Some thoughts and reflections after looking through a pile of stuff on twitter.
Phillips P OBrien keeps making the point that we give no agency to Ukraine. Instead we give it all to Russia, and that this is wrong headed. He reflects that actually Putin now has very few military options left to him.
It looks as if the Russian momentum is beginning to unwind. Kherson region looks particularly vulnerable. Then there's the big push back near Kharkiv. The Russians seem now to have only just cottoned on to the fact that this will affect the road between Izyum and Belogorod. Perhaps too late. And then movement along the Donbas front seems to have stalled. This has been following the take out of a major command post. So whether its a leadership or military strength issue, is somewhat debatable, though both are important.
Trent Telenko has said for sometime he expects the logistical ability in terms of maintenance and equipment to run out around mid to late May.
This makes things even more difficult for Putin. Lavrov played down the significance of 9th May, which was interesting in its own right. Not because he is lying though his teeth (talking) but because clearly theres pressure about the date being applied and there is a feeling of Putin needing to deliver something.
Which neatly brings us around to the point that its not just Putin's military options than are contracting. So are his political ones, both domestically and internationally.
Putin today has poured cold water over Israel. I said its bullshit, but yes others are right, it might be worth reflecting on Putin’s narrowing political options here. Israel being neutral gives him political capital and leverage.
I also note at this point the position of Turkey again, who recently shut airspace to Russia. Why? Why reverse on that decision. Then theres an interesting BBC article today about how the cost of living in Turkey has gone up 70% in a year. And thats before global food shortages kick in.
See:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61332272
Also note the financial predictions about the Russian economy starting to go into freefall from mid May.
And there's been a suggestion that instead of escalation he may go for a strategic victory option. Take out Mariupol and its Nazis, then go for peace talks that the Ukrainians can't and wont ever agree to, to try and split international relationships and political will admid a cost of living crisis.
Note the intervention of Scholz today saying that Ukraine decides about sanctions and the intervention of Biden and Scholz about Russia needing to leave Ukrainian soil. That wouldn't be being done, if both didn't think that Russia was trying to play silly buggers in order to retain its gains through now suing for peace. Afterall the invade and grad and settle pattern is the one Putin has repeated over and over. And this has caused a settlement that pleases the West. The West is putting on a united front and saying NO firmly, which puts Putin in a bind and unable to gain in the manner in which he has become accustomed...
This is far from Putin Gonna Nuke Us rhetoric. Its a clear sign that reality isn't quite the click bait we are used to seeing.
Lets go further....
Kamil Galeev has put up a couple of threads in the last couple of days. Rather than post them all, I going to summarise one of his key points from both.
First of all he says there is near to zero chance of a revolution coming from the unarmed civilian population.
Then he starts to talk about the 1917 revolution and how it wasn't a revolution of the unarmed civilian population. Instead it was men who had been armed and were due to go to war who decided that this wasn't in their best interests and it was only in the interests of the elites. The Tsar was warned there might be a problem but instead of addressing demands he ignored them and paid the price.
Kamil Galeev argues that a full scale mobilisation by declaring war risks the same scenario, especially since all major routes to Ukraine apart from neighbouring Russian regions to Ukraine, have to pass through Moscow where there would be an inevitable build up in armed men who know that going to war isn't in their best interests. Thus this poses a risk to the Kremlin.
He then takes about whether Putin will declare war. The key tweet is this
Kamil Galeev AT Kamilkanzi
And yet, if mobilisation is declared only in regions immediately bordering Ukraine, such as Bryansk, Kursk, Belgorod, Voronezh and Rostov, then cannon fodder flows don't have to pass through Moscow, thus reducing revolutionary risks dramatically.
This tweet was only put up this evening.
Interestingly this seems to tie with an observation currently floating around on twitter:
Canadian Ukrainian Volunteer AT CanadianUkrain1
Russia is conducting covert mobilization in Rostov region and Krasnodar territory, and is preparing for a possible announcement of partial mobilization in Belgorod, Kursk and Bryansk regions.
Its interesting to see this voiced as a possibility because it doesn't seem to be one on the radar of Western Analysts. It is interesting that the cultural, historical and present background seems to be being ignored.
So will this be a more likely choice by Putin than a declaration of all out war (or even war against NATO directly)
This would strike me as fairly important.
As would Lukashenko's intervention in saying no nukes in Ukraine (because you don't have to be a rocket scientist to work out that nuking Kyiv might not be too clever for Belarus both politically and physically). Again the idea that nukes can be contained within the borders of a target is military illiteracy. Quite clearly Lukashenko is making a point that there would be political fall out from doing so. (You might want to refer back to an earlier thread Kamil Galeev had about the bumbling country bumpkin Lukashenko who wasn't Putin’s puppet after all and instead manipulated and controlled Putin in his own way). Lukashenko doing this interview at all is interesting. It put Putin into a situation where Lukashenko has to be censored and the interview can not be shown in Russia. Remember Lukashenko said it was a war and he thought it wasn't going so well.
This is Lukashenko making a point. The tail wagging the dog to use a phrase.
It was interesting that Galeev thought the whole relationship between Lukashenko and Putin was important enough to comment on in the first place.
And now, here we are. Two, perhaps, rather important snippets of information which may be being lost but perhaps are a lot more significant and relevant than those of us in the West without this contextual knowledge might be completely over looking.
If either or both are true, it really does shift the dynamics of what Putin is liable to do next and I'd argue is much more influential than Russian TV pundits.
Putin's biggest fear is ending up like Gaddafi. Think about it. Trying to stop a coup or open hostility / challenges to him are more important than nuking everyone. This is where the rational actor v crazy man idea is most relevant. I still see nothing that makes me think Putin isn't rational. Misinformed, grotesquely immoral, drunk on a bunker mentality but not crazy. This matters.
Nothing here says 'about to nuke anyone'. You can look for it, but there isn't anything but a bunch of pundits on tv shouting about it. Its like saying the UK is going to do x, y or z because a crazy planted audience member on QuestionTime said it. Or one of the nutty guests said it.
Far more likely is the settling of scores in Mariupol. Having tried to take the base and being driven back out of it, there is one option left to Putin to clear it. Especially by 9th May. Hidden underground it wouldn't be seen and thus is deniable. But the Russians do still have to enter the complex sufficiently to enact such a scenario...
... Its been spectaculated on, numerous times, but chemical weapons seem to have got lost in all the frothing about nukes. Almost to the point where I'd argue that it desensitises us to the awfulness of chemical weapons because those hyperventilating can go 'oh well it least it wasn't nukes'. Maybe there's something in this too...