Putin ‘purges’ 150 FSB agents in response to Russia’s botched war with Ukraine(thetimes.co.uk)
thetimes.co.uk
Putin ‘purges’ 150 FSB agents in response to Russia’s botched war with Ukraine
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/putin-purges-150-fsb-agents-in-response-to-russias-botched-war-with-ukraine-lf9k6tn6g
145 comments
https://archive.ph/SsPOS
Let's see how well "botched war" does in the coming weeks and months. There is a big, as in enormous, battle coming in Eastern Ukraine and if the Russian encirclement is successful, there will be very little between Kiev and Russia.
Botched indeed, the visual losses for Russia alone are staggering. Give it another couple more weeks with losses like they have no now in their tank force alone and they will have trouble running any sort of armour battalions.
Heres a list of Russias visually confirmed losses, the real numbers are likely much higher.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum...
Heres a list of Russias visually confirmed losses, the real numbers are likely much higher.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum...
In the Winter War, there were about 70,000 total casualties for Finland and about 350,000 casualties for the Soviets, or roughly 1:5.
However, Finland lost 9% of its territory and had to relocate 12% of its population as a result of that war.
Losses is not everything that counts.
However, Finland lost 9% of its territory and had to relocate 12% of its population as a result of that war.
Losses is not everything that counts.
Russia is not the Soviet Union, and it's no longer the 1940's. If the Russians lose a significant amount of tanks and troops, the country will face serious issues in Ukraine.
Not to mention they are incapable of currently replacing the tanks, and even if they could they only make about 100 hundred a year. Most of the tanks they have where built during the Soviet Union era and where just progressively upgraded.
Finland ceded territory because they where losing the war, Ukraine does not at least yet seem to be losing the war.
Not to mention they are incapable of currently replacing the tanks, and even if they could they only make about 100 hundred a year. Most of the tanks they have where built during the Soviet Union era and where just progressively upgraded.
Finland ceded territory because they where losing the war, Ukraine does not at least yet seem to be losing the war.
You're assuming Russians will just keep on as they are as if nothing happens. But it's not guaranteed. What if they repurpose a plant or two to making the cheapest tanks possible, let's say T-34? What if they call a general draft?
If I was asked to jump into a T-34 against modern ATGM's I would revolt more then the tankers already are.
A T-34 would be next to unless in Ukraine, and would just be a death sentence, a T-34 probably isn't even worth fielding against the more modern armour and ATGM's that are in Ukraine.
Not to mention that Russia likely doesn't have any tank groups trained on the T-34 so they would need to spend time doing that as well.
If Russia calls a general draft they are beyond desperate, their actual contract army is already doing incredibly poorly in Ukraine, called up conscripts would do even worse.
Its worth keeping in mind that Russia still needs to defend the rest of its territory whilst invading Ukraine, they are incredibly paranoid about NATO and if Finland/Sweden join NATO they will need to deploy more troops to that border to try look like a real super power again.
A T-34 would be next to unless in Ukraine, and would just be a death sentence, a T-34 probably isn't even worth fielding against the more modern armour and ATGM's that are in Ukraine.
Not to mention that Russia likely doesn't have any tank groups trained on the T-34 so they would need to spend time doing that as well.
If Russia calls a general draft they are beyond desperate, their actual contract army is already doing incredibly poorly in Ukraine, called up conscripts would do even worse.
Its worth keeping in mind that Russia still needs to defend the rest of its territory whilst invading Ukraine, they are incredibly paranoid about NATO and if Finland/Sweden join NATO they will need to deploy more troops to that border to try look like a real super power again.
When running away from a tiger, the best strategy would be to move faster than the tiger. This, however, is not always feasible.
A "good-enough" strategy would be, simply, to move faster than some other guy. This can definitely be achieved by running.
Having that in mind:
0. Russia does not need the best hi-tech army in the world. To win, it just needs to out-gun Ukraine.
1. If it takes 100 Russian "tin cans" to destroy one Ukrainian tank, and Russia can produce 101 "tin cans" to 1 tank Ukraine can produce, the strategic balance is not good for Ukraine.
2. Russia produces its own armor, guns, planes, and SAM. Ukraine does not.
3. Russian materiel-producing plants are not under any danger of bombardment. Ukrainian plants are.
4. Russian population is 3:1 to Ukraine's. "Russian losses are twice as big as Ukraine's" is, tactically, nice "feel-good" news. Strategically, that's terrible news.
5. Finally, shall we talk about Russian nuclear arsenal vs. Ukrainian nuclear arsenal?
A "good-enough" strategy would be, simply, to move faster than some other guy. This can definitely be achieved by running.
Having that in mind:
0. Russia does not need the best hi-tech army in the world. To win, it just needs to out-gun Ukraine.
1. If it takes 100 Russian "tin cans" to destroy one Ukrainian tank, and Russia can produce 101 "tin cans" to 1 tank Ukraine can produce, the strategic balance is not good for Ukraine.
2. Russia produces its own armor, guns, planes, and SAM. Ukraine does not.
3. Russian materiel-producing plants are not under any danger of bombardment. Ukrainian plants are.
4. Russian population is 3:1 to Ukraine's. "Russian losses are twice as big as Ukraine's" is, tactically, nice "feel-good" news. Strategically, that's terrible news.
5. Finally, shall we talk about Russian nuclear arsenal vs. Ukrainian nuclear arsenal?
It’s probably best to start with your last point. There’s a reason Russia and the Soviet Union never actually nuked a country, it’s a threat, that’s it. If Russia nukes Ukraine Russia likely ceases to exist. Russia constantly postures about nukes because they cannot actually use them.
Russians loses are closer to 4:1 not 3:1 and this is with them fielding modern tanks.
Russia is currently giving Ukraine so many tanks that they have more than they started the war with, so it looks like Ukraine is okay from that perspective. Additionally Russias costs in this more then just people and tanks.
America is not sitting on the border for nothing, they are collecting some of the best SIGINT and ELINT of semi modern to modern Russian gear that they could hope for, as well as providing Ukraine with intelligence.
I personally think a lot of Russia failures in this war have nothing to do with the equipment they are fielding and everything to do with a massive failure in Russian doctrine.
Russia is fighting a war from the 1940s, Ukraine isn’t.
It’s been pretty amazing seeing Ukraine capture intact Russian crypto gear and EW vehicles.
Russians loses are closer to 4:1 not 3:1 and this is with them fielding modern tanks.
Russia is currently giving Ukraine so many tanks that they have more than they started the war with, so it looks like Ukraine is okay from that perspective. Additionally Russias costs in this more then just people and tanks.
America is not sitting on the border for nothing, they are collecting some of the best SIGINT and ELINT of semi modern to modern Russian gear that they could hope for, as well as providing Ukraine with intelligence.
I personally think a lot of Russia failures in this war have nothing to do with the equipment they are fielding and everything to do with a massive failure in Russian doctrine.
Russia is fighting a war from the 1940s, Ukraine isn’t.
It’s been pretty amazing seeing Ukraine capture intact Russian crypto gear and EW vehicles.
> If Russia nukes Ukraine Russia likely ceases to exist.
...while Ukraine certainly ceases to exist. Also, the only country that nuked another country hasn't ceased to exist, so not sure where your claim comes from.
> Russians loses are closer to 4:1 not 3:1
Again, unsure where that claim comes from. Fog of war doesn't allow anyone to know the ratio for sure.
> It’s been pretty amazing seeing Ukraine capture intact Russian crypto gear and EW vehicles.
In the long term, this doesn't matter. Allies have captured lots of Enigma machines, but that's not what got them to decypher the Axis communications.
Finally, the argument I'm making is that short-term doesn't matter, only long-term does, and we haven't seen that yet. The formidable resistance that Ukraine has managed to put up so far is impressive; but the final outcome will not necessarily be determined by it.
...while Ukraine certainly ceases to exist. Also, the only country that nuked another country hasn't ceased to exist, so not sure where your claim comes from.
> Russians loses are closer to 4:1 not 3:1
Again, unsure where that claim comes from. Fog of war doesn't allow anyone to know the ratio for sure.
> It’s been pretty amazing seeing Ukraine capture intact Russian crypto gear and EW vehicles.
In the long term, this doesn't matter. Allies have captured lots of Enigma machines, but that's not what got them to decypher the Axis communications.
Finally, the argument I'm making is that short-term doesn't matter, only long-term does, and we haven't seen that yet. The formidable resistance that Ukraine has managed to put up so far is impressive; but the final outcome will not necessarily be determined by it.
> ...while Ukraine certainly ceases to exist. Also, the only country that nuked another country hasn't ceased to exist, so not sure where your claim comes from.
My claim comes from the clear line that was drawn in the sand by NATO. A nuclear attack demands a deviating response. This is also the exact reason why Russia will never use nukes. They understand that there state ceases to exist once that button is pushed.
The comparison to the only use of nukes during a war is also invalid as during that time every nuclear power was effectively on the same side. That’s obviously no longer true with the current conflict.
> Again, unsure where that claim comes from. Fog of war doesn't allow anyone to know the ratio for sure.
These are the visually confirmed loses that we are seeing. But if you want to dismiss them with the same comment sure but if you do that you can claim to know what it is (3:1 or otherwise).
> In the long term, this doesn't matter. Allies have captured lots of Enigma machines, but that's not what got them to decypher the Axis communications.
Knowing how a cryptosystem works and knowing the EW capabilities of your opponent is a huge upper hand. It may not lead to the instant breaking of ciphers or countermeasures against Russian EW equipment but it makes it a lot easier.
This ignores all the ELINT/SIGINT that America is getting from hoovering up all the signals at the border too.
> Finally, the argument I'm making is that short-term doesn't matter, only long-term does, and we haven't seen that yet. The formidable resistance that Ukraine has managed to put up so far is impressive; but the final outcome will not necessarily be determined by it.
Here’s the long term outcomes if Ukraine loses the war. Multiple European countries that border Russia likely want to join NATO and the European countries in NATO largely increases there defence spending.
That seems like a pretty poor victory to me.
But long term we don’t know who is going to win, but we do know it’s not going to be via suicidal moves like nuking Ukraine or building T-34s again.
My claim comes from the clear line that was drawn in the sand by NATO. A nuclear attack demands a deviating response. This is also the exact reason why Russia will never use nukes. They understand that there state ceases to exist once that button is pushed.
The comparison to the only use of nukes during a war is also invalid as during that time every nuclear power was effectively on the same side. That’s obviously no longer true with the current conflict.
> Again, unsure where that claim comes from. Fog of war doesn't allow anyone to know the ratio for sure.
These are the visually confirmed loses that we are seeing. But if you want to dismiss them with the same comment sure but if you do that you can claim to know what it is (3:1 or otherwise).
> In the long term, this doesn't matter. Allies have captured lots of Enigma machines, but that's not what got them to decypher the Axis communications.
Knowing how a cryptosystem works and knowing the EW capabilities of your opponent is a huge upper hand. It may not lead to the instant breaking of ciphers or countermeasures against Russian EW equipment but it makes it a lot easier.
This ignores all the ELINT/SIGINT that America is getting from hoovering up all the signals at the border too.
> Finally, the argument I'm making is that short-term doesn't matter, only long-term does, and we haven't seen that yet. The formidable resistance that Ukraine has managed to put up so far is impressive; but the final outcome will not necessarily be determined by it.
Here’s the long term outcomes if Ukraine loses the war. Multiple European countries that border Russia likely want to join NATO and the European countries in NATO largely increases there defence spending.
That seems like a pretty poor victory to me.
But long term we don’t know who is going to win, but we do know it’s not going to be via suicidal moves like nuking Ukraine or building T-34s again.
Second point is not true, even though Ukraine doesn’t have the same capacity for everything, it still produces some tanks and ATGMs. Also civilian planes with Antonov Plant (they weren’t too productive last couple of years though)
I think “production” here is not the most important part, even Russia uses mostly late Soviet era tech, slightly updated.
I think “production” here is not the most important part, even Russia uses mostly late Soviet era tech, slightly updated.
> it still produces some tanks
It mainly repurposes old Soviet tanks, unless you count ten or so of the T-84. I doubt Kharkiv Armored Plant is a viable tank production facility with all the fighting that goes around Kharkiv.
> Also civilian planes
These are called "targets".
It mainly repurposes old Soviet tanks, unless you count ten or so of the T-84. I doubt Kharkiv Armored Plant is a viable tank production facility with all the fighting that goes around Kharkiv.
> Also civilian planes
These are called "targets".
Which tin cans do you mean?
The West (not just NATO and not just EU) are being very generous with NLAWs, Javelins, and Panzerfaust 3 among others that can take out the best Russian tanks. Ukraine also makes a very effective stugna-p that's tripod mounted and allows control from a safer location. Not only are these weapons much cheaper than any Russian made tank, they don't take much training on the order of a few hours to a few days depending on the weapon, and they are being produced in many western countries and donated to Ukraine who provides the man power to use them.
So take a motivated Ukraine citizen, train them for a weekend, and they can periodically take out a Russian tank at around $1M with 3 expensive people inside. I've seen studies showing that out of 110 shots (in the Ukraine war) that achieving 90 kills wasn't unusual. In particular the better weapons are fire and forget, removing the skill needed to accurately hit the tank. I have noticed that Ukraine military are getting really good with the stugna-p and will steer the weapon in a different direction then steer the weapon on target at the last second. Presumably to hit the most vulnerable part of the tank and hide their launch location.
If you mean cheaper armored vehicles that opens up quite a few additional weapons like RPGs, recoilless rifles, Bayraktar tb2 drones, etc. For the less armored or unarmored anti-material rifle rounds can be quite effective. In particular Ukraine has had great success just shooting out tires of armored vehicles and trucks. Even replacing a truck tire at the end of a long supply line is a substantial logistical burden that Russia is not handling well.
Basically it's not going to work having Russia produce more tanks than the Ukraine can destroy. Without a well trained and motivated army that can implement a combined arms attack the armor is just sitting ducks for modern weapons. This is a huge setback for Russia whose military doctrine depends heavily on tanks. It bodes poorly that they are calling in the reserves, which are basically untrained (unlike the reserves in other countries), even compared to the poorly trained soldiers already in the field. Running out of solders just 4 weeks in is pretty bad, and losses have already exceeded much longer Russian invasions.
Russia does produce it's own tanks, however they need to import parts, which has been a big bottleneck and last I heard tank production had stopped in the only tank factory in Russia.
As far as planes go, yes Russia makes planes and helis, but they are significantly more complicated than tanks and depend on more imports than the tanks do. They are also risky to fly when the Ukraine is so well supplies with stingers, starstreaks, and anti-air systems like the s-300. Ukraine has also had growing success taking out Helis with anti-tank weapons.
The longer the war goes, the worse it's going to get for Russia. Sanctions, decreased GDP, trying to compete with the sum of the economies in the EU and NATO. The brutality demonstrated is providing significant incentive for any nearby country that doesn't want to see a Ukraine like invasion in their future. Looks like Finland and Sweden that were generally neutral and promised not to supply weapons to Russia's adversaries and not join NATO have changes their minds because of the Ukraine invasion. Keep in mind that the GDP of the EU is around 18T and USA is 21T. Russia was around $1.5T, before the invasion and sanctions. Even ignoring loss of life, estimates put the daily cost to Russia for the war is around €20 billion per day. Clearly even a 100 day war, even without sanctions, is going to be VERY expensive for Russia. Even just Finland and Sweden have around 50% of the GDP of Russia and needing a 3:1 ratio for invaders vs defenders is a common rule of thumb.
The West (not just NATO and not just EU) are being very generous with NLAWs, Javelins, and Panzerfaust 3 among others that can take out the best Russian tanks. Ukraine also makes a very effective stugna-p that's tripod mounted and allows control from a safer location. Not only are these weapons much cheaper than any Russian made tank, they don't take much training on the order of a few hours to a few days depending on the weapon, and they are being produced in many western countries and donated to Ukraine who provides the man power to use them.
So take a motivated Ukraine citizen, train them for a weekend, and they can periodically take out a Russian tank at around $1M with 3 expensive people inside. I've seen studies showing that out of 110 shots (in the Ukraine war) that achieving 90 kills wasn't unusual. In particular the better weapons are fire and forget, removing the skill needed to accurately hit the tank. I have noticed that Ukraine military are getting really good with the stugna-p and will steer the weapon in a different direction then steer the weapon on target at the last second. Presumably to hit the most vulnerable part of the tank and hide their launch location.
If you mean cheaper armored vehicles that opens up quite a few additional weapons like RPGs, recoilless rifles, Bayraktar tb2 drones, etc. For the less armored or unarmored anti-material rifle rounds can be quite effective. In particular Ukraine has had great success just shooting out tires of armored vehicles and trucks. Even replacing a truck tire at the end of a long supply line is a substantial logistical burden that Russia is not handling well.
Basically it's not going to work having Russia produce more tanks than the Ukraine can destroy. Without a well trained and motivated army that can implement a combined arms attack the armor is just sitting ducks for modern weapons. This is a huge setback for Russia whose military doctrine depends heavily on tanks. It bodes poorly that they are calling in the reserves, which are basically untrained (unlike the reserves in other countries), even compared to the poorly trained soldiers already in the field. Running out of solders just 4 weeks in is pretty bad, and losses have already exceeded much longer Russian invasions.
Russia does produce it's own tanks, however they need to import parts, which has been a big bottleneck and last I heard tank production had stopped in the only tank factory in Russia.
As far as planes go, yes Russia makes planes and helis, but they are significantly more complicated than tanks and depend on more imports than the tanks do. They are also risky to fly when the Ukraine is so well supplies with stingers, starstreaks, and anti-air systems like the s-300. Ukraine has also had growing success taking out Helis with anti-tank weapons.
The longer the war goes, the worse it's going to get for Russia. Sanctions, decreased GDP, trying to compete with the sum of the economies in the EU and NATO. The brutality demonstrated is providing significant incentive for any nearby country that doesn't want to see a Ukraine like invasion in their future. Looks like Finland and Sweden that were generally neutral and promised not to supply weapons to Russia's adversaries and not join NATO have changes their minds because of the Ukraine invasion. Keep in mind that the GDP of the EU is around 18T and USA is 21T. Russia was around $1.5T, before the invasion and sanctions. Even ignoring loss of life, estimates put the daily cost to Russia for the war is around €20 billion per day. Clearly even a 100 day war, even without sanctions, is going to be VERY expensive for Russia. Even just Finland and Sweden have around 50% of the GDP of Russia and needing a 3:1 ratio for invaders vs defenders is a common rule of thumb.
I agree with the points about Ukraine's tactical successes. The argument I'm making is that tactical successes aren't important. Please don't refute my argument with more points about Ukraine's tactical successes.
> Looks like Finland and Sweden
It's possible that Russia swallows their joining NATO, as it did with the two rounds of NATO expansion in the past (former Warsaw pact, then Baltics). It's also possible that Russia sees that as an existential threat, as it did in the case of the announced third NATO expansion (Georgia and Ukraine).
> the GDP of the EU is around 18T and USA is 21T. Russia was around $1.5T
If this escalates to a direct military conflict between EU|US vs. Russia, this can only be expected to lead to a mutually assured destruction of all involved parties. I guess in that case the previous disparity of GDP would not matter much.
> Looks like Finland and Sweden
It's possible that Russia swallows their joining NATO, as it did with the two rounds of NATO expansion in the past (former Warsaw pact, then Baltics). It's also possible that Russia sees that as an existential threat, as it did in the case of the announced third NATO expansion (Georgia and Ukraine).
> the GDP of the EU is around 18T and USA is 21T. Russia was around $1.5T
If this escalates to a direct military conflict between EU|US vs. Russia, this can only be expected to lead to a mutually assured destruction of all involved parties. I guess in that case the previous disparity of GDP would not matter much.
> It's possible that Russia swallows their joining NATO, as it did with the two rounds of NATO expansion in the past (former Warsaw pact, then Baltics). It's also possible that Russia sees that as an existential threat, as it did in the case of the announced third NATO expansion (Georgia and Ukraine).
Russia has no real choice this time, they have already shown that there military is both weak and ineffectual. Either Finland or Sweden would absolutely crush the Russian military in their own countries.
Russia has no real choice this time, they have already shown that there military is both weak and ineffectual. Either Finland or Sweden would absolutely crush the Russian military in their own countries.
In recent years Russia has focused their economy on resource extraction while allowing the farming and industrial sectors to become dependent on imports. As long as sanctions remain in place it is unlikely Russia will be able to consistently manufacture any modern industrial products including tanks.
The largest and only tank factory has gone idle for lack of parts.
Russia had a "Made in Russia" program for the military. But apparently bribes let many side step the rules and post proud "Made in Russia" announcements in the press, while basically relabeling imported parts. Even more amusing is a fair number of those parts come from the Ukraine.
More factories isn't going to help, and these days it's hard to steer, power, target an enemy, or communicate without chips, which Russia is running very short of. Intel, AMD, and even Russia designed CPUs (Elbrus) are hard to come by, TSMC (and other foreign fabs) are honoring the sanctions.
Apparently even the basics like steel are getting hard to come by.
Russia had a "Made in Russia" program for the military. But apparently bribes let many side step the rules and post proud "Made in Russia" announcements in the press, while basically relabeling imported parts. Even more amusing is a fair number of those parts come from the Ukraine.
More factories isn't going to help, and these days it's hard to steer, power, target an enemy, or communicate without chips, which Russia is running very short of. Intel, AMD, and even Russia designed CPUs (Elbrus) are hard to come by, TSMC (and other foreign fabs) are honoring the sanctions.
Apparently even the basics like steel are getting hard to come by.
> The largest and only tank factory has gone idle for lack of parts.
This has been reported in western media; it might be true, or it might be a part of information war. Assuming it's true, shall we expect this to be a permanent problem or a temporary one?
> it's hard to steer, power, target an enemy, or communicate without chips
Hard but not impossible. Given that there's a military attache in each Russian embassy, and given the chips are sold over the counter pretty much anywhere, shall we expect this to be a permanent problem or a temporary one?
This has been reported in western media; it might be true, or it might be a part of information war. Assuming it's true, shall we expect this to be a permanent problem or a temporary one?
> it's hard to steer, power, target an enemy, or communicate without chips
Hard but not impossible. Given that there's a military attache in each Russian embassy, and given the chips are sold over the counter pretty much anywhere, shall we expect this to be a permanent problem or a temporary one?
are Chinese fabs honouring sanctions? what about downstream suppliers of generic ARM chips?
>Apparently even the basics like steel are getting hard to come by.
aren't they a sizeable steel exporter? "2018, Russia exported 33.3 million metric tons of steel, a 7 percent ... Russia exports steel to more than 130 countries and territories."
>Apparently even the basics like steel are getting hard to come by.
aren't they a sizeable steel exporter? "2018, Russia exported 33.3 million metric tons of steel, a 7 percent ... Russia exports steel to more than 130 countries and territories."
Russia in 1939 under Stalin is not the same as 2022 under Putin. The big decision make is mobilisation. Finland had a population of 3.5 million compared to 40+ million in Ukraine. They won't be able to fight without at least partial mobilisation as seen by the types of troops they send (RosGvardia and OMON are police force not military).
An interesting thing in those numbers is that Ukraine captured more Russian vehicles than the ones that they lost.
So Russian is in a way making the Ukrainian army bigger.
Another point is that Ukraine might now have enough weapons to destroy all Russian tanks, planes and helicopters operating in Ukraine.
But even though things look hopeful, there really is no countermove to Putin bombing every major Ukrainian city.
So it looks like a stalemate unless Putin successfully conquers Donbas, at which point he might negotiate some kind of peace.
But with heavy vehicles such as tanks starting to arrive for the Ukrainians, a quick resolution to the invasion seems a long way off.
But even though things look hopeful, there really is no countermove to Putin bombing every major Ukrainian city.
So it looks like a stalemate unless Putin successfully conquers Donbas, at which point he might negotiate some kind of peace.
But with heavy vehicles such as tanks starting to arrive for the Ukrainians, a quick resolution to the invasion seems a long way off.
Theres anecdotal evidence that Russia is also running out of missiles, which would make it a lot harder to bomb the Ukrainian cities into rubble, not that they aren't doing that already anyway.
That would be very good news if true.
It also looks like Russia will have to spend Dollars from sale of gas and oil on debt payments.
If that happens it will be even harder to manufacture more missiles.
It also looks like Russia will have to spend Dollars from sale of gas and oil on debt payments.
If that happens it will be even harder to manufacture more missiles.
Amusingly it seems they can't make cruise missiles because the engines are made in Ukraine.
>there really is no countermove to Putin bombing every major Ukrainian city
So far shooting down the planes works. (eg see https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/03/29/the-russian... )
So far shooting down the planes works. (eg see https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/03/29/the-russian... )
You know that Russian tanks are throwaway tanks. Low quality, cheap and fast production, built to abandon.
Yes, but two important things to consider:
1. Russia makes almost no industrial parts itself. They don't have the know-how or machinery to do so, because it has atrophied from unuse over the last thirty years. Most industrial parts come from Europe. Europe has banned exporting industrial parts to Russia. Therefore Russia can not make more of its current tank types (or anything really). They'd have to reboot all their industry from scratch to be able to build from scratch. A decades long project at least.
2. Most of the reserve of russian tanks are in long term storage. They are reportedly in complete disrepair and far from combat ready. Russia doesn't have the industrial capacity to repair them, see point 1.
Bottom line is that the tanks Russia has committed to Ukraine are it. Ukrainians are blowing them up at an alarming rate, and Russia has only weeks worth of tank supply left before they are at a direct disadvantage in tank supply compared to the Ukrainians who are gaining supply.
1. Russia makes almost no industrial parts itself. They don't have the know-how or machinery to do so, because it has atrophied from unuse over the last thirty years. Most industrial parts come from Europe. Europe has banned exporting industrial parts to Russia. Therefore Russia can not make more of its current tank types (or anything really). They'd have to reboot all their industry from scratch to be able to build from scratch. A decades long project at least.
2. Most of the reserve of russian tanks are in long term storage. They are reportedly in complete disrepair and far from combat ready. Russia doesn't have the industrial capacity to repair them, see point 1.
Bottom line is that the tanks Russia has committed to Ukraine are it. Ukrainians are blowing them up at an alarming rate, and Russia has only weeks worth of tank supply left before they are at a direct disadvantage in tank supply compared to the Ukrainians who are gaining supply.
> Russia has only weeks worth of tank supply left before they are at a direct disadvantage in tank supply compared to the Ukrainians who are gaining supply.
Can I ask where you found this data? Specifically, I'd like to see the math of the war. Ideally, I want to see graphs over time.
Can I ask where you found this data? Specifically, I'd like to see the math of the war. Ideally, I want to see graphs over time.
There's a git repo with graphs drawn from the data of confirmed visual sightings of equipment:
https://github.com/leedrake5/Russia-Ukraine
In particular this graph here which shows Russia is at at steep net loss over time, while Ukraine is gaining modestly over time:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/leedrake5/Russia-Ukraine/m...?
https://github.com/leedrake5/Russia-Ukraine
In particular this graph here which shows Russia is at at steep net loss over time, while Ukraine is gaining modestly over time:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/leedrake5/Russia-Ukraine/m...?
Circling back just to document that this happened not in weeks as I was projecting, but in only 9 days:
https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/1517165874372825092
"Ukraine has more tanks available in country than Russia, thanks to European deliveries of Soviet-era T-72 tanks: senior defense official"
"Ukraine has more tanks available in country than Russia, thanks to European deliveries of Soviet-era T-72 tanks: senior defense official"
They are more like steel coffins than anything else in Ukraine. Due to storing ammo around the turret, a single direct hit and can make a Russian tank cook off all of its shells and both destroy the tank and kill everyone inside.
And even if they are build to abandon, they only have so many of them, Russia has reportedly already burnt through ~33% of the tanks that they have committed to Ukraine.
And even if they are build to abandon, they only have so many of them, Russia has reportedly already burnt through ~33% of the tanks that they have committed to Ukraine.
Russia equipped real soldiers with throwaway tanks and not surprisingly made throwaway soldiers.
This is having a profound emotional impact on villages already reeling before the war from the lack of young men to start families (due to rampant alcoholism and suicide).
This conflict alone will result in 1 million fewer people in two generations as it stands, and this number will only grow as Putin tries to save face.
This is having a profound emotional impact on villages already reeling before the war from the lack of young men to start families (due to rampant alcoholism and suicide).
This conflict alone will result in 1 million fewer people in two generations as it stands, and this number will only grow as Putin tries to save face.
Not sure how you get 1 mil fewer people when there are only about 20k dead so far?
The downstream generational damage of no future children and so on
Are the tank crews lost with the vehicles? Those are not nearly as throwaway.
Generally pretty often, frequently the hit from a NLAW or Javelin from above triggers the ammo, which then blows the top off, and kills everyone inside. The ammo forms a ring around the turret, and once the ammo goes off it often flings the turret off the tank.
The Russian tanks are smaller and use 3 people, and an autoloader. But the ammo is stored in the crew compartment. The American M1 abrams is larger, has a human as a loader, and has a separate compartment with blow out panels so the ammo can cook off and the crew could survive. I've no data on that survival rate, but presumably it's much higher than the Russian tanks.
The Russian tanks are smaller and use 3 people, and an autoloader. But the ammo is stored in the crew compartment. The American M1 abrams is larger, has a human as a loader, and has a separate compartment with blow out panels so the ammo can cook off and the crew could survive. I've no data on that survival rate, but presumably it's much higher than the Russian tanks.
Semi-related but it's interesting to read about the Merkava and its design philosophy, because crew preservation is the number one priority.
> You know that Russian tanks are throwaway tanks. Low quality, cheap and fast production, built to abandon.
Russians could've easily lost as much even with better military hardware.
Most of Russian military hardware losses are not from battles, but from soldiers routing, and abandoning their vehicles, which are LATER destroyed, or captured.
Most Russian tanks were disabled by artillery, and missiles, not tank vs. tank battles. No tank in the world would survive a 40kg missile, or an artillery shell hitting its roof. So, the quality of hardware is irrelevant.
What is really low quality is the Russian military leadership.
The key here is to understand that losses do not come from 40kg missiles themselves, but from Russian generals knowingly sending their troops into ATGM, and artillery killboxes, and from Russian troops knowing their generals intentions, and acting accordingly (routing upon first battle damage)
Russians could've easily lost as much even with better military hardware.
Most of Russian military hardware losses are not from battles, but from soldiers routing, and abandoning their vehicles, which are LATER destroyed, or captured.
Most Russian tanks were disabled by artillery, and missiles, not tank vs. tank battles. No tank in the world would survive a 40kg missile, or an artillery shell hitting its roof. So, the quality of hardware is irrelevant.
What is really low quality is the Russian military leadership.
The key here is to understand that losses do not come from 40kg missiles themselves, but from Russian generals knowingly sending their troops into ATGM, and artillery killboxes, and from Russian troops knowing their generals intentions, and acting accordingly (routing upon first battle damage)
> the visual losses for Russia alone are staggering
You realize you are also being fed Propaganda?
You realize you are also being fed Propaganda?
What is propaganda about literal images of each individual destroyed / captured Russian tank?. I would probably take 'official' numbers from a lot of sources with a large grain of salt, but these numbers easily serve as good effective lower bound on losses. You cant really get much more verified then an image of a Russian tank blown to bits on a road.
Ukraine uses the same equipment. How can you know whether they were Russian or Ukranian tanks that were destroyed? You could also take pictures of the same destroyed tank from different angles and claim more tanks were destroyed.
The people who do the visual analysis of the losses put a lot of effort into making sure they don’t count duplicates. The tanks despite being the same have some differences between them because they have been upgraded with differently. Russia also fields different variants then Ukraine.
You can also generally tell from the markings on the side of the tank who it belongs to.
A large number of the confirmed tank loses are likely from videos of the two forces attacking each other which makes identification quite easy.
You can also generally tell from the markings on the side of the tank who it belongs to.
A large number of the confirmed tank loses are likely from videos of the two forces attacking each other which makes identification quite easy.
Confirmed visual sightings are bound to undershoot the real number by a lot.
The west has now had time to create a pipeline, so as long as Ukraine doesn't have to accept a ceasefire it can keep all of Russias troops in a hopeless defense of whatever part of the east they can cover. But at least they won't need as much fuel, right?
The Russians should be more concerned that the longer this goes on the more handheld weapons are going to stockpile in Ukraine. What portion will end up traded or given to groups that want a rematch in Syria, Belarus, Chechnya, ..., even if the Ukraine doesn't decide a policy of destabilizing Russia is the easiest road to short term security?
The Russians should be more concerned that the longer this goes on the more handheld weapons are going to stockpile in Ukraine. What portion will end up traded or given to groups that want a rematch in Syria, Belarus, Chechnya, ..., even if the Ukraine doesn't decide a policy of destabilizing Russia is the easiest road to short term security?
> Let's see how well "botched war" does in the coming weeks and months. There is a big, as in enormous, battle coming in Eastern Ukraine and if the Russian encirclement is successful, there will be very little between Kiev and Russia.
I don't suppose there's ever been any doubt that Russia can defeat Ukraine. The numerical superiority makes a Russian "defeat" essentially impossible.
That still leaves plenty of ways to "botch" the war, even in "victory." Russia is doing this both by wasting resources in poorly planned attacks and by incurring collateral damage amongst the civilian population. They're also botching the "PR" aspects of the war.
All of this is going to make the ongoing occupation/subjugation of the Ukrainian population much more challenging than it needed to be for them, so it makes sense that heads would need to roll.
I don't suppose there's ever been any doubt that Russia can defeat Ukraine. The numerical superiority makes a Russian "defeat" essentially impossible.
That still leaves plenty of ways to "botch" the war, even in "victory." Russia is doing this both by wasting resources in poorly planned attacks and by incurring collateral damage amongst the civilian population. They're also botching the "PR" aspects of the war.
All of this is going to make the ongoing occupation/subjugation of the Ukrainian population much more challenging than it needed to be for them, so it makes sense that heads would need to roll.
Unless Russia can overwhelm the Ukraine defenses in one massive battle, victory is all but assured. They failed to do so in the first attack and now the west is pouring ressources into the Ukraine. As long as the west is willing to do so, the Ukraine might actually have a better supply perspective, not counting even the embargo cutting Russia off a lot of supplies.
After all, that Russia managed to defend itself against the Germans in WW2 had a lot to do with the supplies it got from the US.
After all, that Russia managed to defend itself against the Germans in WW2 had a lot to do with the supplies it got from the US.
Even if successful, they have nowhere near enough soldiers to occupy Ukraine afterwards. See Syria or Afghanistan on how well that goes.
That for sure. Especially as all the Ukraine resistance fighters would find open borders to e.g. Poland across which they could resupply easily.
However you look at it, this war cannot have a positive outcome for Russia, unless just laying Ukraine to waste is enough for them. This is my greatest fear that complete destruction would be a success for Putin and he would be willing to go all the way to achieve it. Like using nukes.
My big hope though is, especially after withdrawing from quite a lot of regions of the Ukraine already occupied, that after all the losses, the Ukraine together with the supply from the west might be able to hold new offenses from the east and perhaps even push them back. That depends a lot of how many reserves Russia still has and which further weapons they are willing to use.
However you look at it, this war cannot have a positive outcome for Russia, unless just laying Ukraine to waste is enough for them. This is my greatest fear that complete destruction would be a success for Putin and he would be willing to go all the way to achieve it. Like using nukes.
My big hope though is, especially after withdrawing from quite a lot of regions of the Ukraine already occupied, that after all the losses, the Ukraine together with the supply from the west might be able to hold new offenses from the east and perhaps even push them back. That depends a lot of how many reserves Russia still has and which further weapons they are willing to use.
Depends how you define defeat. They could easily end up in an Afghanistan situation and have to withdraw after a while.
The west feared the Russia military and generally considered them the #2 military on the planet. Joke I've heard lately is that Dec 2021: Russia had the #2 military on the planet. April 2022: Russia has the #2 military in the Ukraine.
It also seems that Russia underestimated the impact on NATO. Now multiple countries are increasing military spending, several countries are now looking to join NATO, and the supply of weapons to the Ukraine is substantial. The current gen anti-tank weapons are so good that even a few hours to a few days of training can allow a solder or two to take out a tank. Sure intelligence on where the tanks are is helpful, but the Ukraine citizens, foreign powers with satellites, and heavy use of drones have that handled. It's amusing to think of a 1-800-got-tank hotlines causing serious problems for Russia. Keep in mind the GDP of countries helping the Ukraine is on the order of $40T, and Russia is $1.5T. Sure Turkey, India, China, and others are receptive markets, it's unclear how many soldiers and weapons they are going to send, especially since they do not want to lose access to the $40T GDP worth of market.
So Russia's advantage in tanks has largely been offset by anti-tank weapons and attacking supply lines. As a result armored vehicles have been withdrawn from various cities. Russia also has a substantial advantage in artillery and missiles, but the reports I've seen who that they are close to burning through their inventory of usable equipment, in particular ammunition and missiles. Apparently quite a bit of equipment is out of order because of the lack of preventative maintenance and production isn't anywhere close to the current burn rate and inventories are dropping precipitously. Sanctions are hurting their ability to produce, the only tank factory in Russia went idle in March for lack of parts, not heard if that's been fixed.
I do think the pending attack in the East will be more difficult for the Ukraine. Shorter Russian supply lines, lessons learned on the Russian side, and heavier dependence on completely destroying cities before invading will make things harder for the Ukraine. But lack of training, calling in the reserves (which aren't trained like the a weekend a month/2 weeks a year reservists elsewhere), and lack of preventative maintenance aren't easily fixed.
Much will depend on how generous the west is with larger and more sophisticated systems like longer range missiles, better anti-air weapons, tanks, and artillery pieces. I'd say currently Russia is no way going to take over the Ukraine, and even just encroaching from the east to take over a few cities is far from certain.
It's looking like the invasion is likely to be one of the biggest blunders of the century. In particular Germany, Finland, and Sweden have made it a priority to increase military spending and provide a unified opposition of Russia. Collectively just those 3 countries have about 3x the GDP of Russia, before the sanctions. Keep in mind Russia can't go all in on the Ukraine, they have to defend various borders from countries they have taken land from, in particular Japan (which all alone has 3x the GDP of Russia) seems quite interested in taking some islands back.
I wouldn't want to be Russia right now.
It also seems that Russia underestimated the impact on NATO. Now multiple countries are increasing military spending, several countries are now looking to join NATO, and the supply of weapons to the Ukraine is substantial. The current gen anti-tank weapons are so good that even a few hours to a few days of training can allow a solder or two to take out a tank. Sure intelligence on where the tanks are is helpful, but the Ukraine citizens, foreign powers with satellites, and heavy use of drones have that handled. It's amusing to think of a 1-800-got-tank hotlines causing serious problems for Russia. Keep in mind the GDP of countries helping the Ukraine is on the order of $40T, and Russia is $1.5T. Sure Turkey, India, China, and others are receptive markets, it's unclear how many soldiers and weapons they are going to send, especially since they do not want to lose access to the $40T GDP worth of market.
So Russia's advantage in tanks has largely been offset by anti-tank weapons and attacking supply lines. As a result armored vehicles have been withdrawn from various cities. Russia also has a substantial advantage in artillery and missiles, but the reports I've seen who that they are close to burning through their inventory of usable equipment, in particular ammunition and missiles. Apparently quite a bit of equipment is out of order because of the lack of preventative maintenance and production isn't anywhere close to the current burn rate and inventories are dropping precipitously. Sanctions are hurting their ability to produce, the only tank factory in Russia went idle in March for lack of parts, not heard if that's been fixed.
I do think the pending attack in the East will be more difficult for the Ukraine. Shorter Russian supply lines, lessons learned on the Russian side, and heavier dependence on completely destroying cities before invading will make things harder for the Ukraine. But lack of training, calling in the reserves (which aren't trained like the a weekend a month/2 weeks a year reservists elsewhere), and lack of preventative maintenance aren't easily fixed.
Much will depend on how generous the west is with larger and more sophisticated systems like longer range missiles, better anti-air weapons, tanks, and artillery pieces. I'd say currently Russia is no way going to take over the Ukraine, and even just encroaching from the east to take over a few cities is far from certain.
It's looking like the invasion is likely to be one of the biggest blunders of the century. In particular Germany, Finland, and Sweden have made it a priority to increase military spending and provide a unified opposition of Russia. Collectively just those 3 countries have about 3x the GDP of Russia, before the sanctions. Keep in mind Russia can't go all in on the Ukraine, they have to defend various borders from countries they have taken land from, in particular Japan (which all alone has 3x the GDP of Russia) seems quite interested in taking some islands back.
I wouldn't want to be Russia right now.
Kiev is something like 100km from the belarussia border, Kharkiv (second biggest ukrainian city) is 20km from the russian border. We're still waiting for Russia victory. No "they just take care about the civilans", we all know it's a lie, they use artilery on civilians zones and commited insane war crimes during the last weeks.
Kharkiv was a mess, russians got destroyed in this city, just take a look at any photos/videos from Kharkiv. Russian bodies and burned armors all over the place, it was a nightmare.
Russia was supposed to be one of the best army on earth for the last 15 years, but they can't enter a city like Kharkiv, Ukraine being one of the poorest european country. Good luck with the "not a botched war" theory.
It was supposed to be a less than a week operation, we are closer to a 2 month war. Russia is already economically on his knees, they need billions to stay in Ukraine and more sanctions are coming...
All they can do is bassicaly blindly destroy cities with artilery and commits war crimes out of frustration until the money runs out.
Russia will probably make ukrainians suffer a lot at least for too many weeks, but they won't win the war. Even China and India aren't going to fully support them, there are a lot of negative signs for Russia, like this one : https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20220316-live-un-security...
Germany and Switzerland broke their neutrality traditions. Sweden and Finland were neutral since the WW2, now they are probably about to join NATO. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/13/finland-and-sw...
Russia basicaly lost everything. Their economy was already stagnant for the last 8 years just with a few sanctions, I bet they'll have a lot of fun during the next 5/10 years.
But they'll have Mariupol (after killing thousand of Mariupol's civilians) and some east countryside, good for them.
This is probably one area where software projects and wars differ:
When things go bad in a war, you can always throw more bodies on it to turn it around.
When things go bad in a war, you can always throw more bodies on it to turn it around.
Oh no, you definitively can't. Not when you're the one invading.
People always bring up WW2, but in WW2 USSR was being invaded, and had a lot of material support from the west. They could keep "throwing more bodies on it" because
1. Those bodies were still very motivated, since they were being invaded and,
2. They had useful equipment for those bodies, in significant part from western support (lend/lease etc.
Ukraine is more like WW1 for Russia. That didn't end so well for the Russian leadership.
People always bring up WW2, but in WW2 USSR was being invaded, and had a lot of material support from the west. They could keep "throwing more bodies on it" because
1. Those bodies were still very motivated, since they were being invaded and,
2. They had useful equipment for those bodies, in significant part from western support (lend/lease etc.
Ukraine is more like WW1 for Russia. That didn't end so well for the Russian leadership.
Just to expand on that a bit, the USSR received ~$11 billion in lend-lease assistance from the US, which is roughly $130 billion in current dollars.
The scale was incredible - hundreds of thousands trucks and jeeps, thousands of tanks, thousands of airplanes, as well as small arms, ammo, explosives, etc. Food, too, and lots of oil. A huge part of the Red Army's success was having the US backing them up.
The scale was incredible - hundreds of thousands trucks and jeeps, thousands of tanks, thousands of airplanes, as well as small arms, ammo, explosives, etc. Food, too, and lots of oil. A huge part of the Red Army's success was having the US backing them up.
People also forget that the of the red army fighting Hitler about 4.5 million of the troops were Ukrainians fighting on the Russian side. They were supposed to be some of the best troops.
The Napoleon invasion in 1812 started with deep Russian humiliation. But then the Russians won.
The Winter War of 1939 started with deep Russian humiliation. But then the Russians won.
The WW2 started with deep Russian humiliation and mind-bogglingly terrible losses. But then the Russians won.
On the other hand, the Russo-Japanese war and the WW1 were lost because of the political decisions rising from unrest at home.
This war started by Russian humiliation. How it's going to end remains yet to be seen.
The Winter War of 1939 started with deep Russian humiliation. But then the Russians won.
The WW2 started with deep Russian humiliation and mind-bogglingly terrible losses. But then the Russians won.
On the other hand, the Russo-Japanese war and the WW1 were lost because of the political decisions rising from unrest at home.
This war started by Russian humiliation. How it's going to end remains yet to be seen.
I think that's about as successful in war as it is in software projects, except many of those bodies will end up dead. If there's one thing that the Russian invasion shows, it's the massive difference that morale makes. But also planning, coordination, logistics. You need to have soldiers who know what they're doing.
This is not true. Most credible military analysts say that Russia's Achilles heel in this war is the lack of trained personnel in sufficient numbers.
Not always, Russia lost war in 1920 with Poland. Russia was trying to give military support to communist movements in Europe going across Poland. While Poland was trying to restore lands occupied by Russia in partitions of Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1772-1795 that lead to Poland not existing for 123 years.
Russia lost that war and had to settle borders with Poland in the Treaty of Riga.
Russia lost that war and had to settle borders with Poland in the Treaty of Riga.
I'm all for Poland and Lithuania joining forces again and invading russia.
Until you can't.
Firing people is "purging" now? Their source article only details two arrests, with twenty addresses being searched.
Firing does not mean sending people to jail because they did a bad job.
Normally an employer can only fire you. But when your employer is also a dictator, you can indeed end up in jail for bad performance.
So no, firing is not really a proper term.
Normally an employer can only fire you. But when your employer is also a dictator, you can indeed end up in jail for bad performance.
So no, firing is not really a proper term.
But are these people going to jail?
> But are these people going to jail?
The first paragraph of the news piece states that "the head of the department responsible for Ukraine was sent to prison."
Here's the second paragraph:
> In a sign of President Putin’s fury over the failures of the invasion, about 150 Federal Security Bureau (FSB) officers have been dismissed, including some who have been arrested.
I couldn't read more paragraphs as the article seems paywalled.
The first paragraph of the news piece states that "the head of the department responsible for Ukraine was sent to prison."
Here's the second paragraph:
> In a sign of President Putin’s fury over the failures of the invasion, about 150 Federal Security Bureau (FSB) officers have been dismissed, including some who have been arrested.
I couldn't read more paragraphs as the article seems paywalled.
Someone posted an archive link around the paywall, like I said there are two confirmed arrests.
Yes, arrested, not fired
So two "purged," 148 fired.
If you really want to win this discussion, no problem, you win. There you go, now you can carry on with your day.
[deleted]
Purging means to remove. So yes? Firing has always meant purging.
It’s the comparison to Stalinist purges that’s a problem.
It’s the comparison to Stalinist purges that’s a problem.
Large numbers of people purged by firing don't properly go away so purges by a dictator usually get more brutal in their treatment of the purged over time.
It seems strange to me that there aren't more defections. The West can offer a great deal of money to defectors, presumably, and if rumors of rampant Russian cynicism and greed are to be believed, why not just take it? (I'd also be curious to find out how many Russian pilots and tank crews have taken Ukraine up on it's $1M/$500k offer.)
I don't think it's easy to pull off. Practically speaking, you need to know someone on the other side, convince them you are real, while hiding all these efforts from everyone else. A difficult task in a society full of distrust.
OTOH there are people paid to find defectors and exfiltrate them.
OTOH there are people paid to find defectors and murder them
I think newspapers might be of help with something like this.
Taking money from the West doesn't keep you alive; if I were a Russian would-be defector I'd be worried about ending up like Alexander Litvinenko (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko).
Comparing this to Stalin's purges is borderline offensive. The latter's purge affected almost all walks of society. I recall when I was in grad school I would read the biographies of famous physicists/mathematicians, and virtually all the Soviet ones had siblings or parents who had been killed in the Purge.
It also crippled the Soviet army, which is why a much "weaker" Finland held its own when the Soviets attacked them - the majority of the senior, capable military leaders had either been killed or imprisoned in the Purge, leaving behind a rather incompetent military.
It also crippled the Soviet army, which is why a much "weaker" Finland held its own when the Soviets attacked them - the majority of the senior, capable military leaders had either been killed or imprisoned in the Purge, leaving behind a rather incompetent military.
It’s also borderline offensive to treat Putin’s regime as anywhere near as transparent about how people from all walks of society are treated. Famous scientists and mathematicians just mysteriously fall from windows with no apparent explanation. People less famous either meet less notable ends or just aren’t there to be purged from anything worth purging in the first place.
None of which is to say Putin’s regime is anywhere near the atrocity machine that Stalin’s was. That’s an extreme that’s hard to imagine and very exclusive. But this notion that Putin’s regime isn’t committing the kinds of mass violence on Russian society because it isn’t on full display is neglecting both how his own regime has operated as well as how most did/have since the 70s-80s. They just do it with secrecy and plausible deniability.
None of which is to say Putin’s regime is anywhere near the atrocity machine that Stalin’s was. That’s an extreme that’s hard to imagine and very exclusive. But this notion that Putin’s regime isn’t committing the kinds of mass violence on Russian society because it isn’t on full display is neglecting both how his own regime has operated as well as how most did/have since the 70s-80s. They just do it with secrecy and plausible deniability.
Which famous mathematicians fell out of windows recently?
Just from the top of my head I recall 3 healthcare workers (was it doctors?) that have been critical of the national Covid response who fell from windows. A diplomat in the russian embassy in Berlin. More than one journalist¹ — the only reason there might be no mathematician recently might be that the soviet union had a bigger use for methematicians.
¹: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_i...
¹: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_i...
FSB generals and state-owned companies' officials do routinely fall from windows, but I'm not sure I've heard that about doctors.
I found the source for the health care thing: https://www.npr.org/2020/05/07/852319465/three-russian-front...
Putin is not Stalin, but he's certainly trying to be a good imitation. He admires Stalin and it shows.
[deleted]
The last time they reported something like this, it turned out to not be true. So much wartime disinfo going around.
Was it not? Putin and Trump seem to share the same playbook of doing both things to gauge response and cause confusion. It's pretty hard to ask Putin's upper staff whether the spent a few nights in jail.
The compulsion to equate Trump and Putin is, itself, propagandist.
I think it is just logic that comparing/connecting international nationalists creates an implication in their belief system that comparing/connecting liberals or fiscal conservatives does not. (I suppose that may cause a Streisand effect.)
Erdogan also has many identical campaign methods, can I compare him to one of these leaders but not the other and if so how does your nationality not play a role in your analysis?
Erdogan also has many identical campaign methods, can I compare him to one of these leaders but not the other and if so how does your nationality not play a role in your analysis?
I say it for a very specific reason: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-campaign-democr...
Putin needs to be a bit careful here. Historically, when a dictator purges his security service, the survivors sometimes have doubts about their own futures. And the FSB is one of the few outfits that could orchestrate a coup against Putin, if they felt threatened.
firing 150 people does not amount to a "Stalinist purge"
After all, he did learn from Soviet history. Looks like he’s using Stalin’s template. What was his KGB nom d’espion in the DDR, again?
MrRiddle(1)
ddaalluu2(1)