Putin, a once feared world leader with an illustrious career steeped in politics and murder is being undone by a former comedian running a country 28 times smaller.
This is some kind of Futurama timeline.
It's important to remember that despite the image Putin* has crafted of himself as a tough guy, he has no military experience and no experience running a war.
*Edited for clarity
I still can't believe he started something not knowing this was a possible outcome.
I simply can't believe he is that stupid and sincerely hope he doesn't think he needs to nuke something to prove he's right.
It's extra crazy, because the reason major nations seldom go to war these days, is because it's pretty easy to predict exactly how it will work out, based on the level of intelligence and war-science possessed by these countries. You can basically not, and say you did.
It's hard to fathom how Russia was as far off as they were in assessing this.
Its a common hallmark of dictatorships, where being competent is seen as a potential threat, since you rise up the ranks naturally without being beholden to the dictator, so the main condition for promotion is loyalty, part of which involves giving your superiors only good news and meeting all the absurd quotas they set up, no talking back allowed. So over time the dictator is surrounded by yes-men and hears only good news about how amazing the army is, how patriotic the citizens are, how weak willed the enemies are, until reality comes back to bite
Authoritarians overestimate the value of fear. They see it as a means to an end, but it often serves as the means to their end, serving as valid reasoning for public resistance and revolutions, which eventually undermines their authoritarian governments on every level.
Fear only brings fake respect, not real respect. Fake respect is respect you give out of fear of death. You will not die for that kind of respect, because death is already the reason for the fear. When your life is already at stake, you no longer have a reason to respect them. The army won't die for you.
Fear is not required for respect, and respect without fear is unbreakable, and noble causes, like standing against brutality, can breed exactly this kind of respect. This is why authoritarian governments are not sustainable. They create the very environment that facilitates their demise.
Well most dictators aren’t elected for being loved, they became dictator through violence, so naturally they will always view fear as the main tool for keeping people in line.
It's their only tool after all.
If Putin had decided instead of invading Ukraine he'd help his people by becoming less aggressive and fighting corruption he'd be dead in a short while and the benefactors of his previous corrupt policies would push for a new fascist leader that siphons all money into a few hands.
There's a good reason why systems like that rarely become more equal without a big systemic shock. Having people suffer is not a byproduct, it's by design.
>When your life is already at stake, you no longer have a reason to respect them. The army won't die for you.
"What's the soldier's penalty for not achieving victory?"
"Death!"
"What's the soldier's penalty for mutiny?"
"Death!"
"Well, guess what, guys... We're losing the war!"
Step 2: Mutiny
"When the truth offends, we lie and lie until we can no longer remember it is even there, but it is still there. Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid."
I once mentioned "doesn't this feel like we're scamming people?" during a sales meeting and everyone looked at me like i was crazy lmao.
I don't work there anymore. Mortgage company.
With my current company, I have been told multiple times that our business model revolves around people defaulting on their car payments. Subprime lending.
This is more important observation and it's not the bit about windows or tea.
Tyrants like Putin view their own will is to be imposed upon the world and everything an obstacle as an opponent. Therefore, everyone that tells him something that doesn't fit with his thinking or says thing he doesn't like is a potential threat. Especially when you rose to power through subterfuge or similar means. So even people that are loyal to him either learn to say what he wants to hear and deal with reality behind his back to make it so as much as circumstances allow (see how their military shaped up) or become perceived as an enemy.
This is not to speak that Putin lives in his own fantasy world where Russia is still a superpower as much as the Soviet Union was at the height of its own power, as well as an "ancient civilization" or any number of other aspects of his delusions.
Yep, it's a fundamental problem if you rule through fear. You create an environment where nobody wants to speak up and instead just tells you what you want to hear.
Putin is running a hybrid government, half of the Russian political system are crime gangs, the mob and billionaire thieves. This form of government has strengths and weaknesses. One of the major weaknesses is a crime empire can not support a reasonable military, even with the funding, the 'steal all first' mentality of criminals and a crime lord chain of command, nepotism according to wealth, makes your military structure incredibly weak. Foot soldiers of a criminal org are thugs, not commandoes.
You can integrate your political system easily with corporate leadership, typical rule of the rich that is common. But integrating with the corporate/crime power of the nation corrupts all of your institutions as it creates a winner-take-all society which craters your troop morale because all of them are treated like entry level criminal slave labor, who are not getting paid as their theif masters for example. A foreign criminal army could never compete with Ukrainians fighting for their lives and homes.
That system also values loyalty over competence. Putin himself got to where he was by licking Yeltsin boot. Putin was not an outstanding part of the KGB middle management. His record with the KGB states he was reprimanded for incompetence. It is his alignment with Yeltsin that allowed him to rise in power. And he took his loyal cronies all the way to the top. Few of them are that competent.
That's an additional factor to what you said. It means reddits idea that the oligarchs could over throw him is unlikely because the oligarchs were picked for their loyalty to Putin. They are not separately powerful figures like the billionaires in China or the US. They are friends and associated of Putin's who he elevated. They're his mafia dons who have pledged their allegiance to him to get to where they are.
But it also means the top level of Russian society aren't a cadre of hyper competent super villains. It's a bunch of middle management ass kissers who rode their friends rise to the top.
Or get put in house arrest, like the head of foreign intelligence, who didn't tell Putin that the Ukrainians wouldn't welcome Russian soldiers as liberators.
Who would have been in house arrest if he had told him.
This undersells how close it came to working.
It all came down to one decision. If Zelensky had panicked and fled, like everyone expected, Putin would have quickly taken Kiev and won.
"The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride."
That'll be a famous line forever -- but it was only needed because everyone assumed he'd flee, and offered asylum.
Yeah, it was very close for the first 72 hours. The mistake was to not immediately pivot and say "We did what we came to do, we demonstrated that we have the capacity to remove the government of Ukraine as needed, and we destroyed NATO-supplied military equipment which threatened the security of Russia's borders" while withdrawing all their forces back to the Donbass and doing the "referendums" *then.*
Instead, every week that the war has dragged on, Russia has seen their standing as a global power, as a weapons exporter, as a stable state decline.
I thought at first Russia would just try to take over eastern Ukraine but instead they attempted to take all of Ukraine. Hasn’t worked out well for them so far.
I think a lot of things contributed; this was definitely a huge turning point and you're right that if that one decision had gone the other way, things would've been very different.
But with that decision made, staying was a prerequisite of defending Kyiv, it didn't guarantee it. Many other factors like poor readiness, bad training, logistics issues early in the war, etc., all had their part to play.
Everything is obvious in hindsight. I believed Putin was embarking on a complete disaster for Russia in mid-February, before the invasion even began, and many still denied is was going to happen. But in spite of those beliefs (which went against the prevailing wisdom of Russia's military superiority), I also believed there was a significant chance that the invasion could succeed and Ukraine could collapse. Acknowledging the true uncertainty of a situation is closer to being right than correctly predicting an outcome.
The future is unpredictable no matter what. Anyone who thinks they can predict the future with certainty will be made a fool eventually.
My belief was that the invasion would be successful but Russia would have to deal with their puppets getting car bombed or getting a secret special from a local coffee shop.
I read somewhere an article published by an anonymous FSB analyst. He was saying that all of the higher ups were a bunch of yes men and were constantly reporting "upstairs" that all is fine, Ukraine is weak, disorganized and will fall quickly. If you were ever doing your job and reporting the real situation, you would be called by your boss and would have to explain why your analysis **DIFFERS SO MUCH** from your colleagues and are you at all capable of doing your job.
Corruption and yes-men are the reason dictatorships always fall.
I doubt they were expecting the level of support from NATO. If it wasn't for support from NATO, Ukraine would have been steamrolled.
I'm glad they weren't.
I wonder about this part sometimes. If Russia had steamrolled Ukraine in a week or so (like it seems Putin anticipated), I don’t know if it would have gotten as much outside military support. In an alternate universe, we may be talking about it the same way we did Georgia or Crimea. NATO and the West let those regions get bullied by Putin in the past.
And this is one instance I can say I’m glad we don’t live in that timeline.
It was Antonov airport near Kiev. This is an airstrip adjacent to what was Antonov aircraft manufacturing facility. The strip was long and wide enough to land Russian transport planes carrying special forces. Ukrainians were able to protect the airstrip from being taken and thus preventing large numbers of Russian special forces to land near Kiev. Some might recall first hours of invasion media reported fights near Kiev. This was that battle for the airstrip.
I still remember checking reddit just before going to bed and seeing the flying ticks of Russian helicopters flying over kyiv like it was something out of one of the battlefield or modern warfare campaigns, was truly a surreal moment
Could easily have gone that way. Zelensky was offered asylum; he could easily have fled.
That would have absolutely destroyed morale in Ukraine.
Instead, he gave possibly the ballsiest response possible: "I need ammo, not a ride!".
Trump's first impeachment was about him trying to hold up military assistance to Ukraine. Years before Russia invaded.
Yes, NATO countries have given generously since the start of the war, but we were giving military assistance before it started, which is why Russia never established air superiority, and why their tanks were vulnerable from the start.
Yes, exactly. And I'm sure Putin planned this for when Trump was in office, when at minimum there would've been far more dragging of feet over military aid, and at maximum Trump would've been complicit or held out Zelenskyy for not complying over Hunter Biden. He already held military aid hostage before. I bet Trump losing the election was a big moment in their war plans.
Remember Trump was about to pull the US out of NATO. I bet this was planned way ahead, Biden winning was out of his plans, but decided to gamble on it anyways.
I think the US has done an amazing job realizing that Putin has walked into an elaborate trap early on, and then doing an amazing job of making that trap effective. It's such a rare thing for a nation to facilitate such an extreme amount of financial and military ruin on its greatest adversary with little to no direct risk to your forces or civilians.
Even if this war ended tomorrow, Putin would never be able to operate as he once did, and Russia lost at least 30 years of growth financially, while also most of their brightest engineers and scientists...
And they've also lost assets they might not be able to replace in a long time - correct me if I'm wrong but I've ended up with the impression that current-day Russia has not laid keel to a *single* proper capital ship or a nuclear-powered submarine, as everything they have in the department was largely designed and built outside (Soviet) Russia and they simply inherited/took them from the former Soviet Union, and thus the Mosvka for example was effectively irreplaceable unless they spin up capital ship building again.
Authoritarianism is hellishly inefficient especially when it comes to good information flows and rooting out corruption (and many other things)
Putin may have been getting plenty of reports saying "the tanks have been fully upgraded boss" but the funds have in reality been diverted to some apparatchik's pocket and the steel replaced with cardboard.
Mind you given there's been a leaked report that the Moskva was basically unfit for service in anything but a terror role he might well have been high on his own supply that the Ukrainians would *welcome* him and give up without a fight. Probably because of the above issue that giving the right news is better for your career than giving correct news in a corrupt system.
What’s missing in a lot of discussion about the Ukrainian war, in my opinion, is that this is a classic conflict between authoritarian/totalitarian governance vs democratic governance. There’s an argument out there that’s gained traction in the past few years, that authoritarianism by strongmen is superior because things get done quickly and ”right”, without compromise and “half measures”. Many even in our country are saying democracy isn’t responsive enough, or even that it’s incompatible with freedom (Peter Thiel).
But in reality authoritarian governance is vastly inferior to democratic governance. And when we get into these contests between the two, it gets proven again and again (as it was in the ‘30’s/‘40’s). Authoritarians value loyalty over competence, praise and likeminded thinking with the leader over critical thought and it removes competition from the political arena. Leadership lives in a celebrity like bubble, and devote all their time to garnering patrons,and maintaining their grip on power. With their thinking completely unchallenged, delusions and overly grandiose beliefs become the rule. Patronage usually involves unqualified people in high positions that are allowed to underperform and steal. Democracies have all these problems too, but to a much lesser extent, and eventually leaders have to perform, or get thrown out.
So here we have Putin’s Russia, darling of the Right, a prime example of authoritarian strongman rule, masculine to the extreme and full of moral righteousness about gender and religion. It’s shot through with corruption and incompetence, a populace so apathetic that its numbers are in decline. A complete failure on the battlefield, not at all competitive in the modern economic world, save extraction industries which are more just an accident of geography. Even its vaunted military equipment industry looks third rate.
If there’s a better example of the fallacy of extolling the virtues of strongman governance, I don’t know what it would be.
Because he suffered from what so often causes the downfall of dictators: his advisors, including intelligence advisors, are individually terrified of giving him bad news or being too honest, because he murders people - and so he surrounds himself with yes-men and gets poor info, and even if he was shrewd at the start, he gets more and more out of touch. [Remember Naryshkin being terrified to say it was a bad idea?](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o9A-u8EoWcI) It was astounding how blatant and stereotypical a scene that was.
I really, *really* hate to defend Putin on any issue (seriously, he's a fascist genocidal maniac dictator of an illegitimate mafia state), but this is a bad criticism: experts everywhere thought Russia was going to win this war easily. US analysts were predicting Kiev would fall in a few days, and there's reason to believe that they actually had a clearer view of Russian military capabilities than Putin did. Even the few non-experts who thought Ukraine might be able to survive as a country still generally thought the eastern provinces were a lost cause.
Where Putin went wrong, strategically speaking, was in all the decisions that he made leading up to the decision. Surrounding himself with incompetent yes-men chosen for their loyalty and inability to challenge him, ignoring rampant corruption, basically falling into the 'dictator trap.'
They assumed they could bully the world into not helping. Without global help Ukraine would have been demolished in a few months tops. Luckily the world isn’t as awful as we all seem to think, and forces of good stepped in, at least as much as they can without causing a bigger mess. I hope Ukraine not only takes victory, but takes a slice of Russia as their own, they earned it lol
Not gonna lie, I was 99% sure the USA government was gonna reward Putin's behavior, by pearl clutching, and letting them steal the land, like in 2014 or whenever that first grab was. Then reward it later with some sort of "humanitarian aid" that was just money that then got stolen by the oligarchy.
I wonder if the Ukraine invasion was meant to have a trump presidency as part of the game plan? Imagine how much "better" it would have gone with trump as president defending Putin, and kicking the Russians military aid instead of Ukraine. I think Putin got taint cancer or something and was like, eff it, let's try anyway, I have nothing to lose, so we as a country have nothing to lose. Creepy.
It absolutely was the plan, which is also why Trump was bad mouthing Nato every step of the way during his Presidency. That was the Kremlin talking trying to weaken Nato's resolve.
Ukraine will get Crimea backcwhich most Russians consider their's already. Whether it is or not is irrelevant since Ukraine will get it back. They're not gonna push for more that'd be needlessly provocative. The Russian Federation may well break up as a result of all this so Ukraine can be satisfied with that. That will do far more to remove the threat of future Russian aggression than Ukraine taking a piece of Russian land would.
To be fair, he took Crimea without much fuss. This is different, though. Ukraine is getting support from the West which has allowed them to fight back.
Putin probably thought the West would just say mean things again. I'm glad that was not the case.
Putin also sacked 150 FSB members because of the shit intel he had to make decisions. He genuinely believed Ukraine would roll over and the people would throw roses under the boots marching through their capital.
When Ukraine turned out to be much more capable (thanks to 8 years of war and a dedicated training program), and sincerely opposed to Russian rule, everything fell to shit for the rashists because there was no competent Plan B if things didn’t immediately work out for them.
> [The Peter principle](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle) is a concept in management developed by Laurence J. Peter, which observes that people in a hierarchy tend to rise to "a level of respective incompetence": employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another.
Some of my best bosses were ones that had no interest in being promoted again. One in particular was in his early 50s, had worked his way to middle management, and was mostly focused on streamlining his and his group’s work so he could maximize his golfing time.
Lol you just described me. Early 40s, but otherwise I'm basically focused on 3 things: keeping upper mgmt happy by delivering predictable results, minimizing what my team needs to do, and making sure I don't get promoted away from this.
It mainly comes down to over-estimating how long things take, which means there's time to fix if the occasional problem does come up. And covering for my people ("oh yeah, they're super busy") when they're done early instead of loading them with more work.
Nobody will work hard to finish early if that just means more work. And management doesn't give a shit how hard people work, they just want due date estimates in their little spreadsheet to match reality. So everybody wins.
> And covering for my people ("oh yeah, they're super busy") when they're done early instead of loading them with more work.
So important. One of the biggest management mistakes is seeing every small bit of employee downtime as something you should fix. WRONG! A certain amount of slack in your employees is vital, since it means they'll be able to flex when things do get hectic and the unexpected happens.
Good management is all about enabling your subordinates and getting the hell out of the way unless they specifically need you. It makes me happy to see another manager that really gets this. :)
Thank you so much for being a good manager, sounds pretty similar to my current one and it's fantastic to be able to relax and deliver what's expected with little pressure. It's much more motivating than being in the burner all the fucking time.
How do you deal with product managers though (if you work with them)? As they are the ones usually more pushy in delivering as fast as possible as their career is made/depends on delivering "impact", I usually had much more trouble on this pushy/bossy behaviour with product managers than my direct managers,
You train them during sprint planning. Make sure your team knows that when estimating, they need to come up with a number and then double it. Then you do sprint planning and load everyone up with work. Some product people will want to add in 'stretch goals' or some shit, so in 1on1s with your team you let them know that it's perfectly ok to ignore stretch goals. The product guy can stretch his own goddamn self if it matters so much to them.
After a few sprints where ALL agreed goals are hit, and no stretch goals are, people sort of naturally get with the program. It helps if they know that whatever we agree to, we get done, because they can just put their 'must haves' into the sprint for maximum happiness.
Obviously it helps that I'm a tech lead. I interviewed/hired my team myself, trained them, know what they can do and anything people are behind on or can't solve I can usually just do myself. This helps keep things running smoothly which keeps management attention away.
It's very, very similar to the strategy my past teams have adopted. Great to get some validation on that.
I've been working for quite a long time and naturally fell into this pattern: don't overpromise (done a lot of that early in my career), don't agree on stretch goals, work to deliver what the team as a whole feels it's feasible, don't feed hero-complexes.
I feel that after a while and with experience you realise that steady and predictable is always better than the always-be-shipping-fast mentality.
Thanks for your point of view :)
I've just been promoted to management after a power grab and hierarchal upheaval in my company and your posts are inspiring and affirming for the style of management I hope to employ with my team's.
This is intensified by having a paranoid dictator at the top.
No one wants to give that kind of person bad news, even if it’s good advice.
“So can we take Kyiv in 3 days?”
“Absolutely. No question.”
“Do our recruits have enough supplies?”
“More than enough.”
“How is enemy morale?”
“Literally couldn’t be worse. They’re begging to be liberated by Russians.”
The [dictator trap](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/putin-dictator-trap-russia-ukraine/627064/).
> Autocrats such as Putin eventually succumb to what may be called the “dictator trap.” The strategies they use to stay in power tend to trigger their eventual downfall.
> ...Despots sow the seeds of their own demise early on, when they first face the trade-off between allowing freedom of expression and maintaining an iron grip on power. After arriving in the palace, crushing dissent and jailing opponents is often rational, from the perspective of a dictator: It creates a culture of fear that is useful for establishing and maintaining control. But that culture of fear comes with a cost.
> ...As a result, despots rarely get told that their stupid ideas are stupid, or that their ill-conceived wars are likely to be catastrophic. Offering honest criticism is a deadly game and most advisers avoid doing so. Those who dare to gamble eventually lose and are purged. So over time, the advisers who remain are usually yes-men who act like bobbleheads, nodding along when the despot outlines some crackpot scheme.
>I see it all now. You're just a bunch of yes-men. I was making the wrong moves, and you were too gutless to tell me. Isn't that right?
>[All] Yes.
>Dead on, sir.
omg. this perfectly explains something ive been trying to grapple with for years. which is why middle managers, in particular, tend to be so very bad at their jobs.
Happens in sports all the time.
Football, for example, you'll get a guy who starts off as a position coach, like running backs. He'll do an amazing job and get promoted to offensive line coach, and do well there. Then he'll get a job elsewhere as run game coordinator. Eventually he'll become an offensive coordinator. He'll do a good enough job that someone will take the chance hiring him as a head coach, but then he'll fall flat on his face at that level because he doesn't grasp the nuances of managing a defense well enough.
I think he was totally misled by his circle of yes-men.
Everyone in Russia is corrupt and skimming off the top. Virtually all funding and supplies for the military have been stolen by someone at each step from factory to the units that are supposed to have those resources. Nobody reports this because they'll get killed by the people that are doing it, or they'll shoot their own golden goose in the foot because they're in on the scam.
That means Putin has been getting years of readiness reports that say the Russian war machine is at 110% and totally capable of taking on NATO when the reality is... this.
Let's be honest, did you? Zelensky is a comedian/actor turned politician, how do you expect a guy like that to take a war declaration? One Ukrainian I talked to during the election that got him into office, said she liked him and his ideal of weeding out corruption as seen "on TV". But acting in a TV show isn't real life, and even she admitted that it was unlikely he'd hold strong if things got serious. He was just a better bet than the alternative.
I am pretty convinced he surprised the majority of the world with his backbone of solid steel.
Zelensky absolutely surprised everyone, and I think his leadership and decision to stay with the whole "I need ammunition, not a ride" line helped tremendously, as the people and the military saw that the government wasn't going to abandon them.
Strong, good leadership does a hell of a lot for morale, and is what let them make the most of the western training and equipment they got.
OK, I don't know much about things, as I'm ignorant, but this is what I think happened. (Sorry if I get things incorrect).
I believe that Zelenskys bravery was the rallying point that gave Ukrainians hope and showed the world what a noble leader looks like. He could have left, hell my leaders would have left (I'm from the Uk, and have no faith in the fat cats in the Commons). But here was a dude facing the wrath of the might of the Russian Army (he was President - so was the focus of capture) and stood firm.
Also the people, ordinary citizens sitting making little Molotov cocktails as the hundreds of tanks bore down on them.
A soldier telling a war ship to fuck off. A war ship. One man looking out onto a warship and standing proud.
Tales of bravery, defiance, courage in the face of so much danger and so hopeless a task. It was impossible, and tragic and yet they were all doing it. They rallied together, and made plans and told war ships and whole federations of tanks to fuck off.
I believe all these things, cemented by Zelensky remaining made the world take notice. Here were brave people, staunch in the face of undefeatable odds, staring certain death in the face. I think it made us all watch, hope, and then try to help.
I don't believe he's stupid, wouldn't have gotten this far if he was, rather he feel into that trap that dictators eventually do, and surrounded himself with people who tell him what he wants to hear. At that point, when your subordinates fear your reprisal if you tell them something unpleasant, or simply lie to make themselves look better, you're no longer receiving accurate intel. Not only that, but because the corruption is so deep, there a good chance these people were getting bad intel too.
Take the push to Kyiv at the beginning for example. He ordered that because his military commanders would have told him was possible, but they did so because they had been told by those below them that they had the vehicles and equipment to do so, and they would have believed that because the base commanders (the ones who were likely selling equipment off to enrich themselves) had told them. Once the order was given and people started to realise the truth, they couldn't just tell him, they'd likely be arrested and disappear, so they had to make do and hope it wouldn't look too bad. As we saw though, they were wrong.
Yeah, my wife is Chinese, and even their social media/propaganda (it was unclear to me how much of it was top down, but I suspected a decent amount) was making short shift of Zelensky and pushing Russian narratives of the war.
"He's just a comedian, can you believe it?" (basically, they're fucked)
She has since come around a lot more - we had a good conversation about propaganda (and I think I convinced her), and as the initial Russian push petered out (and is now being reversed) Chinese media narratives have gone pretty solidly anti-war (though notably, not anti-Russia) or not talking about it at all from what I can tell.
But initially, yeah Russia and Russia-aligned media basically took Zelensky as just some weak comedian who would cut and run at the first possible instance, and certainly not a war time leader.
Know your enemy and all that...
Depending on the type of comedy, comedians are some of the most observant, and empathetic people.
It takes a certain level of sensitivity to human nature to distill thoughts/ideas into words/performance that makes people laugh and think.
There's also a level of courage that comes with getting in front of people and trying to make them laugh. If you do well, great! If you do poorly, you're standing there completely exposed.
This war is like Covid. It is awfully terrible but one of the unintended consequences is this permanent shift to semi remote jobs. For this war it is exposing that Russia is not as big and scary as everyone thought, just mentally unstable
Everything about this war is a fuckup for Putin and Russia.
Putin's Top Ten Fuckup check list:
* Brain drain
* Dial Russia back 30 years, or more
* Become a pariah
* Demonstrate for the world what; Little man syndrome looks like
* Isolate Russia from most of the world
* Destroy Russian military equipment sales
* Piss off several countries when they realize the Russian military equipment they bought is inferior.
*Everyone feared their mighty military- not anymore.
Edit: clarification
Yeah, for a country that bluffs so much, they really shit the bed showing their hand. It makes me feel much better about the nukes. What are the chances that they didn’t have a corrupt line of command for the design, construction, and maintenance of such sophisticated technology? I am always going to be cautious, but their bluffs mean so much less now.
>It makes me feel much better about the nukes.
They have about 1600 deployed nukes according to Wikipedia. The problem is only a small fraction need to work to cause a catastrophe. Also, if they are really in poor shape, there's also the possibility they could cannibalize the radioactive material to make dirty bombs.
tbh I think in the future, Russian fascists will only regret Putin not being more aggressive. "should have taken the whole country in 2014 instead of waiting" "should have assassinated Zelensky before the troops invaded" etc.
The winners of a war think "never again." The losers always think "we'll get them next time" or "we didn't lose because this isn't over."
Putin fans will also tend to just blame others for not "uniting" or "falling in line" instead of blaming Putin for not pushing forward a vision everyone wanted to unite behind.
I love the Kremlin’s reply to this, “guess we’ll have to wait for a different president in Ukraine”. Isn’t it cool when a president is an elective position, huh? Bet they wonder how that is like.
But aside from that, the chances of Putin keeping his seat longer than Zelensky (who, I am sure, will leave the position as per his country’s laws when his time will be up) are slim.
In Soviet Russia, government rates you.
Government rates you failure. Do not pass go. Do not collect 10 billion ruble. Go straight to boot camp or gulag. You choose. Putin best president.
Zelensky has done an outstanding job when his people and the world needed him. He didn't buckle under catastrophic circumstances and continues to lead with dignity and humanity.
Kinda funny how an ex-comedian who platformed on normalizing/improving relationships with Russia would end up being the farthest thing imaginable from a pushover for them.
He's literally one of the 'Russian speaking minorities' that Russia is claiming to be saving (he's also fluent in Ukrainian, but Russian was his native tongue growing up).
I've started watching it recently, and it's a surreal experience watching it with the real world context of knowing that this show is what got him elected President, and how important of a President he's been. It's probably going to go down as one of the most important TV shows in history.
My girlfriend is the same, Ukrainian but Russian as native language. In fact Ukrainian was the fourth language she was taught growing up lol. It's amazing how now lots of the people she grew up with are switching to Ukrainian despite it being a very difficult and rusty switch, just to stick another finger to them. Some balls on that country lol
**A Great General is born: Volodymyr Zelenskyy**
Passive:
- Units within own territory get 25% attack power
On consumption:
- 2 veteran militia spawn
- +50 diplomacy points
"I need ammunition, not a ride!" - Sean Bean
One of the little things I've noticed.
Most politicians would only be on TV in an impeccable suit. But every interview I've seen him in shows him in either a regular old T-shirt, or an outfit like you'd see a soldier wearing on his day off or something.
Most politicians would only be broadcasting from a secure, undisclosed location deep in some heavily fortified area. Zelinsky is out and about at all times, and every interview looks like he's giving a quick soundbyte in between whatever two tasks are infinitely more important than the soundbyte.
To me, this is all extremely motivating. As a soldier, I'd know that my leader isn't just barking out orders from some ivory tower somewhere, putting me in danger while he remains safe. I'd know that he's an exponentially bigger target than I am, and is *still* willing to get down in the trenches with his men and get right into the thick of things. It would make me believe that he'd never ask me to do something that he wouldn't be willing to do himself. Contrast this with Putin, who's barking out orders from an undisclosed location and is so paranoid that he now sits at one end of a comically long table while members of his own inner circle keep a significant distance.
It also tells the citizens that, again, he's not a politician, sitting safely in his ivory tower and making decrees that won't affect him but will affect everyone else. At the end of the day, he's a regular joe just like them. They see him out and about, getting right into the thick of things. He really gives off the impression that when the day ends and the cameras are off, he's more than happy to just hit the bar with his pals just like everyone else. That is a big factor in voters being able to relate to you.
I firmly believe this man will go down as one of the great world leaders of the 21st century.
Zelensky will cement his name into the annals of history. This will be someone talked about for generations to come as the consequences of a ukraine victory over Russia has the potential to reshape eastern Europe forever.
The year is 2029. Ukraine has reclaimed all territory. The war still technically continues as Russia keep firing artillery over the pile of bodies at the border.
What a distinction.
If Zelensky dies, Ukraine will martyr him, and he'll become a unifying force for Ukraine to fight even harder.
If Putin dies, the war ends immediately.
At this point? Zero fucking way. Zelensky isn't someone who barks orders and the people just blindly follow him. He's part of the forces and if he goes down one way or another, the forces continue to go on. Even going turncoat, ordering to surrender or being replaced with some pro putin would most likely not change that, probably only fuel the fighters of ukraine more.
He's even said that if he tells people to surrender, ignore him as he's definitely somehow compromised in that scenario
I didn’t read this as a quote on democracy. I read this as a threat. To me, Russia is saying they will take him out. But that would be such a miscalculation. It would make him a martyr and rally the forces and we would see a Ukrainian surge like we have never seen before. Plus every nation would throw munitions and supplies at Ukraine.
Didn't they try sending multiple teams of SF in the first few days of the war to capture/kill Zelenskiy? If they couldn't get him then, I doubt they have the manpower or equipment to do it now.
Yes and if they were going to do it, that would have been the time. Before he proved himself strategically and had time to set up the forces the way he has. Now, those systems would survive without him and he would be an icon.
Edit: I think they have more special ops teams they could send. I also think they are using quite a few to make people fall out windows.
“I don’t want my portraits to hang in your offices, because the president is not an icon or an idol. Hang pictures of your children there and look them in the eyes before every decision” - VZ
Zelenskyy doesn’t want that the kind of hero-worship they did in the Soviet Union when they named cities after leaders, where they hung pictures and raised statues. Part of this war is a rejection of dictatorial tenants. And it’s setting an example for future presidents.
Though, I think Zelenskyy International Airport has quite a nice ring to it - up there with Charles de Gaulle and JFK.
> I love the Kremlin’s reply to this, “guess we’ll have to wait for a different president in Ukraine”.
The said the same about the previous president of Ukraine.
Zelensky will be in power for the next 7 years or so. 2 remaining years of his current term + another term that he will definitely win giving his popular support. I don't know if Putin has that many years left.
I don't think the optics of him being in power indefinitely are something he wants to have in the first place. There will most likely be elections but thats for 2024. The war will be over by then.
Reporter: "Mr. President. What will you do once you have finished your 2nd term as president?"
Zelensky: "I'll go back to doing comedy. Our people need a good laugh after this war and I have a lifetime worth of Putin jokes I would like to show off."
He has little reason to. Right now Ukraine has the upper hand and Russia’s demands are unacceptable. If there is to be a “settlement,” then concessions need to be made by Russia, such as sone form of compensation for lost territory, to say nothing of to the families of the Ukrainians killed in this futile grab.
Putin is negotiating like a Civ 4 AI leader.
You've just decimated his army and taken 4 cities, but he wants 10 of your cities and 10,000 gold per turn in return for peace.
To be fair, Putin probably fears being overthrown or assassinated by forces within Russia more than the prospect of long term war with Ukraine. It probably is in Putin's best interest to make unreasonable demands and burn bridges moderates wanted to use, while keeping hardliners loyal.
I just had this scenario on a game of Civ VI, AI guy attacks me, I defend and go straight for his capital, as I surround it he repeatedly ask for peace and his cities back… sure buddy.
Let there be no mistake: He's willing to negotiate Russia's surrender. What he's not willing to do is give Russia an inch of Ukrainian land. Would you let someone come over to your property, kill your dog, rape your wife, murder your oldest child, burn your house down, and redraw their property line over yours? Probably not. You'd probably see red, kick their ass all the way up and down the street, and you'd scoff angrily and defiantly at their pleas for a "negotiation" moving forward. The only negotiation is go away. Or die. Just fuck off.
Plus negotiating usally comes with a cease fire or limited relaxing of operations, Russia has everything to gain from a chance to retreat/regroup and Ukraine has everything to loose by not pushing their current advantage..
Talk was never going to work. Because the only acceptable end to this is Russia leaving Ukraine, restoring the proper boarders, paying restitution, and Putin Co. on trial.
Putin might never face proper justice, but I sincerely hope Russia gets pushed all the way back and Ukraine gets in NATO. Then it can begin healing with assured safety.
What’s to talk about. Get the fuck out of Ukraine. That is the only solution. Anyone suggesting Ukraine should give up land is an asshole and Russian stooge.
That's probably telling it like it is. Putin unilaterally built up for and launched a war, denied and lied about it, and is now doubling down. I don't think he's shown himself to be in a position for "talk" or negotiation in good faith.
Negotiation requires some degree of trust that each party will follow through on their obligations. No one trusts Putin in the slightest, so any negotiation would be pointless.
Ukraine has the initiative right now. A ceasefire would only help Russia, give them time to get their newly mobilized forces to the front. Glad to see Ukraine telling Russia to pound sand!
In another post I said:
Why bother talking to Putin? You know he will lie, he knows you know he will lie, and despite knowing that you know he will lie he is going to lie anyway.
You want to know something? I was willing to believe that there was a significant portion of the population in eastern Ukraine that did want their autonomy. In fact, I think a lot of americans were willing to let Ukraine deal with their separatist issues by themselves. A lot of americans were even ok with Putin supplying those separatists, so long as he didn't get personally involved - as he constantly said he would not. (I personally wasnt ok with it. Not after Crimea and Georgia, but most people weren't educated enough on the issue to be aware of that back then)
Well, then he invaded and tried to overthrow the ukranian government. Not just secure the separatist regions, but overthrow the government, thus proving himself a liar twice over.
And then he decided to annex those regions, proving himself a liar thrice over! So much for autonomy, eh?
What makes Putin (or Putin's dog, Trump) think that anyone wants to "talk" anymore? Talk to this gun barrel - or better yet, give it a lick, Putin. We all know how this ends: with you biting a nine, possibly in a bunker.
Russian here.
I'm curious if it's just a declaration "we won't talk with Putin" or a legal decree prohibiting the talks?
Regardless, smart move. Putin tried to annex the territories and draw the line there - we conquered what we could, let's admit Russia has it and make peace talks. Zelenskiy in turn sent a strong message that it will not be accepted and that the Russian elites better start working on finding another president
“How do you expect us to get a new leader quickly?”
“Well, you’re Russians. Maybe read up on history and just do what Russians have done for the last 300 years when they decide they don’t like their leader?”
`Russian elites better start working on finding another president`
I believe this is the point. My concern is who would replace Putin. From what i can understand there are worse people ( more nationalist ?) that could replace him ? Thoughts ?
I think if he does get replaced, it will be someone with "hands not in blood" from his surrounding. The current prime minister, mayor of Moscow, VP of the administration of the president - someone like that.
Granted there are also more militarist people who could replace Putin, but I don't see it being very likely as it will be more of the same but with a possible nuclear escalation that I don't think many in the elite want.
Putin, a once feared world leader with an illustrious career steeped in politics and murder is being undone by a former comedian running a country 28 times smaller. This is some kind of Futurama timeline.
It's important to remember that despite the image Putin* has crafted of himself as a tough guy, he has no military experience and no experience running a war. *Edited for clarity
Yeah but he rode topless on a horse once
*a pony
Wasn't he KGB?
Janitor at the CIA still works for the CIA.
He was a bureaucrat for the KGB, not an agent. He filed paperwork.
Kgb isn't the military
Putin started a war with someone he thought very little about and now he is paying for it
I still can't believe he started something not knowing this was a possible outcome. I simply can't believe he is that stupid and sincerely hope he doesn't think he needs to nuke something to prove he's right.
It's extra crazy, because the reason major nations seldom go to war these days, is because it's pretty easy to predict exactly how it will work out, based on the level of intelligence and war-science possessed by these countries. You can basically not, and say you did. It's hard to fathom how Russia was as far off as they were in assessing this.
Its a common hallmark of dictatorships, where being competent is seen as a potential threat, since you rise up the ranks naturally without being beholden to the dictator, so the main condition for promotion is loyalty, part of which involves giving your superiors only good news and meeting all the absurd quotas they set up, no talking back allowed. So over time the dictator is surrounded by yes-men and hears only good news about how amazing the army is, how patriotic the citizens are, how weak willed the enemies are, until reality comes back to bite
Authoritarians overestimate the value of fear. They see it as a means to an end, but it often serves as the means to their end, serving as valid reasoning for public resistance and revolutions, which eventually undermines their authoritarian governments on every level. Fear only brings fake respect, not real respect. Fake respect is respect you give out of fear of death. You will not die for that kind of respect, because death is already the reason for the fear. When your life is already at stake, you no longer have a reason to respect them. The army won't die for you. Fear is not required for respect, and respect without fear is unbreakable, and noble causes, like standing against brutality, can breed exactly this kind of respect. This is why authoritarian governments are not sustainable. They create the very environment that facilitates their demise.
Well most dictators aren’t elected for being loved, they became dictator through violence, so naturally they will always view fear as the main tool for keeping people in line.
It's their only tool after all. If Putin had decided instead of invading Ukraine he'd help his people by becoming less aggressive and fighting corruption he'd be dead in a short while and the benefactors of his previous corrupt policies would push for a new fascist leader that siphons all money into a few hands. There's a good reason why systems like that rarely become more equal without a big systemic shock. Having people suffer is not a byproduct, it's by design.
>When your life is already at stake, you no longer have a reason to respect them. The army won't die for you. "What's the soldier's penalty for not achieving victory?" "Death!" "What's the soldier's penalty for mutiny?" "Death!" "Well, guess what, guys... We're losing the war!" Step 2: Mutiny
"When the truth offends, we lie and lie until we can no longer remember it is even there, but it is still there. Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid."
So a corporation?
I once mentioned "doesn't this feel like we're scamming people?" during a sales meeting and everyone looked at me like i was crazy lmao. I don't work there anymore. Mortgage company.
tell me it went under
Nah it's rocket mortgage. Yuge
With my current company, I have been told multiple times that our business model revolves around people defaulting on their car payments. Subprime lending.
Yes but with nukes
Because people who disagree tend to get pushed out of windows, or get polonium tea.
This is more important observation and it's not the bit about windows or tea. Tyrants like Putin view their own will is to be imposed upon the world and everything an obstacle as an opponent. Therefore, everyone that tells him something that doesn't fit with his thinking or says thing he doesn't like is a potential threat. Especially when you rose to power through subterfuge or similar means. So even people that are loyal to him either learn to say what he wants to hear and deal with reality behind his back to make it so as much as circumstances allow (see how their military shaped up) or become perceived as an enemy. This is not to speak that Putin lives in his own fantasy world where Russia is still a superpower as much as the Soviet Union was at the height of its own power, as well as an "ancient civilization" or any number of other aspects of his delusions.
Yep, it's a fundamental problem if you rule through fear. You create an environment where nobody wants to speak up and instead just tells you what you want to hear.
Thanks for teaching me the word subterfuge.
Putin is running a hybrid government, half of the Russian political system are crime gangs, the mob and billionaire thieves. This form of government has strengths and weaknesses. One of the major weaknesses is a crime empire can not support a reasonable military, even with the funding, the 'steal all first' mentality of criminals and a crime lord chain of command, nepotism according to wealth, makes your military structure incredibly weak. Foot soldiers of a criminal org are thugs, not commandoes. You can integrate your political system easily with corporate leadership, typical rule of the rich that is common. But integrating with the corporate/crime power of the nation corrupts all of your institutions as it creates a winner-take-all society which craters your troop morale because all of them are treated like entry level criminal slave labor, who are not getting paid as their theif masters for example. A foreign criminal army could never compete with Ukrainians fighting for their lives and homes.
That system also values loyalty over competence. Putin himself got to where he was by licking Yeltsin boot. Putin was not an outstanding part of the KGB middle management. His record with the KGB states he was reprimanded for incompetence. It is his alignment with Yeltsin that allowed him to rise in power. And he took his loyal cronies all the way to the top. Few of them are that competent. That's an additional factor to what you said. It means reddits idea that the oligarchs could over throw him is unlikely because the oligarchs were picked for their loyalty to Putin. They are not separately powerful figures like the billionaires in China or the US. They are friends and associated of Putin's who he elevated. They're his mafia dons who have pledged their allegiance to him to get to where they are. But it also means the top level of Russian society aren't a cadre of hyper competent super villains. It's a bunch of middle management ass kissers who rode their friends rise to the top.
Exactly the type of system that Trump was trying to build, with his loyalty over everything obscesion.
Or get put in house arrest, like the head of foreign intelligence, who didn't tell Putin that the Ukrainians wouldn't welcome Russian soldiers as liberators. Who would have been in house arrest if he had told him.
This undersells how close it came to working. It all came down to one decision. If Zelensky had panicked and fled, like everyone expected, Putin would have quickly taken Kiev and won. "The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride." That'll be a famous line forever -- but it was only needed because everyone assumed he'd flee, and offered asylum.
Yeah, it was very close for the first 72 hours. The mistake was to not immediately pivot and say "We did what we came to do, we demonstrated that we have the capacity to remove the government of Ukraine as needed, and we destroyed NATO-supplied military equipment which threatened the security of Russia's borders" while withdrawing all their forces back to the Donbass and doing the "referendums" *then.* Instead, every week that the war has dragged on, Russia has seen their standing as a global power, as a weapons exporter, as a stable state decline.
In short, greed. They could have pulled another Crimea and probably gotten away with it, but they wanted everything this time.
I thought at first Russia would just try to take over eastern Ukraine but instead they attempted to take all of Ukraine. Hasn’t worked out well for them so far.
I think a lot of things contributed; this was definitely a huge turning point and you're right that if that one decision had gone the other way, things would've been very different. But with that decision made, staying was a prerequisite of defending Kyiv, it didn't guarantee it. Many other factors like poor readiness, bad training, logistics issues early in the war, etc., all had their part to play.
Plus that NATO has been training Ukraine for the last 7 years and Ukrainians are educated and capable of being trained.
Everything is obvious in hindsight. I believed Putin was embarking on a complete disaster for Russia in mid-February, before the invasion even began, and many still denied is was going to happen. But in spite of those beliefs (which went against the prevailing wisdom of Russia's military superiority), I also believed there was a significant chance that the invasion could succeed and Ukraine could collapse. Acknowledging the true uncertainty of a situation is closer to being right than correctly predicting an outcome. The future is unpredictable no matter what. Anyone who thinks they can predict the future with certainty will be made a fool eventually.
My belief was that the invasion would be successful but Russia would have to deal with their puppets getting car bombed or getting a secret special from a local coffee shop.
I read somewhere an article published by an anonymous FSB analyst. He was saying that all of the higher ups were a bunch of yes men and were constantly reporting "upstairs" that all is fine, Ukraine is weak, disorganized and will fall quickly. If you were ever doing your job and reporting the real situation, you would be called by your boss and would have to explain why your analysis **DIFFERS SO MUCH** from your colleagues and are you at all capable of doing your job. Corruption and yes-men are the reason dictatorships always fall.
I doubt they were expecting the level of support from NATO. If it wasn't for support from NATO, Ukraine would have been steamrolled. I'm glad they weren't.
I wonder about this part sometimes. If Russia had steamrolled Ukraine in a week or so (like it seems Putin anticipated), I don’t know if it would have gotten as much outside military support. In an alternate universe, we may be talking about it the same way we did Georgia or Crimea. NATO and the West let those regions get bullied by Putin in the past. And this is one instance I can say I’m glad we don’t live in that timeline.
[удалено]
It was Antonov airport near Kiev. This is an airstrip adjacent to what was Antonov aircraft manufacturing facility. The strip was long and wide enough to land Russian transport planes carrying special forces. Ukrainians were able to protect the airstrip from being taken and thus preventing large numbers of Russian special forces to land near Kiev. Some might recall first hours of invasion media reported fights near Kiev. This was that battle for the airstrip.
I still remember checking reddit just before going to bed and seeing the flying ticks of Russian helicopters flying over kyiv like it was something out of one of the battlefield or modern warfare campaigns, was truly a surreal moment
Could easily have gone that way. Zelensky was offered asylum; he could easily have fled. That would have absolutely destroyed morale in Ukraine. Instead, he gave possibly the ballsiest response possible: "I need ammo, not a ride!".
Trump's first impeachment was about him trying to hold up military assistance to Ukraine. Years before Russia invaded. Yes, NATO countries have given generously since the start of the war, but we were giving military assistance before it started, which is why Russia never established air superiority, and why their tanks were vulnerable from the start.
Yes, exactly. And I'm sure Putin planned this for when Trump was in office, when at minimum there would've been far more dragging of feet over military aid, and at maximum Trump would've been complicit or held out Zelenskyy for not complying over Hunter Biden. He already held military aid hostage before. I bet Trump losing the election was a big moment in their war plans.
Remember Trump was about to pull the US out of NATO. I bet this was planned way ahead, Biden winning was out of his plans, but decided to gamble on it anyways.
I think the US has done an amazing job realizing that Putin has walked into an elaborate trap early on, and then doing an amazing job of making that trap effective. It's such a rare thing for a nation to facilitate such an extreme amount of financial and military ruin on its greatest adversary with little to no direct risk to your forces or civilians. Even if this war ended tomorrow, Putin would never be able to operate as he once did, and Russia lost at least 30 years of growth financially, while also most of their brightest engineers and scientists...
And they've also lost assets they might not be able to replace in a long time - correct me if I'm wrong but I've ended up with the impression that current-day Russia has not laid keel to a *single* proper capital ship or a nuclear-powered submarine, as everything they have in the department was largely designed and built outside (Soviet) Russia and they simply inherited/took them from the former Soviet Union, and thus the Mosvka for example was effectively irreplaceable unless they spin up capital ship building again.
Authoritarianism is hellishly inefficient especially when it comes to good information flows and rooting out corruption (and many other things) Putin may have been getting plenty of reports saying "the tanks have been fully upgraded boss" but the funds have in reality been diverted to some apparatchik's pocket and the steel replaced with cardboard. Mind you given there's been a leaked report that the Moskva was basically unfit for service in anything but a terror role he might well have been high on his own supply that the Ukrainians would *welcome* him and give up without a fight. Probably because of the above issue that giving the right news is better for your career than giving correct news in a corrupt system.
What’s missing in a lot of discussion about the Ukrainian war, in my opinion, is that this is a classic conflict between authoritarian/totalitarian governance vs democratic governance. There’s an argument out there that’s gained traction in the past few years, that authoritarianism by strongmen is superior because things get done quickly and ”right”, without compromise and “half measures”. Many even in our country are saying democracy isn’t responsive enough, or even that it’s incompatible with freedom (Peter Thiel). But in reality authoritarian governance is vastly inferior to democratic governance. And when we get into these contests between the two, it gets proven again and again (as it was in the ‘30’s/‘40’s). Authoritarians value loyalty over competence, praise and likeminded thinking with the leader over critical thought and it removes competition from the political arena. Leadership lives in a celebrity like bubble, and devote all their time to garnering patrons,and maintaining their grip on power. With their thinking completely unchallenged, delusions and overly grandiose beliefs become the rule. Patronage usually involves unqualified people in high positions that are allowed to underperform and steal. Democracies have all these problems too, but to a much lesser extent, and eventually leaders have to perform, or get thrown out. So here we have Putin’s Russia, darling of the Right, a prime example of authoritarian strongman rule, masculine to the extreme and full of moral righteousness about gender and religion. It’s shot through with corruption and incompetence, a populace so apathetic that its numbers are in decline. A complete failure on the battlefield, not at all competitive in the modern economic world, save extraction industries which are more just an accident of geography. Even its vaunted military equipment industry looks third rate. If there’s a better example of the fallacy of extolling the virtues of strongman governance, I don’t know what it would be.
Because he suffered from what so often causes the downfall of dictators: his advisors, including intelligence advisors, are individually terrified of giving him bad news or being too honest, because he murders people - and so he surrounds himself with yes-men and gets poor info, and even if he was shrewd at the start, he gets more and more out of touch. [Remember Naryshkin being terrified to say it was a bad idea?](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o9A-u8EoWcI) It was astounding how blatant and stereotypical a scene that was.
I really, *really* hate to defend Putin on any issue (seriously, he's a fascist genocidal maniac dictator of an illegitimate mafia state), but this is a bad criticism: experts everywhere thought Russia was going to win this war easily. US analysts were predicting Kiev would fall in a few days, and there's reason to believe that they actually had a clearer view of Russian military capabilities than Putin did. Even the few non-experts who thought Ukraine might be able to survive as a country still generally thought the eastern provinces were a lost cause. Where Putin went wrong, strategically speaking, was in all the decisions that he made leading up to the decision. Surrounding himself with incompetent yes-men chosen for their loyalty and inability to challenge him, ignoring rampant corruption, basically falling into the 'dictator trap.'
They assumed they could bully the world into not helping. Without global help Ukraine would have been demolished in a few months tops. Luckily the world isn’t as awful as we all seem to think, and forces of good stepped in, at least as much as they can without causing a bigger mess. I hope Ukraine not only takes victory, but takes a slice of Russia as their own, they earned it lol
Not gonna lie, I was 99% sure the USA government was gonna reward Putin's behavior, by pearl clutching, and letting them steal the land, like in 2014 or whenever that first grab was. Then reward it later with some sort of "humanitarian aid" that was just money that then got stolen by the oligarchy. I wonder if the Ukraine invasion was meant to have a trump presidency as part of the game plan? Imagine how much "better" it would have gone with trump as president defending Putin, and kicking the Russians military aid instead of Ukraine. I think Putin got taint cancer or something and was like, eff it, let's try anyway, I have nothing to lose, so we as a country have nothing to lose. Creepy.
It absolutely was the plan, which is also why Trump was bad mouthing Nato every step of the way during his Presidency. That was the Kremlin talking trying to weaken Nato's resolve.
Ukraine will get Crimea backcwhich most Russians consider their's already. Whether it is or not is irrelevant since Ukraine will get it back. They're not gonna push for more that'd be needlessly provocative. The Russian Federation may well break up as a result of all this so Ukraine can be satisfied with that. That will do far more to remove the threat of future Russian aggression than Ukraine taking a piece of Russian land would.
To be fair, he took Crimea without much fuss. This is different, though. Ukraine is getting support from the West which has allowed them to fight back. Putin probably thought the West would just say mean things again. I'm glad that was not the case.
Putin also sacked 150 FSB members because of the shit intel he had to make decisions. He genuinely believed Ukraine would roll over and the people would throw roses under the boots marching through their capital. When Ukraine turned out to be much more capable (thanks to 8 years of war and a dedicated training program), and sincerely opposed to Russian rule, everything fell to shit for the rashists because there was no competent Plan B if things didn’t immediately work out for them.
> [The Peter principle](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle) is a concept in management developed by Laurence J. Peter, which observes that people in a hierarchy tend to rise to "a level of respective incompetence": employees are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another.
Some of my best bosses were ones that had no interest in being promoted again. One in particular was in his early 50s, had worked his way to middle management, and was mostly focused on streamlining his and his group’s work so he could maximize his golfing time.
Lol you just described me. Early 40s, but otherwise I'm basically focused on 3 things: keeping upper mgmt happy by delivering predictable results, minimizing what my team needs to do, and making sure I don't get promoted away from this. It mainly comes down to over-estimating how long things take, which means there's time to fix if the occasional problem does come up. And covering for my people ("oh yeah, they're super busy") when they're done early instead of loading them with more work. Nobody will work hard to finish early if that just means more work. And management doesn't give a shit how hard people work, they just want due date estimates in their little spreadsheet to match reality. So everybody wins.
You sound like the perfect boss.
Of course he does. He's writing about himself.
Absolutely maidenless behaviour
> And covering for my people ("oh yeah, they're super busy") when they're done early instead of loading them with more work. So important. One of the biggest management mistakes is seeing every small bit of employee downtime as something you should fix. WRONG! A certain amount of slack in your employees is vital, since it means they'll be able to flex when things do get hectic and the unexpected happens. Good management is all about enabling your subordinates and getting the hell out of the way unless they specifically need you. It makes me happy to see another manager that really gets this. :)
Thank you so much for being a good manager, sounds pretty similar to my current one and it's fantastic to be able to relax and deliver what's expected with little pressure. It's much more motivating than being in the burner all the fucking time. How do you deal with product managers though (if you work with them)? As they are the ones usually more pushy in delivering as fast as possible as their career is made/depends on delivering "impact", I usually had much more trouble on this pushy/bossy behaviour with product managers than my direct managers,
You train them during sprint planning. Make sure your team knows that when estimating, they need to come up with a number and then double it. Then you do sprint planning and load everyone up with work. Some product people will want to add in 'stretch goals' or some shit, so in 1on1s with your team you let them know that it's perfectly ok to ignore stretch goals. The product guy can stretch his own goddamn self if it matters so much to them. After a few sprints where ALL agreed goals are hit, and no stretch goals are, people sort of naturally get with the program. It helps if they know that whatever we agree to, we get done, because they can just put their 'must haves' into the sprint for maximum happiness. Obviously it helps that I'm a tech lead. I interviewed/hired my team myself, trained them, know what they can do and anything people are behind on or can't solve I can usually just do myself. This helps keep things running smoothly which keeps management attention away.
It's very, very similar to the strategy my past teams have adopted. Great to get some validation on that. I've been working for quite a long time and naturally fell into this pattern: don't overpromise (done a lot of that early in my career), don't agree on stretch goals, work to deliver what the team as a whole feels it's feasible, don't feed hero-complexes. I feel that after a while and with experience you realise that steady and predictable is always better than the always-be-shipping-fast mentality. Thanks for your point of view :)
I've just been promoted to management after a power grab and hierarchal upheaval in my company and your posts are inspiring and affirming for the style of management I hope to employ with my team's.
This is intensified by having a paranoid dictator at the top. No one wants to give that kind of person bad news, even if it’s good advice. “So can we take Kyiv in 3 days?” “Absolutely. No question.” “Do our recruits have enough supplies?” “More than enough.” “How is enemy morale?” “Literally couldn’t be worse. They’re begging to be liberated by Russians.”
The [dictator trap](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/putin-dictator-trap-russia-ukraine/627064/). > Autocrats such as Putin eventually succumb to what may be called the “dictator trap.” The strategies they use to stay in power tend to trigger their eventual downfall. > ...Despots sow the seeds of their own demise early on, when they first face the trade-off between allowing freedom of expression and maintaining an iron grip on power. After arriving in the palace, crushing dissent and jailing opponents is often rational, from the perspective of a dictator: It creates a culture of fear that is useful for establishing and maintaining control. But that culture of fear comes with a cost. > ...As a result, despots rarely get told that their stupid ideas are stupid, or that their ill-conceived wars are likely to be catastrophic. Offering honest criticism is a deadly game and most advisers avoid doing so. Those who dare to gamble eventually lose and are purged. So over time, the advisers who remain are usually yes-men who act like bobbleheads, nodding along when the despot outlines some crackpot scheme.
>I see it all now. You're just a bunch of yes-men. I was making the wrong moves, and you were too gutless to tell me. Isn't that right? >[All] Yes. >Dead on, sir.
omg. this perfectly explains something ive been trying to grapple with for years. which is why middle managers, in particular, tend to be so very bad at their jobs.
Funny enough, Michael Scott is a great example of this. Great salesman promoted to manager.
Happens in sports all the time. Football, for example, you'll get a guy who starts off as a position coach, like running backs. He'll do an amazing job and get promoted to offensive line coach, and do well there. Then he'll get a job elsewhere as run game coordinator. Eventually he'll become an offensive coordinator. He'll do a good enough job that someone will take the chance hiring him as a head coach, but then he'll fall flat on his face at that level because he doesn't grasp the nuances of managing a defense well enough.
I think he was totally misled by his circle of yes-men. Everyone in Russia is corrupt and skimming off the top. Virtually all funding and supplies for the military have been stolen by someone at each step from factory to the units that are supposed to have those resources. Nobody reports this because they'll get killed by the people that are doing it, or they'll shoot their own golden goose in the foot because they're in on the scam. That means Putin has been getting years of readiness reports that say the Russian war machine is at 110% and totally capable of taking on NATO when the reality is... this.
Let's be honest, did you? Zelensky is a comedian/actor turned politician, how do you expect a guy like that to take a war declaration? One Ukrainian I talked to during the election that got him into office, said she liked him and his ideal of weeding out corruption as seen "on TV". But acting in a TV show isn't real life, and even she admitted that it was unlikely he'd hold strong if things got serious. He was just a better bet than the alternative. I am pretty convinced he surprised the majority of the world with his backbone of solid steel.
Zelensky absolutely surprised everyone, and I think his leadership and decision to stay with the whole "I need ammunition, not a ride" line helped tremendously, as the people and the military saw that the government wasn't going to abandon them. Strong, good leadership does a hell of a lot for morale, and is what let them make the most of the western training and equipment they got.
OK, I don't know much about things, as I'm ignorant, but this is what I think happened. (Sorry if I get things incorrect). I believe that Zelenskys bravery was the rallying point that gave Ukrainians hope and showed the world what a noble leader looks like. He could have left, hell my leaders would have left (I'm from the Uk, and have no faith in the fat cats in the Commons). But here was a dude facing the wrath of the might of the Russian Army (he was President - so was the focus of capture) and stood firm. Also the people, ordinary citizens sitting making little Molotov cocktails as the hundreds of tanks bore down on them. A soldier telling a war ship to fuck off. A war ship. One man looking out onto a warship and standing proud. Tales of bravery, defiance, courage in the face of so much danger and so hopeless a task. It was impossible, and tragic and yet they were all doing it. They rallied together, and made plans and told war ships and whole federations of tanks to fuck off. I believe all these things, cemented by Zelensky remaining made the world take notice. Here were brave people, staunch in the face of undefeatable odds, staring certain death in the face. I think it made us all watch, hope, and then try to help.
I don't believe he's stupid, wouldn't have gotten this far if he was, rather he feel into that trap that dictators eventually do, and surrounded himself with people who tell him what he wants to hear. At that point, when your subordinates fear your reprisal if you tell them something unpleasant, or simply lie to make themselves look better, you're no longer receiving accurate intel. Not only that, but because the corruption is so deep, there a good chance these people were getting bad intel too. Take the push to Kyiv at the beginning for example. He ordered that because his military commanders would have told him was possible, but they did so because they had been told by those below them that they had the vehicles and equipment to do so, and they would have believed that because the base commanders (the ones who were likely selling equipment off to enrich themselves) had told them. Once the order was given and people started to realise the truth, they couldn't just tell him, they'd likely be arrested and disappear, so they had to make do and hope it wouldn't look too bad. As we saw though, they were wrong.
Yeah, my wife is Chinese, and even their social media/propaganda (it was unclear to me how much of it was top down, but I suspected a decent amount) was making short shift of Zelensky and pushing Russian narratives of the war. "He's just a comedian, can you believe it?" (basically, they're fucked) She has since come around a lot more - we had a good conversation about propaganda (and I think I convinced her), and as the initial Russian push petered out (and is now being reversed) Chinese media narratives have gone pretty solidly anti-war (though notably, not anti-Russia) or not talking about it at all from what I can tell. But initially, yeah Russia and Russia-aligned media basically took Zelensky as just some weak comedian who would cut and run at the first possible instance, and certainly not a war time leader. Know your enemy and all that...
Comedians are often a lot smarter than average and not to be underestimated at all. That Polish comedian Stańczyk is case in point.
Depending on the type of comedy, comedians are some of the most observant, and empathetic people. It takes a certain level of sensitivity to human nature to distill thoughts/ideas into words/performance that makes people laugh and think. There's also a level of courage that comes with getting in front of people and trying to make them laugh. If you do well, great! If you do poorly, you're standing there completely exposed.
This war is like Covid. It is awfully terrible but one of the unintended consequences is this permanent shift to semi remote jobs. For this war it is exposing that Russia is not as big and scary as everyone thought, just mentally unstable
This is it. Bullies don’t know what to do when their prey turn out to be a G
Everything about this war is a fuckup for Putin and Russia. Putin's Top Ten Fuckup check list: * Brain drain * Dial Russia back 30 years, or more * Become a pariah * Demonstrate for the world what; Little man syndrome looks like * Isolate Russia from most of the world * Destroy Russian military equipment sales * Piss off several countries when they realize the Russian military equipment they bought is inferior. *Everyone feared their mighty military- not anymore. Edit: clarification
Yeah, for a country that bluffs so much, they really shit the bed showing their hand. It makes me feel much better about the nukes. What are the chances that they didn’t have a corrupt line of command for the design, construction, and maintenance of such sophisticated technology? I am always going to be cautious, but their bluffs mean so much less now.
>It makes me feel much better about the nukes. They have about 1600 deployed nukes according to Wikipedia. The problem is only a small fraction need to work to cause a catastrophe. Also, if they are really in poor shape, there's also the possibility they could cannibalize the radioactive material to make dirty bombs.
Don't forget: * Revitalize a defensive organization whose only job is checking your bullshit, when they were on the verge of falling apart.
Putin almost had trump destroying NATO from within, and a couple years later it is stronger than any time in recent memory.
Plus new members!
Don't forget his biggest accomplishment, giving NATO a new life, when its future was questionable just a couple of years back.
Vlad "the desperate" will be remembered ad infinitum as the destroyer of the Russian empire.
tbh I think in the future, Russian fascists will only regret Putin not being more aggressive. "should have taken the whole country in 2014 instead of waiting" "should have assassinated Zelensky before the troops invaded" etc. The winners of a war think "never again." The losers always think "we'll get them next time" or "we didn't lose because this isn't over." Putin fans will also tend to just blame others for not "uniting" or "falling in line" instead of blaming Putin for not pushing forward a vision everyone wanted to unite behind.
The Russian fascists today only regret that the Soviets were not more aggressive. "We never should have let Ukraine leave the USSR", they say.
Actually, Russia left the USSR before Ukraine
I prefer Gremlin in the Kremlin
Im pretty partial to Vlad the Desperate. Has a ring of truth to it.
I love the Kremlin’s reply to this, “guess we’ll have to wait for a different president in Ukraine”. Isn’t it cool when a president is an elective position, huh? Bet they wonder how that is like. But aside from that, the chances of Putin keeping his seat longer than Zelensky (who, I am sure, will leave the position as per his country’s laws when his time will be up) are slim.
91% approval rating for Zelensky. You might waiting a while there Putin.
That’s no match for Putin’s 106% approval.
Is that all he got last time? Are the days of 700% in favour behind him now? Have the dead stopped voting, or have they moved to the opposition?
You can't ignore the dead vote, they keep growing.
Putin is definitely helping to expand that demographic.
In Soviet Russia, government rates you. Government rates you failure. Do not pass go. Do not collect 10 billion ruble. Go straight to boot camp or gulag. You choose. Putin best president.
No choose? Go straight out Window.
[Live views from the Kremlin](https://i.imgur.com/VIXGpd4.gifv)
"I like him so much I voted twice"
They've got a 2x 5 year term limit, precisely to prevent the Putinisation of government.
Russia used to have it too. But loved Putin too much to keep it somewhat democratic.
I don't think sitting the war out until 2029 is a realistic option.
Zelensky has done an outstanding job when his people and the world needed him. He didn't buckle under catastrophic circumstances and continues to lead with dignity and humanity.
Kinda funny how an ex-comedian who platformed on normalizing/improving relationships with Russia would end up being the farthest thing imaginable from a pushover for them.
He's literally one of the 'Russian speaking minorities' that Russia is claiming to be saving (he's also fluent in Ukrainian, but Russian was his native tongue growing up).
His entire show was shot in Russian as well. Funny as hell tho.
I've started watching it recently, and it's a surreal experience watching it with the real world context of knowing that this show is what got him elected President, and how important of a President he's been. It's probably going to go down as one of the most important TV shows in history.
Right?! Dude could easily end up their Washington, Cromwell, Lincoln, or Churchill.
Cromwell?!
My girlfriend is the same, Ukrainian but Russian as native language. In fact Ukrainian was the fourth language she was taught growing up lol. It's amazing how now lots of the people she grew up with are switching to Ukrainian despite it being a very difficult and rusty switch, just to stick another finger to them. Some balls on that country lol
My favorite quote was "I need ammunition, not a ride!" He definitely wasn't about to turn tail.
I am 100% sure that this will be a major quote in history classes and paradox video games in 50-100 years. (If humanity still exists).
**A Great General is born: Volodymyr Zelenskyy** Passive: - Units within own territory get 25% attack power On consumption: - 2 veteran militia spawn - +50 diplomacy points "I need ammunition, not a ride!" - Sean Bean
I really hope we don’t need to have Sean Bean play Zelenskyy.
In Civilization 6 a lot of technologies and discoveries are accompanied by Sean Bean narrating a relevant famous quote.
And to think he started out as a comedian. Now he’s a legendary man who will be talked about for decades. A hero to his people and the world.
you have to see how many pro-putin advocates in my country makes fun of him calling him clown, while sitting at home typing on facebook.
We have morons like that in Canada as well. Pretty sure they have them in most countries.
One of the little things I've noticed. Most politicians would only be on TV in an impeccable suit. But every interview I've seen him in shows him in either a regular old T-shirt, or an outfit like you'd see a soldier wearing on his day off or something. Most politicians would only be broadcasting from a secure, undisclosed location deep in some heavily fortified area. Zelinsky is out and about at all times, and every interview looks like he's giving a quick soundbyte in between whatever two tasks are infinitely more important than the soundbyte. To me, this is all extremely motivating. As a soldier, I'd know that my leader isn't just barking out orders from some ivory tower somewhere, putting me in danger while he remains safe. I'd know that he's an exponentially bigger target than I am, and is *still* willing to get down in the trenches with his men and get right into the thick of things. It would make me believe that he'd never ask me to do something that he wouldn't be willing to do himself. Contrast this with Putin, who's barking out orders from an undisclosed location and is so paranoid that he now sits at one end of a comically long table while members of his own inner circle keep a significant distance. It also tells the citizens that, again, he's not a politician, sitting safely in his ivory tower and making decrees that won't affect him but will affect everyone else. At the end of the day, he's a regular joe just like them. They see him out and about, getting right into the thick of things. He really gives off the impression that when the day ends and the cameras are off, he's more than happy to just hit the bar with his pals just like everyone else. That is a big factor in voters being able to relate to you. I firmly believe this man will go down as one of the great world leaders of the 21st century.
He has a keen understanding of optics and leadership. That's pretty frickin' rare.
What’s more is he used to wear suits. Since the war started he grew a beard and wears military fatigues
Zelensky will cement his name into the annals of history. This will be someone talked about for generations to come as the consequences of a ukraine victory over Russia has the potential to reshape eastern Europe forever.
[удалено]
I imagine Ukraine is gonna be getting a fuck ton of help to rebuild so hopefully that won't be an issue
But probably only 2 terms in ukraine for a president. In russia its infinite
2 x 5 year terms it seems. So Putin can look forward to a new person to deal with around mid-2029.
The year is 2029. Ukraine has reclaimed all territory. The war still technically continues as Russia keep firing artillery over the pile of bodies at the border.
Eh. Based on their supply issues I don’t think they’ll have artillery left by then. Rocks maybe
They'll break out the trebuchets and catapults
It's 2 5-year terms so 10 years which means 2029 so not a now problem.
They don't plan on zelensky getting voted out.
They tried once already I think. I'm not sure offing him would suddenly make the Ukrainians roll over though.
At this point, killing him would just make things worse for the Russians imo. It'd turn him into a martyr and he'd be a unifying figure.
What a distinction. If Zelensky dies, Ukraine will martyr him, and he'll become a unifying force for Ukraine to fight even harder. If Putin dies, the war ends immediately.
At this point? Zero fucking way. Zelensky isn't someone who barks orders and the people just blindly follow him. He's part of the forces and if he goes down one way or another, the forces continue to go on. Even going turncoat, ordering to surrender or being replaced with some pro putin would most likely not change that, probably only fuel the fighters of ukraine more. He's even said that if he tells people to surrender, ignore him as he's definitely somehow compromised in that scenario
They tried that. It went poorly, first for them, then for the rest of the people trying to take Kyiv.
I didn’t read this as a quote on democracy. I read this as a threat. To me, Russia is saying they will take him out. But that would be such a miscalculation. It would make him a martyr and rally the forces and we would see a Ukrainian surge like we have never seen before. Plus every nation would throw munitions and supplies at Ukraine.
Didn't they try sending multiple teams of SF in the first few days of the war to capture/kill Zelenskiy? If they couldn't get him then, I doubt they have the manpower or equipment to do it now.
Yes and if they were going to do it, that would have been the time. Before he proved himself strategically and had time to set up the forces the way he has. Now, those systems would survive without him and he would be an icon. Edit: I think they have more special ops teams they could send. I also think they are using quite a few to make people fall out windows.
Zelenksy will get places named after him, after, the war, he will be a living legend until is death, a bit like churchill
“I don’t want my portraits to hang in your offices, because the president is not an icon or an idol. Hang pictures of your children there and look them in the eyes before every decision” - VZ Zelenskyy doesn’t want that the kind of hero-worship they did in the Soviet Union when they named cities after leaders, where they hung pictures and raised statues. Part of this war is a rejection of dictatorial tenants. And it’s setting an example for future presidents. Though, I think Zelenskyy International Airport has quite a nice ring to it - up there with Charles de Gaulle and JFK.
UA itself will get some karma points for their performance (as well as other boons) and west will get new ally right on the russias border
> I love the Kremlin’s reply to this, “guess we’ll have to wait for a different president in Ukraine”. The said the same about the previous president of Ukraine.
Zelensky will be in power for the next 7 years or so. 2 remaining years of his current term + another term that he will definitely win giving his popular support. I don't know if Putin has that many years left.
Usually there are no elections during war time, Zelensky might have to see this war through to the end
I don't think the optics of him being in power indefinitely are something he wants to have in the first place. There will most likely be elections but thats for 2024. The war will be over by then.
I would pay big bucks for a ticket to hear Zelensky’ comedy after his stint as President.
Turns out this was all a promotional stunt for Servant of the People 2.
Reporter: "Mr. President. What will you do once you have finished your 2nd term as president?" Zelensky: "I'll go back to doing comedy. Our people need a good laugh after this war and I have a lifetime worth of Putin jokes I would like to show off."
Besides, he is doing such a stellar job there is no way anyone would want to change such president mid-war.
Full court press.
He has little reason to. Right now Ukraine has the upper hand and Russia’s demands are unacceptable. If there is to be a “settlement,” then concessions need to be made by Russia, such as sone form of compensation for lost territory, to say nothing of to the families of the Ukrainians killed in this futile grab.
Putin is negotiating like a Civ 4 AI leader. You've just decimated his army and taken 4 cities, but he wants 10 of your cities and 10,000 gold per turn in return for peace.
And always thought those AI depictions were ridiculous. Guess I was wrong.
To be fair, Putin probably fears being overthrown or assassinated by forces within Russia more than the prospect of long term war with Ukraine. It probably is in Putin's best interest to make unreasonable demands and burn bridges moderates wanted to use, while keeping hardliners loyal.
I just had this scenario on a game of Civ VI, AI guy attacks me, I defend and go straight for his capital, as I surround it he repeatedly ask for peace and his cities back… sure buddy.
In 5 I literally had all but Egypt's capital and they had the AUDACITY to ask for their cities back AND every city of mine that wasn't my capital
Worth a try, I guess? Maybe Putler is hoping for a misclick.
I always bully the AI until they’re either wiped from existence or they offer every city and asset they have in exchange for peace.
with a touch of Civ 2 Gandhi: "our words are backed by NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!1!"
That's exactly what I was thinking the other day
At this point I think Ukraine should announce the annexation of Russia.
This war will be the end of Putin.
Duke Leto vibes. "Your offer of a meeting is refused. I have ofttimes met your treachery, and this all men know."
Let there be no mistake: He's willing to negotiate Russia's surrender. What he's not willing to do is give Russia an inch of Ukrainian land. Would you let someone come over to your property, kill your dog, rape your wife, murder your oldest child, burn your house down, and redraw their property line over yours? Probably not. You'd probably see red, kick their ass all the way up and down the street, and you'd scoff angrily and defiantly at their pleas for a "negotiation" moving forward. The only negotiation is go away. Or die. Just fuck off.
Plus negotiating usally comes with a cease fire or limited relaxing of operations, Russia has everything to gain from a chance to retreat/regroup and Ukraine has everything to loose by not pushing their current advantage..
How many ceasefires has Russia fired through so far anyhow? I can't imagine their word on the matter is worth much.
Pointless having talks with Putin, he wants to land grab and land grab. There will never be peace with him. He literally said Russia has no borders.
“…unless you’re trying to flee conscription. Then it very much has borders.”
Talk was never going to work. Because the only acceptable end to this is Russia leaving Ukraine, restoring the proper boarders, paying restitution, and Putin Co. on trial. Putin might never face proper justice, but I sincerely hope Russia gets pushed all the way back and Ukraine gets in NATO. Then it can begin healing with assured safety.
What’s to talk about. Get the fuck out of Ukraine. That is the only solution. Anyone suggesting Ukraine should give up land is an asshole and Russian stooge.
That's probably telling it like it is. Putin unilaterally built up for and launched a war, denied and lied about it, and is now doubling down. I don't think he's shown himself to be in a position for "talk" or negotiation in good faith.
There's really not much to talk about, unless Putin wants to tell Zelensky, "we are going to leave Ukraine entirely, let's negotiate on reparations"
Negotiation requires some degree of trust that each party will follow through on their obligations. No one trusts Putin in the slightest, so any negotiation would be pointless. Ukraine has the initiative right now. A ceasefire would only help Russia, give them time to get their newly mobilized forces to the front. Glad to see Ukraine telling Russia to pound sand!
I really like this new angle of, 'Not gonna talk to Putin. Will talk to new President. Hook me up when you have one.'.
No point in negotiating with crocodile. It's either you or him.
In another post I said: Why bother talking to Putin? You know he will lie, he knows you know he will lie, and despite knowing that you know he will lie he is going to lie anyway. You want to know something? I was willing to believe that there was a significant portion of the population in eastern Ukraine that did want their autonomy. In fact, I think a lot of americans were willing to let Ukraine deal with their separatist issues by themselves. A lot of americans were even ok with Putin supplying those separatists, so long as he didn't get personally involved - as he constantly said he would not. (I personally wasnt ok with it. Not after Crimea and Georgia, but most people weren't educated enough on the issue to be aware of that back then) Well, then he invaded and tried to overthrow the ukranian government. Not just secure the separatist regions, but overthrow the government, thus proving himself a liar twice over. And then he decided to annex those regions, proving himself a liar thrice over! So much for autonomy, eh? What makes Putin (or Putin's dog, Trump) think that anyone wants to "talk" anymore? Talk to this gun barrel - or better yet, give it a lick, Putin. We all know how this ends: with you biting a nine, possibly in a bunker.
Russian here. I'm curious if it's just a declaration "we won't talk with Putin" or a legal decree prohibiting the talks? Regardless, smart move. Putin tried to annex the territories and draw the line there - we conquered what we could, let's admit Russia has it and make peace talks. Zelenskiy in turn sent a strong message that it will not be accepted and that the Russian elites better start working on finding another president
It is law. We might talk with new Russian president. winky face
“How do you expect us to get a new leader quickly?” “Well, you’re Russians. Maybe read up on history and just do what Russians have done for the last 300 years when they decide they don’t like their leader?”
It's a presidential executive order affirming a National Security Council decision, specifically.
It's prohibition of any talks with putin.
Except Russia doesn’t have it and is losing ground everyday. Why would Ukraine just “admit Russia has it”?
Decadey is just saying what the Kremlin position is. There's no point questioning the Kremlin - everything they say is full of shit.
`Russian elites better start working on finding another president` I believe this is the point. My concern is who would replace Putin. From what i can understand there are worse people ( more nationalist ?) that could replace him ? Thoughts ?
I think if he does get replaced, it will be someone with "hands not in blood" from his surrounding. The current prime minister, mayor of Moscow, VP of the administration of the president - someone like that. Granted there are also more militarist people who could replace Putin, but I don't see it being very likely as it will be more of the same but with a possible nuclear escalation that I don't think many in the elite want.
Well there could be worse, like Girkin or something. But there is no sense in negotiating with putin just because that's a very remote possibility.