were ever free. That would be the first time.

Ho Chi Minh was pretty much universally loved by the people of North VietNam because he freed them from the French colonialism. I don’t have a doubt that he was “freely” elected by the people of the North. On the other hand, Ngo Dinh Diệm soon consolidated power in South Vietnam, aided by his brother Ngô Đình Nhu. After the rigged 1955 State of Vietnam referendum, he proclaimed the creation of the Republic of Vietnam, with himself as president. His government was supported by other anti-communist countries, most notably the United States.

If you are going to assert that the first elections in North VietNam were not free, then you need to provide evidence that is stronger than an assertion of “I very much doubt if any elections under a Communist regime were ever free. That would be the first time.” Please provide verifiable information to support your assertion. 

Most people don’t know it, but Ho knew very well what life and freedoms were like in the U.S. because he lived in the U.S. for many years before WWII. He even worked as a pastry chef at the Parker House in Boston, MA. Why wouldn’t he look to a different form of government after the “Democracy” he knew refused to support him in his bid to free his country from France?

[Bulletpoint]

5 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

ACHTUNG! this is RU TV footage (posted by pro-UKR source), and there is some dispute over which army this actually is (some folks swear they see a Z on one wreck). But the shellfire is hellishly intense, and concentrated.

I think it's interesting how the footage is only in motion when viewing the vehicles from afar.

For the close in shots, there's no movemement in the frame anywhere, as fas as I can see. No smoke, no explosions, no human movement, and no tree branches moving in the wind (though the heavy compression makes this difficult to see clearly).

So, maybe somebody took some still frames of a video, removed the Russian vehicle markings in Photoshop, and then zoomed/panned a bit on the still images to make them seem like running footage... and then combined with the live action sequences?

I guess another thing to ask for is, if these were Ukrainian vehicles, where are the Ukrainian markings?

[sburke]

2 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

Most people don’t know it, but Ho knew very well what life and freedoms were like in the U.S. because he lived in the U.S. for many years before WWII. He even worked as a pastry chef at the Parker House in Boston, MA. Why wouldn’t he look to a different form of government after the “Democracy” he knew refused to support him in his bid to free his country from France?

A pastry chef?  Damn never knew that.  I LOVE history!

On a different side of things, I read a history of Giap where they turned over their competition in the Vietnamese resistance to French agents in the French quarter of Shanghai.  My company's office in Shanghai was across the street from where the CCCP was founded- it now houses a Starbucks. 

[Grigb]

13 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

We talked about the potential breakup scenarios for Russia earlier in the war when there was less known about how defeats would impact Putin's regime continuing. 

What we have to remember is that the breakup of Russia is inevitable.  It is an inflexible governmental system that is inherently based on full domination of its components largely for the benefit of the urban centers of European Russia and individuals controlling resources.  It is unclear Putin has a succession plan in place that can succeed in keeping the Russian Federation together once he is out of power.  This war has further reduced the chances of a succession plan working smoothly.

Depending on a bunch of factors yet to be determined and/or not quantifiable at this time, I can see four different scenarios:

1. Repeat of 1990 - some existing politically cohesive regions demand independence and the Kremlin is unable to squash the ambitions of all of them.  Instead, the Kremlin picks and chooses, letting some go peacefully and using some degree of force/coercion to keep others under control as we saw in the Caucuses in the 1990s.  The newly independent states will likely have areas of dispute with neighbors and have their own violence to deal with.
2. Yugoslavia 1991 - too many places the Kremlin cares about retaining decide they want to go their own way.  Instead of a peaceful breakup with some degree of violence, we instead see a large amount of violence with a smaller amount of peaceful departure.  Siberia might be akin to Slovenia, but then again it could be more like Croatia with Serbia bent on keeping territory (in this case access to the Adriatic Sea). Violence continues for years.
3. Revolution of 1917 - unlike the other two scenarios, the Kremlin is too caught up in its own internal violence that the periphery sorts itself out without cohesive and centralized influence from Russia.  In this case things go to Hell pretty much all over Russia, with some states figuring now is the time to dominate neighbors instead of squabbling with them.  Several major conflicts break out at the same time, perhaps even within geographic Russia itself (e.g. St. Petersburg trying to separate).
4. Slow dissolution - power remains concentrated in Moscow, however it has to concede to demands from various political entities within the current Russian Federation.  Greater autonomy, but short of full independence.  Some areas, however, see opportunity and push for more which probably invites violence from the Kremlin.  However, weakened by general conditions and uncertain domestic politics, this probably won't last long and one of the other scenarios kicks in.

Which way do I think this is headed?

It's not hard to see a "pile on" situation where powerful people and ethnic based movements determine the best chance for leaving the Federation is when others are trying to do the same thing.  Especially if Russia's ability to physically enforce its will is perceived as too weak for the circumstances.  However, nobody wants to make the first move because that allows the Kremlin to focus on squashing any moves to undermine its authority.

Once some significant push for independence starts, whether that be in the Caucuses (the obvious suspect) or in one of the large central or eastern Asian republics, it's way too soon to say.  But I do think something will happen reasonably soon (within a few years) that will give us some indication as to how this is going to play out.

At present I think #4 is most likely the near term path for Russia.  In this scenario the periphery agrees to stay with the Russian Federation, but only if its leadership has more control of their territories and (of course) increased self enrichment.  After that, I'm thinking it transitions to #2 where too many aggressive actions are taken too quickly in too many places at once to be contained by Moscow or anybody else.  Things get out of control very quickly and profoundly.

In all situations any state with nukes (power generation and weaponry) will try to leverage them to their advantage.  How that plays out depends on the scenario, but generally I don't expect them to be used.  Mutually assured destruction applies to them just as much as it does between existing actors now.  There's far more value in nukes as a bargaining chip.

Steve

I support the above but personally I believe that at some point FSB top will try to implement Navalny scenario akin to 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt to get Western help and minimize territorial losses/preserve control over nukes.