Ukraine

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I started replying less because I didn't want to make this thread about me or my specific view, but I'll risk clarifying the idea that has been misconstrued.  And maybe it will help to point to a different example I mentioned earlier in this thread.

During the Vietnam War, the U.S. government consistently lied to the American people.  The enemy body counts and capabilities were not truthful.  During the Tet holiday, North Vietnamese launched the Tet Offensive where they attacked numerous cities and villages at the same time, and captured a number of them.  U.S. troops liberated cities, used heliocopters to rapidly move to other cities, liberating them.  As a military offensive, it was a terrible defeat for North Vietnam... and it won them the war.  Back in the U.S., Americans were shocked the enemy could take over numerous villages after what they'd been told.  Sentiment against the war flooded in, and the U.S. withdrew in defeat.  My key point is that U.S. government propaganda was shown to be a lie, and support for the war collapsed.

That is what I was trying to convey in my approach to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.  I was not suggesting killing tens of thousands of Russian civilians, nor targetting civilians.  During the thread I learned about "legitimate military targets", and so my earlier comments about war crimes were ignorant and incorrect.  It is not a war crime, for example, to attack the bridge the connects Russia to Crimea because the bridge has military value to Russia.

A more constructive angle is to ask: what will shock Russian civilians out of believing Russian government propaganda, and turn their sentiment against the war?

[LaineyAZ]

In my opinion, most European countries have not contributed enough so far (except for states like Latvia, Estonia and Poland that may be next in line). This war could ultimately depend on continued US support (and election outcomes, really.) Germany may have historical reasons for not going all in. Is it just me? I have not been a fan of India's cozy-up with Putin over the years.

This is interesting, but it looks like it doesn't address the cost of absorbing the six million+ Ukrainian refugees who've left - that's quite a cost for the neighboring countries to absorb.  That should be included in the overall definition of support. 

[nereo]

A more constructive angle is to ask: what will shock Russian civilians out of believing Russian government propaganda, and turn their sentiment against the war?

I would say: It starts with a free and open press - something Russia simply does not have. As is typical with dictatorships, the Kremlin keeps tight controls on all major media (and dissident journalists have a tendency of being exiled or mysteriously dying). Absent that, I don't see how any external pressure (military strikes or other) can effectively compete with state-run media channels controlling the message and blasting out propaganda to a pre-conditioned populace 24/7. Simply put, most have been conditioned to deeply distrust the West.

But your broader assumption - that public sentiment will ultimately dictate the length of this conflict - is misguided. Russia is not a democracy, and Putin is not subject to the will of the people. As long as he remains in control the conflict will last as long as he likes, and short of a revolution or coup (itself likely to be extremely bloody) that's not likely to change.

Instead of focusing on public sentiment, we could ask "what would make Putin decide this war is not worth fighting anymore?"  While he might be a de-facto dictator his power stems from control of the military, support of the oligarchs (through a combination of intimidation and kickbacks) and a few other key positions. This conflict has embarrassed the military and shown general incompetence - and there's evidence that support from the oligarchs is waning, though they still fear Putin and his reach. There seems to be a debate as to whether its best to cut-and-run or triple-down and absolutely obliterate Ukraine. Making the latter option impossible seems to be the goal of the Western-led alliance.  Targeted sanctions have been designed to sap support and break the corrupt control of the Kremlin-oligarch circle, as well as limit the manufacture of more precision-guided systems.

So what else...?  From what I've read it seems Russia is getting at least some of their weapons now from Iran - trying to interrupt that source seems logical (though politically problematic). Improved defensive systems are scheduled but will take months to deploy onto the battlefield. Most of the missile attacks appear to be launched from Russia's warships in international waters, so curtailing that is tricky (outside the range of HIMARS and governed by international maritime law.
What other suggestions do you have?

[LennStar]

My key point is that U.S. government propaganda was shown to be a lie, and support for the war collapsed.

That is what I was trying to convey in my approach to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
...
A more constructive angle is to ask: what will shock Russian civilians out of believing Russian government propaganda, and turn their sentiment against the war?

Ukraine has half-destroyed the kerch bridge. They have killed the Moskwa flagship. They have bombarded airfields for atomic bombers far away. They have just killed a stupid collection of recruits. Several Russian cities had air defense working (and by that I mean you could hear the explosions).
Russians know about that.
No single strike in Moskwa could tell the population more than the fact that Ukraine is able to take out the most valuable and protected military targets.

[bwall]

My key point is that U.S. government propaganda was shown to be a lie, and support for the war collapsed.

That is what I was trying to convey in my approach to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
...
A more constructive angle is to ask: what will shock Russian civilians out of believing Russian government propaganda, and turn their sentiment against the war?

Ukraine has half-destroyed the kerch bridge. They have killed the Moskwa flagship. They have bombarded airfields for atomic bombers far away. They have just killed a stupid collection of recruits. Several Russian cities had air defense working (and by that I mean you could hear the explosions).
Russians know about that.
No single strike in Moskwa could tell the population more than the fact that Ukraine is able to take out the most valuable and protected military targets.

Yes. Putin's relation with his people is different than what we in the West know and understand to be a 'normal' relationship between a political leader and the populace. It's best to try and view it through their lens, although this is exceedingly difficult for Westerners who have never spent time in or studied the history of Russia.

Russians who had anti war sentiment have done the only option available to them--they left the country. The first wave was in late Feb, 2022 and the second wave was after mass mobilization in late Sept. 2022. Writing/calling their representative wasn't an option. Voting for the opposition wasn't an option. Protesting wasn't an option. Complaining on television wasn't an option. Starting a blog wasn't an option. The only option was to vote with their feet and emigrate.

Since these people would just cause Putin trouble anyway, he's happy to see them go to the neighboring countries. Since most of these people are well educated and have job skills that are more mobile than most, the neighboring countries are happy to have them.

[PeteD01]

Actually, the Moscow region is a major logistical hub with many installations  of military importance that can justifiably be targeted by UAF.
However, high profile incidents in the area would hand the regime a justification for internal security clampdowns which part of the population would support if they felt threatened.
Such a clampdown would of course interfere with UAF undercover activities in the capital region. Remember, Ukrainian agents can easily pass as Russians and, short of martial law, finding them is really difficult.
So I would not expect any UAF activity in the capital region until the situation has been shaped sufficiently that a security clampdown would not interfere any more in such endeavors.

I actually was more concerned with a false flag incident in Moscow in order to justify further security measures, but with the events of the last few weeks, the Kremlin must now consider that any attack in Moscow would be seen as a weakness of the regime and would likely be followed by extensive sabotage undermining the regime even further.

I posted this a few days ago:

Kyrylo Oleksiyovych Budanov is Chief of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine and Major General and this picture just popped up on Twitter and is supposed to show him in his office with a map of Moscow on the screen.

https://twitter.com/Maks_NAFO_FELLA/status/1609160165265227779/photo/1

This picture was of course leaked intentionally. It is a threat to the Kremlin and a message that preparations are under way and whatever happens will happen at Ukraine´s convenience.

[pecunia]

Cut the head off the snake.

[nereo]

Cut the head off the snake.

Risky. It’s not likely to result in a democratically elected leader, but rather another dictator who now can say with some legitimacy that evil externals are murderous bastards and must be preemptively destroyed. No guarantee the next guy wouldn’t be worse and want to “succeed where Putin failed” as some sort of affirmation of power

[zolotiyeruki]

Cut the head off the snake.

Risky. It’s not likely to result in a democratically elected leader, but rather another dictator who now can say with some legitimacy that evil externals are murderous bastards and must be preemptively destroyed. No guarantee the next guy wouldn’t be worse and want to “succeed where Putin failed” as some sort of affirmation of power

But from a practical perspective, what could/would an even-worse successor do that Putin hasn't already done?  Russia has already lost probably at least half their operational armor and over 100,000 troops, including much of their actually operational, trained ground forces.  From many reports, they've used up nearly all their precision standoff weapons and called up 300,000 conscripts, who are getting chewed up at a rate of 500-700 per day.  They've bombed hospitals, schools, shopping malls, and electrical infrastructure.  They've kidnapped tens of thousands of Ukrainians. They've beaten, tortured, raped, and executed who-knows-how-many civilians.  They stripped Kherson of anything of value as they pulled out.  They basically leveled the entire city of Mariupol.  They've stripped Belarus of all armor and artillery shells, have pulled anti-air defenses from Syria, and are having to source stuff from North Korea and Iran.

What escalatory steps are available to such a successor?  Full mobilization?  Considering Russia's logistical struggles, I see that doing more harm than good.  Nukes?  Perhaps I'm an optimist, but someone smart enough to position themselves to succeed Putin is gonna be smart enough to leave the nukes where they are.  Chemical weapons?  IMO, such an action would unlock a whole new set of modern western material support.

[nereo]

Cut the head off the snake.

Risky. It’s not likely to result in a democratically elected leader, but rather another dictator who now can say with some legitimacy that evil externals are murderous bastards and must be preemptively destroyed. No guarantee the next guy wouldn’t be worse and want to “succeed where Putin failed” as some sort of affirmation of power

But from a practical perspective, what could/would an even-worse successor do that Putin hasn't already done?  Russia has already lost probably at least half their operational armor and over 100,000 troops, including much of their actually operational, trained ground forces.  From many reports, they've used up nearly all their precision standoff weapons and called up 300,000 conscripts, who are getting chewed up at a rate of 500-700 per day.  They've bombed hospitals, schools, shopping malls, and electrical infrastructure.  They've kidnapped tens of thousands of Ukrainians. They've beaten, tortured, raped, and executed who-knows-how-many civilians.  They stripped Kherson of anything of value as they pulled out.  They basically leveled the entire city of Mariupol.  They've stripped Belarus of all armor and artillery shells, have pulled anti-air defenses from Syria, and are having to source stuff from North Korea and Iran.

What escalatory steps are available to such a successor?  Full mobilization?  Considering Russia's logistical struggles, I see that doing more harm than good.  Nukes?  Perhaps I'm an optimist, but someone smart enough to position themselves to succeed Putin is gonna be smart enough to leave the nukes where they are.  Chemical weapons?  IMO, such an action would unlock a whole new set of modern western material support.

Yeah, nukes. Or just more of the same (but with new leadership and “this time it’s different” the war and losses continue until it becomes apparent that “actually nothing has changed). History is littered with examples of bad wars that still didn’t end when the leader was replaced. Heck, three consecutive presidents vowed to “get out of Afghanistan”

[Telecaster]

A more constructive angle is to ask: what will shock Russian civilians out of believing Russian government propaganda, and turn their sentiment against the war?

Great question, and I have no clear idea what the answers might be.   I've been reading a lot about Russian politics lately, and it appears that a large number of Russians have views similar to Putin's.  That is, they want to reconstitute their romantic visions of the greatness of the Soviet Union/Russian Empire, view Ukraine as legitimately part of the Russian empire, and view Russia locked in an existential political, military, and cultural battle with the West.

There is a good chance that Russia will be defeated militarily in this war.    But even that might not be enough to change public sentiment.   Germany was defeated military in WWI, but Germany itself wasn't really invaded.   After the war, a significant fraction of the population began to believe that Germany could have won, but was betrayed by the political leadership.   That might be a loose analogy for Russia, but it seems to apply a bit.  Already, milbloggers, propogandists, and even Prigozhin have begun to blame Russia's lack of progress on everyone and everything except for Putin himself.  Assuming Russia is thrown back to the 2012 borders, I believe there is a good chance Russia will simply bide its time until it can invade again.  Perhaps in a generation or two. 

[TomTX]

*And to be clear I don't include you among the people I see making this really unfortunate argument.

Thanks I was just trying to understand what you were saying.

Personally, I think Ukraine should stick with what they have been doing so well - focusing on disrupting Russian military logistics, both in Ukraine and in Russia while minimizing civilian casualties. Beyond the obvious ammo depots - if a bridge and/or train line is on a significant logistics route and is in range? Cripple or eliminate its carrying capacity. The Kerch strait bridge is a good example.

That said, whatever approaches Ukraine chooses (short of war crimes) it's really their decision, not mine.

[TomTX]

Cut the head off the snake.

It's more of a hydra than a snake.

[zolotiyeruki]

A more constructive angle is to ask: what will shock Russian civilians out of believing Russian government propaganda, and turn their sentiment against the war?

Great question, and I have no clear idea what the answers might be.   I've been reading a lot about Russian politics lately, and it appears that a large number of Russians have views similar to Putin's.  That is, they want to reconstitute their romantic visions of the greatness of the Soviet Union/Russian Empire, view Ukraine as legitimately part of the Russian empire, and view Russia locked in an existential political, military, and cultural battle with the West.

There is a good chance that Russia will be defeated militarily in this war.    But even that might not be enough to change public sentiment.   Germany was defeated military in WWI, but Germany itself wasn't really invaded.   After the war, a significant fraction of the population began to believe that Germany could have won, but was betrayed by the political leadership.   That might be a loose analogy for Russia, but it seems to apply a bit.  Already, milbloggers, propogandists, and even Prigozhin have begun to blame Russia's lack of progress on everyone and everything except for Putin himself.  Assuming Russia is thrown back to the 2012 borders, I believe there is a good chance Russia will simply bide its time until it can invade again.  Perhaps in a generation or two.

Around the turn of the century, I lived in Russia for about 2 years.  I was there when 9/11 happened.  About 75% of the people we encountered were very sympathetic, etc.  The remainder were of the "that's what you deserve, you dirty western dogs" mentality.

There is definitely a generational split in the country, between those who long for the bygone era of Soviet (perceived) Supremacy, and those who would love to be more integrated and friendly with the West.  The number of those in the former group are rapidly dwindling--almost half of the population were born after the fall of the iron curtain--but currently hold the levers of power.

It doesn't surprise me that Putin has, at least domestically, escaped blame for this fiasco.  To question or blame or in any way insinuate that he's anything but a master strategist is...risky.  Witness the alarming number of oligarchs suffering untimely deaths over the last 10 months.  I don't believe the younger, urban demographic has any illusions about the prudence of the "special military operation," nor do I believe they think that destroying hundreds of thousands of lives in order to conquer small portions of Ukraine is good policy.

As for Russia biding its time and rebuilding to invade again...I'm skeptical.  Because once they're out of Ukraine, Ukraine no longer has contested borders and can work toward full EU membership, or joining NATO.  And Ukraine isn't going to spend that time sitting on their hands, either.  Everything from hardening infrastructure to arming up with western weapons to fortifying borders to changing their railroad gauge to stockpiling equipment, to training their forces, to developing and producing long-range drones...it's all on the table.  Meanwhile, Russia's efforts to rebuild militarily will be severely hampered by sanctions, the huge brain drain, the tremendous corruption, price caps on oil, etc.

[pecunia]

A more constructive angle is to ask: what will shock Russian civilians out of believing Russian government propaganda, and turn their sentiment against the war?

Great question, and I have no clear idea what the answers might be.   I've been reading a lot about Russian politics lately, and it appears that a large number of Russians have views similar to Putin's.  That is, they want to reconstitute their romantic visions of the greatness of the Soviet Union/Russian Empire, view Ukraine as legitimately part of the Russian empire, and view Russia locked in an existential political, military, and cultural battle with the West.

There is a good chance that Russia will be defeated militarily in this war.    But even that might not be enough to change public sentiment.   Germany was defeated military in WWI, but Germany itself wasn't really invaded.   After the war, a significant fraction of the population began to believe that Germany could have won, but was betrayed by the political leadership.   That might be a loose analogy for Russia, but it seems to apply a bit.  Already, milbloggers, propogandists, and even Prigozhin have begun to blame Russia's lack of progress on everyone and everything except for Putin himself.  Assuming Russia is thrown back to the 2012 borders, I believe there is a good chance Russia will simply bide its time until it can invade again.  Perhaps in a generation or two.

Around the turn of the century, I lived in Russia for about 2 years.  I was there when 9/11 happened.  About 75% of the people we encountered were very sympathetic, etc.  The remainder were of the "that's what you deserve, you dirty western dogs" mentality.

There is definitely a generational split in the country, between those who long for the bygone era of Soviet (perceived) Supremacy, and those who would love to be more integrated and friendly with the West.  The number of those in the former group are rapidly dwindling--almost half of the population were born after the fall of the iron curtain--but currently hold the levers of power.

It doesn't surprise me that Putin has, at least domestically, escaped blame for this fiasco.  To question or blame or in any way insinuate that he's anything but a master strategist is...risky.  Witness the alarming number of oligarchs suffering untimely deaths over the last 10 months.  I don't believe the younger, urban demographic has any illusions about the prudence of the "special military operation," nor do I believe they think that destroying hundreds of thousands of lives in order to conquer small portions of Ukraine is good policy.

As for Russia biding its time and rebuilding to invade again...I'm skeptical.  Because once they're out of Ukraine, Ukraine no longer has contested borders and can work toward full EU membership, or joining NATO.  And Ukraine isn't going to spend that time sitting on their hands, either.  Everything from hardening infrastructure to arming up with western weapons to fortifying borders to changing their railroad gauge to stockpiling equipment, to training their forces, to developing and producing long-range drones...it's all on the table.  Meanwhile, Russia's efforts to rebuild militarily will be severely hampered by sanctions, the huge brain drain, the tremendous corruption, price caps on oil, etc.

Times change - People Change

Today in 1965 Lyndon B Johnson gave a state of the union address outlining his great society plan.  It mostly passed.  It included some good ideas like Medicare.  These things go in cycles.  About the time when Reagan and Clinton were president, the ideas envisioned by Johnson and the post Roosevelt politicians were castigated.  This remained the sratus quo for a generation. Today with the resurgence of unions and various government programs, the pendulum appears to be swinging back

I'm just saying that if Russia is held in check for a generation that the next generation may not share the ideals of Putin and his ilk.  In fact I think there is almost bound to be a return to sanity.  However - some other country will be batshit crazy by then.

[Tyson]

A more constructive angle is to ask: what will shock Russian civilians out of believing Russian government propaganda, and turn their sentiment against the war?

IMO, 2 things. 

Dead bodies.  Lots and lots of dead bodies coming home to Russia. 

And Ukraine winning the war and taking back all territory, including Crimea. 

[Telecaster]

I'm just saying that if Russia is held in check for a generation that the next generation may not share the ideals of Putin and his ilk.  In fact I think there is almost bound to be a return to sanity.  However - some other country will be batshit crazy by then.

I hope so.   But even after the horrors of Communism, Russia's fledgling democratic institutions were not strong enough to hold off a return to a kleptomaniac dictatorship.   

[maizefolk]

I'm just saying that if Russia is held in check for a generation that the next generation may not share the ideals of Putin and his ilk.  In fact I think there is almost bound to be a return to sanity.  However - some other country will be batshit crazy by then.

I certainly hope you are right. But looking at examples of other countries that have been held in check for a generation or more (Cuba, North Korea, arguably Iran), while the population may not support their leaders, the batshit crazy leadership largely remains in power.

[pecunia]

I'm just saying that if Russia is held in check for a generation that the next generation may not share the ideals of Putin and his ilk.  In fact I think there is almost bound to be a return to sanity.  However - some other country will be batshit crazy by then.

I hope so.   But even after the horrors of Communism, Russia's fledgling democratic institutions were not strong enough to hold off a return to a kleptomaniac dictatorship.

It did take a generation before they were able to make their resurgence.

Dead bodies.  Lots and lots of dead bodies coming home to Russia. 

Nah - They have portable crematoria.  They'll just say the dead soldier is location unknown.

[Tyson]

I'm just saying that if Russia is held in check for a generation that the next generation may not share the ideals of Putin and his ilk.  In fact I think there is almost bound to be a return to sanity.  However - some other country will be batshit crazy by then.

I hope so.   But even after the horrors of Communism, Russia's fledgling democratic institutions were not strong enough to hold off a return to a kleptomaniac dictatorship.

It did take a generation before they were able to make their resurgence.

Dead bodies.  Lots and lots of dead bodies coming home to Russia. 

Nah - They have portable crematoria.  They'll just say the dead soldier is location unknown.

It also prevents them from having to pay any death benefits for the family of the dead soldier back in Russia.  Very frugal.  Who knew that Russia was so mustachian!!

[MustacheAndaHalf]

A more constructive angle is to ask: what will shock Russian civilians out of believing Russian government propaganda, and turn their sentiment against the war?

But your broader assumption - that public sentiment will ultimately dictate the length of this conflict - is misguided. Russia is not a democracy, and Putin is not subject to the will of the people. As long as he remains in control the conflict will last as long as he likes, and short of a revolution or coup (itself likely to be extremely bloody) that's not likely to change.

I'm obviously aware Russia is not a democracy, but I think neither of us is an expert on Russia and Putin.  Bill Browder is one of Putin's top enemies - he combined investing and exposing corruption in a way that required he get out of Russia.  I view him as more of an expert on Putin, and his take differs from yours.

His view is that if Putin looks weak, he's dead.  Russians are not a democracy, but they do not tolerate weakness.  Putin needs to look strong in this war so that he survives.
https://globalnews.ca/news/9167346/putin-russia-ukraine-war-bill-browder-west-block/

A literal hole in the Kremlin can't be explained away - at some level, propganda can't address something dramatic and shocking people see with their own eyes.
The psychological shock value is great enough that people can realize they've been wrong.  There's some small chance that is enough, but I think it plants the seed that maybe the war is going badly despite what newspapers and TV says in Russia.  It moves Russians one step closer to viewing Putin as weak.

[Tyson]

A more constructive angle is to ask: what will shock Russian civilians out of believing Russian government propaganda, and turn their sentiment against the war?

But your broader assumption - that public sentiment will ultimately dictate the length of this conflict - is misguided. Russia is not a democracy, and Putin is not subject to the will of the people. As long as he remains in control the conflict will last as long as he likes, and short of a revolution or coup (itself likely to be extremely bloody) that's not likely to change.

I'm obviously aware Russia is not a democracy, but I think neither of us is an expert on Russia and Putin.  Bill Browder is one of Putin's top enemies - he combined investing and exposing corruption in a way that required he get out of Russia.  I view him as more of an expert on Putin, and his take differs from yours.

His view is that if Putin looks weak, he's dead.  Russians are not a democracy, but they do not tolerate weakness.  Putin needs to look strong in this war so that he survives.
https://globalnews.ca/news/9167346/putin-russia-ukraine-war-bill-browder-west-block/

A literal hole in the Kremlin can't be explained away - at some level, propganda can't address something dramatic and shocking people see with their own eyes.
The psychological shock value is great enough that people can realize they've been wrong.  There's some small chance that is enough, but I think it plants the seed that maybe the war is going badly despite what newspapers and TV says in Russia.  It moves Russians one step closer to viewing Putin as weak.

I think it's just necessary for Ukraine to win the war and push Russia entirely out of Crimea.  That will do a MUCH better job of making Putin look weak. 

[Michael in ABQ]

I'm just saying that if Russia is held in check for a generation that the next generation may not share the ideals of Putin and his ilk.  In fact I think there is almost bound to be a return to sanity.  However - some other country will be batshit crazy by then.

I hope so.   But even after the horrors of Communism, Russia's fledgling democratic institutions were not strong enough to hold off a return to a kleptomaniac dictatorship.

It did take a generation before they were able to make their resurgence.

Dead bodies.  Lots and lots of dead bodies coming home to Russia. 

Nah - They have portable crematoria. They'll just say the dead soldier is location unknown.

I contrast that with how the US treats Soldiers. I lost one of my Soldiers when we were deployed a couple of years ago (natural causes, not combat). Hundreds of people showed up to his memorial service in country including a couple of general and the ambassador. When his body arrived back home there were hundreds (possibly thousands) lining the streets with additional generals present and multiple police and fire departments (he was a police officer and volunteer firefighter as a civilian) present in his funeral procession (they temporarily shut down a major freeway).

[rocketpj]

It seems as if Putin's crowd is trying to Make Russia Great Again....

[nereo]

A more constructive angle is to ask: what will shock Russian civilians out of believing Russian government propaganda, and turn their sentiment against the war?

But your broader assumption - that public sentiment will ultimately dictate the length of this conflict - is misguided. Russia is not a democracy, and Putin is not subject to the will of the people. As long as he remains in control the conflict will last as long as he likes, and short of a revolution or coup (itself likely to be extremely bloody) that's not likely to change.

I'm obviously aware Russia is not a democracy, but I think neither of us is an expert on Russia and Putin.  Bill Browder is one of Putin's top enemies - he combined investing and exposing corruption in a way that required he get out of Russia.  I view him as more of an expert on Putin, and his take differs from yours.

His view is that if Putin looks weak, he's dead.  Russians are not a democracy, but they do not tolerate weakness.  Putin needs to look strong in this war so that he survives.
https://globalnews.ca/news/9167346/putin-russia-ukraine-war-bill-browder-west-block/

A literal hole in the Kremlin can't be explained away - at some level, propganda can't address something dramatic and shocking people see with their own eyes.
The psychological shock value is great enough that people can realize they've been wrong.  There's some small chance that is enough, but I think it plants the seed that maybe the war is going badly despite what newspapers and TV says in Russia.  It moves Russians one step closer to viewing Putin as weak.

Ok, here you are talking about Putin and what might remove him from power. Do you believe that if Putin is removed that the war will quickly end, particularly if that came about by the targeted distraction of the Kremlin in Moscow? That (should Putin be removed for looking “weak”) whomever takes over will look at the destruction of the Kremlin and conclude: Let’s not fight anymore?

[zolotiyeruki]

Ok, here you are talking about Putin and what might remove him from power. Do you believe that if Putin is removed that the war will quickly end, particularly if that came about by the targeted distraction of the Kremlin in Moscow? That (should Putin be removed for looking “weak”) whomever takes over will look at the destruction of the Kremlin and conclude: Let’s not fight anymore?

I don't know if it would work, but I think the point is to show Putin as weak, so that he gets replaced, and then his replacement recognizes/acknowledges that Putin's escapade in Ukraine was folly/expensive/a military disaster and decides to pull out.  There's a general feeling that Putin's cronies know the true extent of the damage, but the info presented to Putin is heavily filtered, and that has contributed to his poor decisions.  If someone with a more correct dataset gets in power, better decisions (e.g. pull out of Ukraine) may be made.

[maizefolk]

A literal hole in the Kremlin can't be explained away - at some level, propganda can't address something dramatic and shocking people see with their own eyes.
The psychological shock value is great enough that people can realize they've been wrong.  There's some small chance that is enough, but I think it plants the seed that maybe the war is going badly despite what newspapers and TV says in Russia.  It moves Russians one step closer to viewing Putin as weak.

Think back two years ago, when the USA was still at war with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Imagine that you woke up one day and the front story of every paper was that the Taliban has infiltrated the USA and blown up the Truman Balcony of the White House (the part with the pillars out front that you see if visit it). It is dramatic. It is shocking. All the 24/7 news networks are talking about this. When you go to the grocery store everyone is talking about it.

1) What is your own emotional reaction to this news?
2) What do you envision the framing fox news would place on this news?
3) Do you think this event would make it more or less likely that the USA would withdraw from Afghanistan, leaving the Taliban to achieve victory?

[MustacheAndaHalf]

A more constructive angle is to ask: what will shock Russian civilians out of believing Russian government propaganda, and turn their sentiment against the war?

But your broader assumption - that public sentiment will ultimately dictate the length of this conflict - is misguided. Russia is not a democracy, and Putin is not subject to the will of the people. As long as he remains in control the conflict will last as long as he likes, and short of a revolution or coup (itself likely to be extremely bloody) that's not likely to change.

I'm obviously aware Russia is not a democracy, but I think neither of us is an expert on Russia and Putin.  Bill Browder is one of Putin's top enemies - he combined investing and exposing corruption in a way that required he get out of Russia.  I view him as more of an expert on Putin, and his take differs from yours.

His view is that if Putin looks weak, he's dead.  Russians are not a democracy, but they do not tolerate weakness.  Putin needs to look strong in this war so that he survives.
https://globalnews.ca/news/9167346/putin-russia-ukraine-war-bill-browder-west-block/

A literal hole in the Kremlin can't be explained away - at some level, propganda can't address something dramatic and shocking people see with their own eyes.
The psychological shock value is great enough that people can realize they've been wrong.  There's some small chance that is enough, but I think it plants the seed that maybe the war is going badly despite what newspapers and TV says in Russia.  It moves Russians one step closer to viewing Putin as weak.

Ok, here you are talking about Putin and what might remove him from power. Do you believe that if Putin is removed that the war will quickly end, particularly if that came about by the targeted distraction of the Kremlin in Moscow? That (should Putin be removed for looking “weak”) whomever takes over will look at the destruction of the Kremlin and conclude: Let’s not fight anymore?

No, I didn't say "the war will quickly end".  I said it moves Russians one step closer to viewing Putin as weak.  And if he looks weak enough, then Bill Browder's view is that Putin is as good as dead.  Not "removed", but dead.  And the missile/drone strike on a spire of the Kremlin contributes to that - it does not accomplish that by itself.  It "moves Russians one step closer to viewing Putin as weak", which can lead to his death.

For a successor, the war isn't proof of their strength like it is for Putin.  It Putin is dead over the war, yes I think it likely the war ends.  And again if Bill Browder is right, the war represents an existential crisis for Putin - he can't afford to be seen as weak or losing.  A successor won't have that burden.  I think the war will not end if Putin can do anything about it, while it can end under someone else.

Russia also seeks to execute as many civilians as it can, which I think could change under a successor.  Even if the war doesn't end, but the executions do, that saves lives.  With Putin gone there are several ways that lives are saved - the war could end, and civilian executions could end.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

A literal hole in the Kremlin can't be explained away - at some level, propganda can't address something dramatic and shocking people see with their own eyes.
The psychological shock value is great enough that people can realize they've been wrong.  There's some small chance that is enough, but I think it plants the seed that maybe the war is going badly despite what newspapers and TV says in Russia.  It moves Russians one step closer to viewing Putin as weak.

Think back two years ago, when the USA was still at war with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Imagine that you woke up one day and the front story of every paper was that the Taliban has infiltrated the USA and blown up the Truman Balcony of the White House (the part with the pillars out front that you see if visit it). It is dramatic. It is shocking. All the 24/7 news networks are talking about this. When you go to the grocery store everyone is talking about it.

1) What is your own emotional reaction to this news?
2) What do you envision the framing fox news would place on this news?
3) Do you think this event would make it more or less likely that the USA would withdraw from Afghanistan, leaving the Taliban to achieve victory?

Earlier in the thread I mentioned a missile strike, but didn't know if that was precise enough to hit a spire of the Kremlin, and also mentioned a drone strike.  While Ukrainians can pass for Russians - they can infiltrate - Russia could order a lockdown, which prevents it.  Russia could stop a bomb delivered by infiltration.  My point was a missile or drone strike, which Ukraine could repeat on other symbolic and shocking targets.

Earlier I gave the example of the Tet Offensive in Vietnam, which revealed lies made by the U.S. government to its citizens, and lead to the end of the war.  In that metaphor, a shocking event broke through propaganda and did contribute significantly to ending the war.  So there's not as much need for a hypothetical - we have an actual war that was ended in the way I describe.

[maizefolk]

A literal hole in the Kremlin can't be explained away - at some level, propganda can't address something dramatic and shocking people see with their own eyes.
The psychological shock value is great enough that people can realize they've been wrong.  There's some small chance that is enough, but I think it plants the seed that maybe the war is going badly despite what newspapers and TV says in Russia.  It moves Russians one step closer to viewing Putin as weak.

Think back two years ago, when the USA was still at war with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Imagine that you woke up one day and the front story of every paper was that the Taliban has infiltrated the USA and blown up the Truman Balcony of the White House (the part with the pillars out front that you see if visit it). It is dramatic. It is shocking. All the 24/7 news networks are talking about this. When you go to the grocery store everyone is talking about it.

1) What is your own emotional reaction to this news?
2) What do you envision the framing fox news would place on this news?
3) Do you think this event would make it more or less likely that the USA would withdraw from Afghanistan, leaving the Taliban to achieve victory?

Earlier in the thread I mentioned a missile strike, but didn't know if that was precise enough to hit a spire of the Kremlin, and also mentioned a drone strike.  While Ukrainians can pass for Russians - they can infiltrate - Russia could order a lockdown, which prevents it.  Russia could stop a bomb delivered by infiltration.  My point was a missile or drone strike, which Ukraine could repeat on other symbolic and shocking targets.

Earlier I gave the example of the Tet Offensive in Vietnam, which revealed lies made by the U.S. government to its citizens, and lead to the end of the war.  In that metaphor, a shocking event broke through propaganda and did contribute significantly to ending the war.  So there's not as much need for a hypothetical - we have an actual war that was ended in the way I describe.

Fine, if you prefer, the Taliban launches a drone strike that somehow destroys the Truman balcony without killing anyone.

There is a clear need for a hypothetical because the Tet offensive was a military reversal thousands of miles away (not analogous to a hole in the Kremlin and much more analogous to Ukraine's success in pushing back the Russian army) and the USA continued to actively fight in Vietnam for years afterwards (so it didn't end the war).

A hole in the Kremlin or damage to the White House are much more similar to each other and so is a better way to test your mental model for how Russians would react by putting yourself in a similar situation and imagining how you would react.

[Just Joe]

A more constructive angle is to ask: what will shock Russian civilians out of believing Russian government propaganda, and turn their sentiment against the war?

But your broader assumption - that public sentiment will ultimately dictate the length of this conflict - is misguided. Russia is not a democracy, and Putin is not subject to the will of the people. As long as he remains in control the conflict will last as long as he likes, and short of a revolution or coup (itself likely to be extremely bloody) that's not likely to change.

I'm obviously aware Russia is not a democracy, but I think neither of us is an expert on Russia and Putin.  Bill Browder is one of Putin's top enemies - he combined investing and exposing corruption in a way that required he get out of Russia.  I view him as more of an expert on Putin, and his take differs from yours.

His view is that if Putin looks weak, he's dead.  Russians are not a democracy, but they do not tolerate weakness.  Putin needs to look strong in this war so that he survives.
https://globalnews.ca/news/9167346/putin-russia-ukraine-war-bill-browder-west-block/

A literal hole in the Kremlin can't be explained away - at some level, propganda can't address something dramatic and shocking people see with their own eyes.
The psychological shock value is great enough that people can realize they've been wrong.  There's some small chance that is enough, but I think it plants the seed that maybe the war is going badly despite what newspapers and TV says in Russia.  It moves Russians one step closer to viewing Putin as weak.

My simplistic view is the Russian situation is alot like the MAGA/Q-anon/COVID conspiracy problem here but on a grander scale. The problem doesn't pass in a year or so with elections. Things are the way they are b/c they have always been that way - the bullies win. Changes will have to overcome an incredible amount of inertia. And there are millions under-educated Russians that get their information for the TV and internet rumors just like the MAGA crowd does here.

[Sibley]

A literal hole in the Kremlin can't be explained away - at some level, propganda can't address something dramatic and shocking people see with their own eyes.
The psychological shock value is great enough that people can realize they've been wrong.  There's some small chance that is enough, but I think it plants the seed that maybe the war is going badly despite what newspapers and TV says in Russia.  It moves Russians one step closer to viewing Putin as weak.

Think back two years ago, when the USA was still at war with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Imagine that you woke up one day and the front story of every paper was that the Taliban has infiltrated the USA and blown up the Truman Balcony of the White House (the part with the pillars out front that you see if visit it). It is dramatic. It is shocking. All the 24/7 news networks are talking about this. When you go to the grocery store everyone is talking about it.

1) What is your own emotional reaction to this news?
2) What do you envision the framing fox news would place on this news?
3) Do you think this event would make it more or less likely that the USA would withdraw from Afghanistan, leaving the Taliban to achieve victory?

I am not convinced that my reaction would be remotely similar to your average Russian citizen's reaction. I know that there are significant, if sometimes subtle, cultural differences. I know that the Russian government controls the media. Would the average Russian know that there was a giant hole in the Kremlin? Maybe, maybe not. If they did know, would it be taken as "we want revenge" or "we are so horribly embarrassed that we must run and hide"? Something else? I don't know.

So your analogy might not apply. Or it might. I don't know.

I do know that if Putin is removed from power, someone will replace him and there's a very good chance that the west would be even less pleased with that person than Putin.

Ukraine is going to be essentially rubble by the time this war is over. But they will rebuild, and they'll be an incredible country in the future. Russia's future is not so bright.

[pecunia]

A literal hole in the Kremlin can't be explained away - at some level, propganda can't address something dramatic and shocking people see with their own eyes.
The psychological shock value is great enough that people can realize they've been wrong.  There's some small chance that is enough, but I think it plants the seed that maybe the war is going badly despite what newspapers and TV says in Russia.  It moves Russians one step closer to viewing Putin as weak.

Think back two years ago, when the USA was still at war with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Imagine that you woke up one day and the front story of every paper was that the Taliban has infiltrated the USA and blown up the Truman Balcony of the White House (the part with the pillars out front that you see if visit it). It is dramatic. It is shocking. All the 24/7 news networks are talking about this. When you go to the grocery store everyone is talking about it.

1) What is your own emotional reaction to this news?
2) What do you envision the framing fox news would place on this news?
3) Do you think this event would make it more or less likely that the USA would withdraw from Afghanistan, leaving the Taliban to achieve victory?

I am not convinced that my reaction would be remotely similar to your average Russian citizen's reaction. I know that there are significant, if sometimes subtle, cultural differences. I know that the Russian government controls the media. Would the average Russian know that there was a giant hole in the Kremlin? Maybe, maybe not. If they did know, would it be taken as "we want revenge" or "we are so horribly embarrassed that we must run and hide"? Something else? I don't know.

So your analogy might not apply. Or it might. I don't know.

I do know that if Putin is removed from power, someone will replace him and there's a very good chance that the west would be even less pleased with that person than Putin.

Ukraine is going to be essentially rubble by the time this war is over. But they will rebuild, and they'll be an incredible country in the future. Russia's future is not so bright.

This war is not doing anybody in Russia any good.  If Putin was gone, the folks in charge could regroup, largely blame Putin and negotiate.  It gives them a way out of the mess.

[maizefolk]

Sibley, I agree with you. We are not Russians and our reactions may not be the same as Russians. But when people are confidently predicting Russians will react on a way that is completely different from Americans (e.g. of the taliban blew up the White House or some fraction thereof it would make Joe Biden look bad but it would have creates a huge surge is support for the war that would have made ending it even harder than it already was), there should be some reasoning for WHY they are predicting Russians would have such a polar opposite response.

Human beings are generally bad at modeling how other people will respond to our actions. The best hack we’ve come up with over thousands of years is “well how would you feel if someone did that to you?”

[blue_green_sparks]

A more constructive angle is to ask: what will shock Russian civilians out of believing Russian government propaganda, and turn their sentiment against the war?

But your broader assumption - that public sentiment will ultimately dictate the length of this conflict - is misguided. Russia is not a democracy, and Putin is not subject to the will of the people. As long as he remains in control the conflict will last as long as he likes, and short of a revolution or coup (itself likely to be extremely bloody) that's not likely to change.

I'm obviously aware Russia is not a democracy, but I think neither of us is an expert on Russia and Putin.  Bill Browder is one of Putin's top enemies - he combined investing and exposing corruption in a way that required he get out of Russia.  I view him as more of an expert on Putin, and his take differs from yours.

His view is that if Putin looks weak, he's dead.  Russians are not a democracy, but they do not tolerate weakness.  Putin needs to look strong in this war so that he survives.
https://globalnews.ca/news/9167346/putin-russia-ukraine-war-bill-browder-west-block/

A literal hole in the Kremlin can't be explained away - at some level, propganda can't address something dramatic and shocking people see with their own eyes.
The psychological shock value is great enough that people can realize they've been wrong.  There's some small chance that is enough, but I think it plants the seed that maybe the war is going badly despite what newspapers and TV says in Russia.  It moves Russians one step closer to viewing Putin as weak.

My simplistic view is the Russian situation is alot like the MAGA/Q-anon/COVID conspiracy problem here but on a grander scale. The problem doesn't pass in a year or so with elections. Things are the way they are b/c they have always been that way - the bullies win. Changes will have to overcome an incredible amount of inertia. And there are millions under-educated Russians that get their information for the TV and internet rumors just like the MAGA crowd does here.

There seems to always be a faction who crave authoritarian leadership, be they political or celestial even. They tend to think in terms of absolutes and let's not let the facts get in their way.

[Tyson]

Why are people trying to over-complicate this?  Ukraine just needs to win the war and push Russia completely out of all occupied territories. 

That makes Putin look weak and gets him removed from power. 

[LennStar]

Why are people trying to over-complicate this?  Ukraine just needs to win the war and push Russia completely out of all occupied territories. 

That makes Putin look weak and gets him removed from power.

And you want to say that is NOT complicated?

[blue_green_sparks]

Why are people trying to over-complicate this?  Ukraine just needs to win the war and push Russia completely out of all occupied territories. 

That makes Putin look weak and gets him removed from power.

Nah. Instead, I or anybody else should post whatever they believe is relevant even if you think it's over-complicated. The sentiment of millions of Russians could very much ultimately become the key factor in this war's end.

[Tyson]

Why are people trying to over-complicate this?  Ukraine just needs to win the war and push Russia completely out of all occupied territories. 

That makes Putin look weak and gets him removed from power.

And you want to say that is NOT complicated?

I'm mainly talking to the people that want to 'take the fight into Russia'.  It's not needed and likely counter-productive. 

Why are people trying to over-complicate this?  Ukraine just needs to win the war and push Russia completely out of all occupied territories. 

That makes Putin look weak and gets him removed from power.

Nah. Instead, I or anybody else should post whatever they believe is relevant even if you think it's over-complicated. The sentiment of millions of Russians could very much ultimately become the key factor in this war's end.

I think people here don't quite grok how powerless 'the people' are in an autocracy.  Even if all 'the people' turned against the war, Putin would likely stay in power.  In the West we have this underlying feeling that rulers stay in power more or less by the consent of the people being ruled.  But it's simply false for countries like Russia (and North Korea, and China).  In those countries, the leaders stay in power as long as they control the military, and as long as they can keep high level rivals from ousting them. 

[Glenstache]

A more constructive angle is to ask: what will shock Russian civilians out of believing Russian government propaganda, and turn their sentiment against the war?

But your broader assumption - that public sentiment will ultimately dictate the length of this conflict - is misguided. Russia is not a democracy, and Putin is not subject to the will of the people. As long as he remains in control the conflict will last as long as he likes, and short of a revolution or coup (itself likely to be extremely bloody) that's not likely to change.

I'm obviously aware Russia is not a democracy, but I think neither of us is an expert on Russia and Putin.  Bill Browder is one of Putin's top enemies - he combined investing and exposing corruption in a way that required he get out of Russia.  I view him as more of an expert on Putin, and his take differs from yours.

His view is that if Putin looks weak, he's dead.  Russians are not a democracy, but they do not tolerate weakness.  Putin needs to look strong in this war so that he survives.
https://globalnews.ca/news/9167346/putin-russia-ukraine-war-bill-browder-west-block/

A literal hole in the Kremlin can't be explained away - at some level, propganda can't address something dramatic and shocking people see with their own eyes.
The psychological shock value is great enough that people can realize they've been wrong.  There's some small chance that is enough, but I think it plants the seed that maybe the war is going badly despite what newspapers and TV says in Russia.  It moves Russians one step closer to viewing Putin as weak.

My simplistic view is the Russian situation is alot like the MAGA/Q-anon/COVID conspiracy problem here but on a grander scale. The problem doesn't pass in a year or so with elections. Things are the way they are b/c they have always been that way - the bullies win. Changes will have to overcome an incredible amount of inertia. And there are millions under-educated Russians that get their information for the TV and internet rumors just like the MAGA crowd does here.

There seems to always be a faction who crave authoritarian leadership, be they political or celestial even. They tend to think in terms of absolutes and let's not let the facts get in their way.

Made me think of the lyrics from Skynrd's Sweet Home Alabama...

In Birmingham they love the governor (boo-hoo-hoo)
Now we all did what we could do
Now Watergate does not bother me
Does your conscience bother you?

[Telecaster]

In any autocracy the top leader must be supported by underlings like the people who run the military, judges, legislators, police, tax collectors, industrialists, and so on.   The leader gains their support by bribing them, and/or credible threats of prison or death.   And in turn those underlings maintain the power the same way over the people they rely on.   In the event of a coup, any potential replacement for Putin will likely come from the same power structures that Putin himself is using.    So, I'm not hopeful that even if Putin were replaced there would be any meaningful changes. 

[Travis]

$3 billion aid package on the way to Ukraine from the US.

Around fifty M2-series Bradley Fighting Vehicles plus other odds and ends.

France sending AMX-10 light tanks.
Germany says they will send Marder Infantry Fighting Vehicles, as well as one of their Patriot batteries. Also looking at expanding Gepard anti-air vehicles and ammo.

RUMINT today now that western IFVs are on the way is that US and German tanks are moving from "impossible" to "maybe."

https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1610685915029970945?s=20&t=07MXUpKOtq5wdgOay-aYfg
https://twitter.com/germanambusa/status/1611074496621846528
https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1611074141213392897
https://twitter.com/LawyerForFuture/status/1611105630936354828?s=20

[BicycleB]

^ Does this mean the West is helping Ukraine gear up to take Crimea eventually?

[LennStar]

^ Does this mean the West is helping Ukraine gear up to take Crimea eventually?

No, that means the West is aware that Ukraine has very slim chances to survive the late-winter attack by 100-300K more Russians.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

A literal hole in the Kremlin can't be explained away - at some level, propganda can't address something dramatic and shocking people see with their own eyes.
The psychological shock value is great enough that people can realize they've been wrong.  There's some small chance that is enough, but I think it plants the seed that maybe the war is going badly despite what newspapers and TV says in Russia.  It moves Russians one step closer to viewing Putin as weak.

Think back two years ago, when the USA was still at war with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Imagine that you woke up one day and the front story of every paper was that the Taliban has infiltrated the USA and blown up the Truman Balcony of the White House (the part with the pillars out front that you see if visit it). It is dramatic. It is shocking. All the 24/7 news networks are talking about this. When you go to the grocery store everyone is talking about it.

1) What is your own emotional reaction to this news?
2) What do you envision the framing fox news would place on this news?
3) Do you think this event would make it more or less likely that the USA would withdraw from Afghanistan, leaving the Taliban to achieve victory?

Earlier in the thread I mentioned a missile strike, but didn't know if that was precise enough to hit a spire of the Kremlin, and also mentioned a drone strike.  While Ukrainians can pass for Russians - they can infiltrate - Russia could order a lockdown, which prevents it.  Russia could stop a bomb delivered by infiltration.  My point was a missile or drone strike, which Ukraine could repeat on other symbolic and shocking targets.

Earlier I gave the example of the Tet Offensive in Vietnam, which revealed lies made by the U.S. government to its citizens, and lead to the end of the war.  In that metaphor, a shocking event broke through propaganda and did contribute significantly to ending the war.  So there's not as much need for a hypothetical - we have an actual war that was ended in the way I describe.

Fine, if you prefer, the Taliban launches a drone strike that somehow destroys the Truman balcony without killing anyone.

There is a clear need for a hypothetical because the Tet offensive was a military reversal thousands of miles away (not analogous to a hole in the Kremlin and much more analogous to Ukraine's success in pushing back the Russian army) and the USA continued to actively fight in Vietnam for years afterwards (so it didn't end the war).

A hole in the Kremlin or damage to the White House are much more similar to each other and so is a better way to test your mental model for how Russians would react by putting yourself in a similar situation and imagining how you would react.

I said contributed to the end of the war, not ended the war immediately.  This article mentions the key points I knew - lies and sunny descriptions of a war that was almost over, and then a surprise organized attack in numerous cities.
https://www.history.com/news/tet-offensive-1968-vietnam-war-surprise-attack-changed-american-public-opinion

As to a hypothetical strike on the front of the White House, my first reaction would be "what the ****?".  The White House has anti-air defenses, which would make it even more surprising (and reveals a flaw in my suggestion: the Kremlin probably has anti-air defenses, too).

Fox News would rail against the enemy attacking the roots of American democracy... well, in 2019.  In 2021, they would talk about President Biden's incompetance in defending even his own house.  I assume the President would order more drone strikes and fresh missile strikes on the Taliban in Afganistan.

Is it meaningful to talk about shocking Americans to leave Afganistan... when the plan was already to leave Afganistan?  The U.S. had remained there, nation building, for many years after Osama Bin Laden was killed.  The war had already dragged on and become something Americans wanted to end.  So I don't see how convincing someone to do something they are already doing matters that much.

[MustacheAndaHalf]

I'm mainly talking to the people that want to 'take the fight into Russia'.  It's not needed and likely counter-productive. 

Who are you quoting?  I said "show Russians that the war is coming to them", which you claimed to understand.  And yet you also talk about "no intentional killing of civilians", when I did not mention killing civilians intentionally.  You talk of "bombing major cities in Russia", when I said to blow up a bridge late at night.  I think it's fair to say you do not understand what I said, and your posts demonstrate that well.

Zelensky has said many times that he wants to win this war 'with honor'.  I'm guessing that means no intentional killing of civilians.

Ukraine can't win this war without Western support.  And I am convinced that Western support would dry up if Ukraine started bombing major cities in Russia.

I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?

You're quoting some of what I said, then grossly misinterpreting it.  So here is what I said:

Note I didn't say bomb random cities - I said target Moscow.  Put a hole in a spire of the Kremlin, detonate a bridge late at night.  But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.

Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.

Russia has deliberately killed tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians.

I understand what you are saying.  It's a terrible idea.

[zolotiyeruki]

^ Does this mean the West is helping Ukraine gear up to take Crimea eventually?

No, that means the West is aware that Ukraine has very slim chances to survive the late-winter attack by 100-300K more Russians.

It's a minor escalation in military hardware support.  At first, we sent artillery, ATGMs, and intel.  Then drones and HARMs and HIMARS.  Then Patriot and other AA defenses.  Now it's IFVs.  Potentially, it makes the jump to main battle tanks a small step.  And a relatively small step beyond tanks to planes.

The US has thousands of M2 Bradleys, and is in the process of replacing them.  This is a fantastic opportunity to strengthen Ukraine tremendously at minimal marginal cost.  50 isn't a whole lot...to start with.  It's enough to get a whole bunch of Ukrainians trained on how to use them, without saying "we're going to give Ukraine a thousand IFVs" (which would look like a HUGE escalation).  That said, it seems like 1,000 IFVs would enable Ukraine to Thunder Run their way all the way to the pre-2014 borders.

[LennStar]

^ Does this mean the West is helping Ukraine gear up to take Crimea eventually?

No, that means the West is aware that Ukraine has very slim chances to survive the late-winter attack by 100-300K more Russians.

It's a minor escalation in military hardware support.  At first, we sent artillery, ATGMs, and intel.  Then drones and HARMs and HIMARS.  Then Patriot and other AA defenses.  Now it's IFVs.  Potentially, it makes the jump to main battle tanks a small step.  And a relatively small step beyond tanks to planes.

The US has thousands of M2 Bradleys, and is in the process of replacing them.  This is a fantastic opportunity to strengthen Ukraine tremendously at minimal marginal cost.  50 isn't a whole lot...to start with.  It's enough to get a whole bunch of Ukrainians trained on how to use them, without saying "we're going to give Ukraine a thousand IFVs" (which would look like a HUGE escalation).  That said, it seems like 1,000 IFVs would enable Ukraine to Thunder Run their way all the way to the pre-2014 borders.

Yeah, training seems likely, and showing it as a message. WE wont escalate, but we are ready to go with one. Unfortunately the message is lost...
I hope the US is replacing the vehicles with ones that actually work not like the Bundeswehr with the Pumas ;)

[pecunia]

^ Does this mean the West is helping Ukraine gear up to take Crimea eventually?

No, that means the West is aware that Ukraine has very slim chances to survive the late-winter attack by 100-300K more Russians.

It's a minor escalation in military hardware support.  At first, we sent artillery, ATGMs, and intel.  Then drones and HARMs and HIMARS.  Then Patriot and other AA defenses.  Now it's IFVs.  Potentially, it makes the jump to main battle tanks a small step.  And a relatively small step beyond tanks to planes.

The US has thousands of M2 Bradleys, and is in the process of replacing them.  This is a fantastic opportunity to strengthen Ukraine tremendously at minimal marginal cost.  50 isn't a whole lot...to start with.  It's enough to get a whole bunch of Ukrainians trained on how to use them, without saying "we're going to give Ukraine a thousand IFVs" (which would look like a HUGE escalation).  That said, it seems like 1,000 IFVs would enable Ukraine to Thunder Run their way all the way to the pre-2014 borders.

Yes - The right tools make the job go quicker.

[Tyson]

I'm mainly talking to the people that want to 'take the fight into Russia'.  It's not needed and likely counter-productive. 

Who are you quoting?  I said "show Russians that the war is coming to them", which you claimed to understand.  And yet you also talk about "no intentional killing of civilians", when I did not mention killing civilians intentionally.  You talk of "bombing major cities in Russia", when I said to blow up a bridge late at night.  I think it's fair to say you do not understand what I said, and your posts demonstrate that well.

Zelensky has said many times that he wants to win this war 'with honor'.  I'm guessing that means no intentional killing of civilians.

Ukraine can't win this war without Western support.  And I am convinced that Western support would dry up if Ukraine started bombing major cities in Russia.

I have to say, how many people who are like "show Russia the war is coming to them!" remember, say, OUR reaction to the 9-11 attacks?

You're quoting some of what I said, then grossly misinterpreting it.  So here is what I said:

Note I didn't say bomb random cities - I said target Moscow.  Put a hole in a spire of the Kremlin, detonate a bridge late at night.  But show Russians that the war is coming to them, and that their leader is losing.

Attacking civilians is always, always, always a stupid idea.

Russia has deliberately killed tens of thousands of Ukrainian civilians.

I understand what you are saying.  It's a terrible idea.

So, do you think my main point is wrong?  My main point being that simply winning the war and reclaiming Crimea will be sufficient to make Putin look weak?