I know that I am way over the wisdom of my fellow forecasters in this question. However, I am still of the opinion that not all is good for the Russian President:
The Russian President was seen with a blanket over his lap at a military parade in Moscow in stark contrast to the strongman image he has tried to project in the past.
A Tweet described "Vladimir Putin - a blanket on his knees, his cheeks full, a hamster stuffed with steroids - cuts a weak and enfeebled figure as Russian Army rolls past the Kremlin. "No declaration of big war; no call-up; no General Gerasimov. If you listen you can hear the knives being sharpened."
Another Twitter: "So, I watched some of the parades and I watched Putin carefully. Putin didn’t look strong, he didn’t look confident, and he didn’t look happy. He looked old, tired, and fat/puffy. He was sitting for a while and had a blanket on his lap. Not a good look.
This is for what concerns his health and wellbeing. But there are other issues. Sergey Protosenya, Vladislav Avayev, Alexander Tyulakov, Leonid Shulman, and many others (11 I believe), have all been found dead since the war on Ukraine began.
Putin’s favorability ratings jumped to 83 percent in late March, a month into the so-called special military operation. Perhaps more ominously, Russians appear to be informing on one another in growing numbers, condemning friends, neighbors, and colleagues for insufficient support of the war effort. To be sure, an 83 percent approval rating almost certainly overstates Putin’s support. Individuals may understandably hide their true preferences from pollsters, as a culture of paranoia spreads across the country. But we simply don’t know what individual Russians would choose/want if they had an open democracy, rather than a dictatorship where fear is the air one breaths. Like everyone else, they are products of their environment. Authoritarianism corrupts society.
The Ukraine adventure is not going to plan, not even closer. Russia has lost 1,666 vehicles in Ukraine, of which more than 800 have been destroyed during the conflict. Those confirmed destroyed include 111 tanks, 74 armored fighting vehicles, 123 infantry fighting vehicles, and 312 trucks, vehicles, and jeeps.
During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, an unusual number of Russian generals, including the Russian Armed Forces and the National Guard of Russia, have been reported killed in action. As of 23 April 2022, Ukrainian sources reported that ten Russian generals had been killed during the invasion. Ukrainian officials estimated that more than 15,000 Russian soldiers have been killed (some sources say the figure could be as many as 25,900); what is most horrifying is that Russian troops do not collect their deaths. The families will never know anything about them, except the generals' families perhaps.
In his May 9 speech, Putin implicitly reassured the Russian population that he would not ask them for a greater commitment to the war effort. Putin likely calculates that he cannot ask the Russian people to mobilize without triggering a destabilizing backlash against his regime.
Putin may be recognizing the growing risks he faces at home and in Ukraine and may be adjusting his objectives, and his desired end state in Ukraine, accordingly.
The Kremlin has already scaled down its objectives in Ukraine (from its initial objective of capturing Kyiv and full regime change) and will likely do so again—or be forced to do so by Ukrainian battlefield successes.
In such a situation we won't be able to see what is brewing until it happens. Therefore I maintain my percentage for now. There are 6 full months to go, and while the war could protract, the EU/USA would like to see the end of it fast to limit the carnage done to Ukraine, and a lot of effort is going to that extent.
[I used a number of sources: The Atlantic, the BBC, The Guardian, DW, ISW]
Actually, I don't think the U.S. wants to see an end to the war. From the rhetoric of President Biden and Secretary of Defense Austin - to say nothing of the $40 billion military aid bill that will almost certainly pass the Senate (it already cleared the House) - Washington seems to want the war to go on, reasoning that the longer it continues, the weaker Putin gets. Washington is probably correct in that assumption, but its policy of calling for regime change in Russia, wanting to weaken Russia, etc. is pretty reckless. I wish you were right that the U.S. wanted to war to end soon, but the signals indicate otherwise.
The bill would give Ukraine military and economic assistance, help regional allies, replenish weapons the Pentagon has shipped overseas and provide $5 billion to address global food shortages caused by the war’s crippling of Ukraine’s normally robust production of many crops.
i do not see anything in there that specifically prolong the war.
I didn’t follow the rhetoric so close to argue what SoD Austin said, but from what I see Putin is doing his very best to weaken himself. They were just rumors until recently, now it is undeniable that the man has health problems, and serious ones too (it was about 50F on May 9 parade day, and no one needed a blanket except Putin).
Then there are all the problems I mentioned above, and the latest on the war is not good news for Putin.
We know that Biden is gaffes prone, but it ends there. Ultimately, though I believe Russia weakened itself, and I do not think it is reckless to desire to see Putin go (wherever the Russians want), in EU people is a little fed up of nuclear threats, and if you do not mind also of propaganda, hacks, fake news, and idiots that believe in a bunch of nonsense.
As for the war, I do not know if in the US it has the same impact, but in the European Union people feel for Ukraine, the killings if civilians, children, and the destruction of infrastructures.
Moreover, It is imperative to call for the immediate reopening of Black Sea ports--including Odesa--so that critical food from Ukraine can reach people facing food insecurity in countries such as Afghanistan, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Syria and Yemen where millions are on the brink.
The USA are aware that we’re running out of time and the impact of inaction will be felt around the world for years to come.
It isn't reckless to want Putin gone, it's reckless for U.S.officials to say it out loud. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said "We're at war," on the floor of the House. This kind of thing is reckless.
You say, "the impact of inaction will be felt around the world for years to come." Certainly I agree. The question is, "What action should the U.S. be taking?" Saber rattling is not the appropriate action.
That being said: Short of the comments of single officials, that were (afair always) walked back immediately. The US government hasn't shown any indication of fanning the flames. And yeah parliamentarians are far more aggressive, which is bad (because from an autoritarian point of view it's unclear that they aren't part of the government). But unless we want to argue for "just let the Ukrainians fend for themselves, and deal with a totally unthethered Russia in a year when it tries the Baltics" I don't see what the other choice would be.
And yes, when your opponent is making a mistake, making it more likely that he continues to make the mistake is just good policy isn't it?
True that we can use better diplomacy with our politicians. However, do you think Putin is holed up in the Kremlin checking scrupulously what people say?
The statements by Biden and the other guy may have reverberated in the US much more than internationally (except for those who think that the US is guilty of every mischief on the planet).
But about miss-talking let me highlight a few notable ones:
The Pope: NATO has been barking at the Russian border for too long...
Lavrov: the fact Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky is Jewish does not mean he isn't a Nazi, saying Adolf Hitler himself had Jewish roots. Moscow has justified its invasion of Ukraine on the grounds that its neighbour must be "denazified".-- Putin had to call Israeli PM to apologize.
Russian diplomat to Poland after being sprayed with red (syrup):...this is a staging, just like in Bucha
And Macron in a call to Zelensky (he didn't speak with the press about it, we knew it by an interview with Zelensky on Italian TV), asked Zelensky to give up Ukraine territory so that Putin can save face! Zelensky said it is not his business to save other people's faces. His duty is to his country.
That may be plenty.
But I want to say that since February we all lost sight of the real issue. Russia invaded another country. That is the main question.
@healther, I never said we shouldn't arm the Ukrainians. The war started because of an invasion by Russia across an internationally recognized border. The Ukrainians are entitled to ask for help, and we and others are entitled to help them.
As for the appropriate measures when your opponent is making a mistake (assuming Russia is the "opponent" of the U.S.), in my opinion it depends on what measures your "opponent" will take to rectify his mistakes, especially if your opponent is nuclear-armed.
With regard to the Baltic states, they are members of NATO, and the obligations of the U.S., and the consequences for Russia of an invasion, are much clearer and well known in advance.
The other choice would have been, in the early weeks of the war, when things were clearly going badly for Russia, to call for a cease-fire and a return by Russia to the positions it held on February 23. This is almost certainly not in the cards now, because of the overheated rhetoric coming out of Washington over the past weeks. It doesn't matter if the rhetoric was walked back. Biden said that Putin must be removed from power. In my opinion it is naive to think that Putin would consider this idle talk, walked back or not.
@sevedb, My original comments had nothing to do with the remarks of the Pope, Marcon, Lavrov, or anybody outside Washington. You said that you believed that the U.S. wanted the war to end soon. I disagreed, and said that the rhetoric coming out of Washington leads me to believe that Washington prefers that the war continue until a desirable end state is reached (overthrow of Putin, diminution of Russian power, or both). In my opinion, for the U.S., getting to this end state is now the most important thing; ending the war without achieving those goals is secondary.
Yes, that may be the position of Washington, and a few others (though not France, Germany, and the many populist parties being on the Russian pay-bok).
Ending the war without those goals may mean it's just a truce, not a real end. And at this point, a few countries are feeling uneasy about it.
PS: About Putin not checking scrupulously what people say, is because he may have quite a few concerns far more pressing right now in his mind.
@geometry dash world The alternative option would have been to demand a cease-fire and a return of Russia to the positions it had on February 23 during the early weeks of the conflict, when things were obviously going badly for Russia. Given the inflammatory language that has been coming out of Washington over the past few weeks, it is most likely not in the cards right now. If the rhetoric was toned down, it makes no difference. According to Biden, Putin needs to be taken out of office. It is naïve, in my opinion, to suppose that Putin would take this frivolous chatter into consideration—walked back or not.
I know that I am way over the wisdom of my fellow forecasters in this question. However, I am still of the opinion that not all is good for the Russian President:
This is for what concerns his health and wellbeing. But there are other issues. Sergey Protosenya, Vladislav Avayev, Alexander Tyulakov, Leonid Shulman, and many others (11 I believe), have all been found dead since the war on Ukraine began.
Putin’s favorability ratings jumped to 83 percent in late March, a month into the so-called special military operation. Perhaps more ominously, Russians appear to be informing on one another in growing numbers, condemning friends, neighbors, and colleagues for insufficient support of the war effort. To be sure, an 83 percent approval rating almost certainly overstates Putin’s support. Individuals may understandably hide their true preferences from pollsters, as a culture of paranoia spreads across the country. But we simply don’t know what individual Russians would choose/want if they had an open democracy, rather than a dictatorship where fear is the air one breaths. Like everyone else, they are products of their environment. Authoritarianism corrupts society.
The Ukraine adventure is not going to plan, not even closer. Russia has lost 1,666 vehicles in Ukraine, of which more than 800 have been destroyed during the conflict. Those confirmed destroyed include 111 tanks, 74 armored fighting vehicles, 123 infantry fighting vehicles, and 312 trucks, vehicles, and jeeps.
During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, an unusual number of Russian generals, including the Russian Armed Forces and the National Guard of Russia, have been reported killed in action. As of 23 April 2022, Ukrainian sources reported that ten Russian generals had been killed during the invasion. Ukrainian officials estimated that more than 15,000 Russian soldiers have been killed (some sources say the figure could be as many as 25,900); what is most horrifying is that Russian troops do not collect their deaths. The families will never know anything about them, except the generals' families perhaps.
In such a situation we won't be able to see what is brewing until it happens. Therefore I maintain my percentage for now. There are 6 full months to go, and while the war could protract, the EU/USA would like to see the end of it fast to limit the carnage done to Ukraine, and a lot of effort is going to that extent.
[I used a number of sources: The Atlantic, the BBC, The Guardian, DW, ISW]
@rjfmgy
The bill would give Ukraine military and economic assistance, help regional allies, replenish weapons the Pentagon has shipped overseas and provide $5 billion to address global food shortages caused by the war’s crippling of Ukraine’s normally robust production of many crops.
i do not see anything in there that specifically prolong the war.
I didn’t follow the rhetoric so close to argue what SoD Austin said, but from what I see Putin is doing his very best to weaken himself. They were just rumors until recently, now it is undeniable that the man has health problems, and serious ones too (it was about 50F on May 9 parade day, and no one needed a blanket except Putin).
Then there are all the problems I mentioned above, and the latest on the war is not good news for Putin.
We know that Biden is gaffes prone, but it ends there. Ultimately, though I believe Russia weakened itself, and I do not think it is reckless to desire to see Putin go (wherever the Russians want), in EU people is a little fed up of nuclear threats, and if you do not mind also of propaganda, hacks, fake news, and idiots that believe in a bunch of nonsense.
As for the war, I do not know if in the US it has the same impact, but in the European Union people feel for Ukraine, the killings if civilians, children, and the destruction of infrastructures.
Moreover, It is imperative to call for the immediate reopening of Black Sea ports--including Odesa--so that critical food from Ukraine can reach people facing food insecurity in countries such as Afghanistan, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Syria and Yemen where millions are on the brink.
The USA are aware that we’re running out of time and the impact of inaction will be felt around the world for years to come.
It isn't reckless to want Putin gone, it's reckless for U.S.officials to say it out loud. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said "We're at war," on the floor of the House. This kind of thing is reckless.
You say, "the impact of inaction will be felt around the world for years to come." Certainly I agree. The question is, "What action should the U.S. be taking?" Saber rattling is not the appropriate action.
That being said: Short of the comments of single officials, that were (afair always) walked back immediately. The US government hasn't shown any indication of fanning the flames. And yeah parliamentarians are far more aggressive, which is bad (because from an autoritarian point of view it's unclear that they aren't part of the government). But unless we want to argue for "just let the Ukrainians fend for themselves, and deal with a totally unthethered Russia in a year when it tries the Baltics" I don't see what the other choice would be.
And yes, when your opponent is making a mistake, making it more likely that he continues to make the mistake is just good policy isn't it?
@rjfmgy
My views mirror @healther
But since I reflected on your reply, here it is:
True that we can use better diplomacy with our politicians. However, do you think Putin is holed up in the Kremlin checking scrupulously what people say?
The statements by Biden and the other guy may have reverberated in the US much more than internationally (except for those who think that the US is guilty of every mischief on the planet).
But about miss-talking let me highlight a few notable ones:
That may be plenty.
But I want to say that since February we all lost sight of the real issue. Russia invaded another country. That is the main question.
And I conclude endorsing @healther last sentence.
Thank you for the interaction!
@healther, I never said we shouldn't arm the Ukrainians. The war started because of an invasion by Russia across an internationally recognized border. The Ukrainians are entitled to ask for help, and we and others are entitled to help them.
As for the appropriate measures when your opponent is making a mistake (assuming Russia is the "opponent" of the U.S.), in my opinion it depends on what measures your "opponent" will take to rectify his mistakes, especially if your opponent is nuclear-armed.
With regard to the Baltic states, they are members of NATO, and the obligations of the U.S., and the consequences for Russia of an invasion, are much clearer and well known in advance.
The other choice would have been, in the early weeks of the war, when things were clearly going badly for Russia, to call for a cease-fire and a return by Russia to the positions it held on February 23. This is almost certainly not in the cards now, because of the overheated rhetoric coming out of Washington over the past weeks. It doesn't matter if the rhetoric was walked back. Biden said that Putin must be removed from power. In my opinion it is naive to think that Putin would consider this idle talk, walked back or not.
@sevedb, My original comments had nothing to do with the remarks of the Pope, Marcon, Lavrov, or anybody outside Washington. You said that you believed that the U.S. wanted the war to end soon. I disagreed, and said that the rhetoric coming out of Washington leads me to believe that Washington prefers that the war continue until a desirable end state is reached (overthrow of Putin, diminution of Russian power, or both). In my opinion, for the U.S., getting to this end state is now the most important thing; ending the war without achieving those goals is secondary.
@rjfmgy
Correct, I believe I misunderstood you.
Yes, that may be the position of Washington, and a few others (though not France, Germany, and the many populist parties being on the Russian pay-bok).
Ending the war without those goals may mean it's just a truce, not a real end. And at this point, a few countries are feeling uneasy about it.
PS: About Putin not checking scrupulously what people say, is because he may have quite a few concerns far more pressing right now in his mind.
Comment deleted on Feb 20, 2024 08:14PM UTC