Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

harms said:
As for the hierarchy of Russian power structure... I wouldn't use the word oligarchs by the way, it's an outdated term that still carries around from the 90's/early 00's. Even though the few of the ex-oligarchs remains, they're not independent figures anymore and a lot of them don't even technically operate as businessmen. Anyway, back to it. It's very centralised and extremely depended on the figure of Putin... but, at the same time, Putin himself is very isolated, not only from the general population, but also from different power institutions that exists in Russia's internal politics. So there's always an internal struggle for his attention and favour. And everyone that holds any power whatsoever tries to do what he thinks Putin wants him to do... but very few actually get what he wants to do — and often the positions of power aren't occupied by the most competent or intelligent people around, which leads to a very chaotic and often self-destructive mid-level political activity that consequently often leads to catastrophic results (be it for the country or for a poor guy that made the wrong move, thinking that he was doing the right one). From time to time Peskov, Putin's spokesperson, will pop up with a peculiarly worded comment or two about what's been happening over the past weeks — and everyone tries to decypher what he had meant, who's doing well, who's doing poorly and what should we all do next.
Click to expand...
Very interesting harms, thanks for explaining. Because his title is still President and not Supreme Leader or something of the like, I guess I still imagined his day-to-day as more similar to a democratically elected leader, feeling the pressure of time to get the agenda accomplished, in daily contact with ministers and advisers to try to advance policy. But I guess Putin is by now de facto leader-for-life, and makes sense that he would operate more like a despot. Keeping everything a bit at arm's length so that he can easily cut-off and distance himself from any failures..
 
harms said:
I'm pretty sure that Putin only sanctions a very broad general line (as in to destabilise political systems of NATO and the collective West), he certainly doesn't have an operational control (not that he can't have one, it's just not big enough for him to bother about).

As for the anti-vax idea, it was certainly a general line that got his approval though — Russia pushed very hard to get Sputnik to be the first approved vaccine in the world (by bypassing a few of the stages of the approval process — it worked in this case but it could've led to a lot of trouble; and, in a way it did — a lot of Russians don't trust the vaccine because it was so politicised & clearly rushed to get that sweet "first COVID vaccine" title for themselves) and then, when the rest of the World weren't approving it while pushing forward the alternatives (Moderna, Pfaizer etc.), it became a hurtful and pointless stalemate where we needed not only to prove the effectiveness of Sputnik (funnily enough, the only reliable and open results about its effectiveness we have came from abroad — Argentina, San Marino & the likes; Russia still haven't openly published all of the tests even though it's clearly effective), but also to discredit his opponents. Which led to the things like RT & their smearing campaigns that tried to discredit Western vaccines... but if you criticise multiple vaccines, especially using mostly made-up arguments and targeting a very specific (and not very bright) audience... it can backfire and turn back on vaccines in general and Sputnik specifically. Which it did.

As for the hierarchy of Russian power structure... I wouldn't use the word oligarchs by the way, it's an outdated term that still carries around from the 90's/early 00's. Even though the few of the ex-oligarchs remains, they're not independent figures anymore and a lot of them don't even technically operate as businessmen. Anyway, back to it. It's very centralised and extremely depended on the figure of Putin... but, at the same time, Putin himself is very isolated, not only from the general population, but also from different power institutions that exists in Russia's internal politics. So there's always an internal struggle for his attention and favour. And everyone that holds any power whatsoever tries to do what he thinks Putin wants him to do... but very few actually get what he wants to do — and often the positions of power aren't occupied by the most competent or intelligent people around, which leads to a very chaotic and often self-destructive mid-level political activity that consequently often leads to catastrophic results (be it for the country or for a poor guy that made the wrong move, thinking that he was doing the right one). From time to time Peskov, Putin's spokesperson, will pop up with a peculiarly worded comment or two about what's been happening over the past weeks — and everyone tries to decypher what he had meant, who's doing well, who's doing poorly and what should we all do next.
Click to expand...

The bold is so weird in that, it has almost exact parallels to the Astrazeneca vaccine. The government made it such a political football that it's been discredited and underused even though it's clearly useful. Very weird that the UK and Russia have an almost mirrored experience in that regard. To the extent of our press trying to make excuses as to why 'our' vaccine is as good/better, and it degrading trust.

The next part is very interesting, in that you feel Putin himself doesn't need to give anything to buy loyalty. And that everybody is simply trying to please him, as opposed to the other way around. Usually you'd expect a 'dictator' to be giving favours or operational control to keep the support of important organs. (That's why I said oligarchs/blat, in that there might be those Putin want to keep onside, though I have no idea who they are. And they advance their own interests through the state organs with his implicit approval. Even Xi does this to an extent; there are figures he doesn't piss off. I find it really intriguing that there's none of that happens in Russia, and everything basically revolves around him for light.
 
Can't help but laugh that the Russians are making fun of this predicted 'invasion' today the 16th.
 
owlo said:
The next part is very interesting, in that you feel Putin himself doesn't need to give anything to buy loyalty. And that everybody is simply trying to please him, as opposed to the other way around. Usually you'd expect a 'dictator' to be giving favours or operational control to keep the support of important organs. (That's why I said oligarchs/blat, in that there might be those Putin want to keep onside, though I have no idea who they are. And they advance their own interests through the state organs with his implicit approval. Even Xi does this to an extent; there are figures he doesn't piss off. I find it really intriguing that there's none of that happens in Russia, and everything basically revolves around him for light.
Click to expand...
Oh, don't get me wrong, it's very luxurious to be inside Putin's close circle. It's not as simple as buying loyalty though — most of the Russia's higher ups have long history with him, from classmates & childhood judo partners to people that were working with/under him in St. Petersburg's city office. Some of them are worth literally billions of dollars (although how much of that is Putin's own money that he keeps on friend's accounts, we'll probably never know). But ultimately, what Putin gave to you can be always taken back — as it's usually not cash but, say, shares in Russian companies etc., so you're tied to the country.

Abramović is probably the last real oligarch that managed to get away with all of his assets & life in tact. But he has been very smart in terms of diversification of his actives and started doing it well before Putin's regime changed into a brutal autocracy. Plus he had distanced himself from politics long time ago and willingly gives money to whatever project Putin asks him to.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
Did you sleep through the Trump presidency? Four years of sabre rattling against China whilst being accused of being too soft on Russia. The exact paradigm that rules the US today, regardless of who is in power. And no one is saying direct. The wars are being fought economically via sanctions and if they go hot it will be via proxy as (potentially) in Ukraine.
Click to expand...

None of that is actually war though. Sanctions, containment, deterrence etc are all diplomatic strategies- alternatives to war if you like. It doesn't help to pretend they are the same things when they aren't.
 
nickm said:
None of that is actually war though. Sanctions, containment, deterrence etc are all diplomatic strategies- alternatives to war if you like. It doesn't help to pretend they are the same things when they aren't.
Click to expand...
No, it is war. Ask Cuba who have been subjected to sanctions and containment for sixty years at the behest of one member of the UN and despite a yearly UN vote to protest the situation. War by other means, if you want, but war. It is more harmful to a country in many ways than Russia's shadow games in this latest installment of "war".

Also, when people say that it isn't "helpful" to maintain an equivalence or extend an existing semantic value, they usually want to say that it "isn't helpful to me/us/them". Yes, it isn't helpful for the US for people to know that it is an empire. It isn't helpful for Russia for people to know it is an autocracy. It isn't helpful for Ukraine to people to know that large sections of it are neo-nazis and others are proto nationalists. It isn't helpful for Israel for the world to know that it is an apartheid state. None of these things may be judged "helpful" or "useful" but they are all true so you have to ask who are they not helping?
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
It's a strange kind of argument when people say the same about left-wing movements. So they fund those that are hostile to them and those that are not as hostile? In reality, their influence is minimal. There's a section of rabid warhawks who want to go to war with China. There's a section of rabid warhawks who want to go to war with Russia. The first is Republican and the second is Democrat. Behind the scenes the US state department is waging continuous war via proxy and direct containment against each.
Click to expand...
But that's not the same as wanting war. It's very naive to think that (over simply put) being ready for a fight is the same thing as wanting one especially amongst nuclear armed adversaries.
 
Mciahel Goodman said:
No, it is war. Ask Cuba who have been subjected to sanctions and containment for sixty years at the behest of one member of the UN and despite a yearly UN vote to protest the situation. War by other means, if you want, but war. It is more harmful to a country in many ways than Russia's shadow games in this latest installment of "war".
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but this won't do. War is the act of imposing will via physical force through use of weapons to achieve a political objective. Redefining it to include a range of other hostile but non lethal activity trivializes it.
 
nickm said:
I'm sorry but this won't do. War is the act of imposing will via physical force through use of weapons to achieve a political objective. Redefining it to include a range of other hostile but non lethal activity trivializes it.
Click to expand...
Economic sanctions are an extension of one's military capacity. In fact, the sanction derives, conceptually, from the siege. Now, is a state of siege a state of war? You are playing with semantics and somehow pretending it's the inverse.
 
Simbo said:
You don’t think all think right-wing movements are influenced/supported/funded/created by Russia?

Breitbart, infowars, Cambridge analytica, Parler, everything the Mercer’s fund. They all have links to Russia. Everything NewsCorp owns all sing the Russian party line. All the main far-right politicians in Europe seem to be compromised, even Farage was spewing Putins words on GBN couple days ago.

Then there’s wikileaks and the NRA also appears to have been taken over by Russian money. I could go on.
Click to expand...

Right-wing movements in the US of 2022 are the culmination of over 50 years of organized conservative political action in America, which began at least a full decade before the fall of the Soviet Union. The infrastructure that all these right-wing networks are built on comes from conservative think tanks of the 1970s, conservative legal networks that first pushed Robert Bork in the 1980s, and the media from Reagan era dismantling of the Fairness Doctrine which directly led to Rush Limbaugh and all his imitators and eventually to Hannity and Tucker. I've watched these massive conservative influence machines over the last 30 years first-hand and "Russia" is really just a footnote to everything that US right-wingers have been working to achieve for generations - basically ever since Goldwater lost.

The psychological factors are even older. Essentially just American exceptionalism (Lipset, 1996) and anti-intellectualism (Hofstadter, 1963) mixed with old-fashioned selfish greed and good old Reagan style, "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." And don't forget the racism embedded in US life since its inception.

I watched people that, as teenagers in the 1990s, use to say shite like "it's a free country, I can do what I want" transform from mildly "speak English, salute the flag" types to anti-government Tea Party participants, to hardcore anti-immigrant meme sharers to full-blown Trumpers all without the help of any Russian influence but simply a diet of the US right-wing infrastructure that I mentioned above.

In short, I think you are granting far too much power to outside influences when, in fact, the weak points are all internal. Of course, Russia tries to influence and destabilize other countries the same way China, the US and even smaller countries do. And certainly there are going to be some points where Russia wants to do anything to destabilize the west and that aligns with some of the bat-shit right-wing agenda like pizzagate or qanon but I think its massively lazy to assign too much influence on external factors when the vast majority of factors come from domestic right-wing activities. Tucker and Hannity are massive bellends but they aren't Russian assets with their strings pulled by Putin. The vast majority of what we see in America is not the result of Russian influence but simply the evolution of US right-wing movements over the last century. Russia didn't create the post-Civil War Jim Crow laws and Russia isn't behind the majority of the right-wing radicalization of the modern US far right. But sure, they do try to amplify some of it. I just wouldn't put external influence as a major cause.

@Mciahel Goodman and @harms already provided some good answers as well.
 
Last edited:
oneniltothearsenal said:
Right-wing movements in the US of 2022 are the culmination of over 50 years of organized conservative political action in America, which began at least a full decade before the fall of the Soviet Union. The infrastructure that all these right-wing networks are built on comes from conservative think tanks of the 1970s, conservative legal networks that first pushed Robert Bork in the 1980s, and the media from Reagan era dismantling of the Fairness Doctrine which directly led to Rush Limbaugh and all his imitators and eventually to Hannity and Tucker. I've watched these massive conservative influence machines over the last 30 years first-hand and "Russia" is really just a footnote to everything that US right-wingers have been working to achieve for generations - basically ever since Goldwater lost.

The psychological factors are even older. Essentially just American exceptionalism (Lipset, 1996) and anti-intellectualism (Hofstadter, 1963) mixed with old-fashioned selfish greed and good old Reagan style, "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." And don't forget the racism embedded in US life since its inception.

I watched people that, as teenagers in the 1990s, use to say shite like "it's a free country, I can do what I want" transform from mildly "speak English, salute the flag" types to anti-government Tea Party participants, to hardcore anti-immigrant meme sharers to full-blown Trumpers all without the help of any Russian influence but simply a diet of the US right-wing infrastructure that I mentioned above.

In short, I think you are granting far too much power to outside influences when, in fact, the weak points are all internal. Of course, Russia tries to influence and destabilize other countries the same way China, the US and even smaller countries do. And certainly there are going to be some points where Russia wants to do anything to destabilize the west and that aligns with some of the bat-shit right-wing agenda like pizzagate or qanon but I think its massively lazy to assign too much influence on external factors when the vast majority of factors come from domestic right-wing activities. Tucker and Hannity are massive bellends but they aren't Russian assets with their strings pulled by Putin. The vast majority of what we see in America is not the result of Russian influence but simply the evolution of US right-wing movements over the last century. Russia didn't create the post-Civil War Jim Crow laws and Russia isn't behind the majority of the right-wing radicalization of the modern US far right. But sure, they do try to amplify some of it. I just wouldn't put external influence as a major cause.

@Mciahel Goodman and @harms already provided some good answers as well.
Click to expand...

Sounds like I have some history books to read, but no, I think people in general vastly underestimate the influence Putin's Russia now has on the worlds politics, through various means. Not in the same way China, the US, etc do, not even close. Information warfare is Putin's speciality, literally his job and what he was trained to do, specifically targeting the west. Its not realised I think because he and his closest allies in the Russian government, that fought the cold war with him, actually know what they are doing. When they realised the power of the internet and social media, they have had a field day. Any defense against it just doesn't exist.

I won't argue that the groups and types of individuals you mention have always existed and I don't neccessarily believe they are now fully controlled Russian puppets or whatever. As Harms alluded to in his post, they all have common interests, corruption needs corruption to survive and thrive. Be it shady billionaires, organised crime, dodgy politicians, they all need to destabalise governments, stifle progress and ensure anti-corruption laws never see the light of day and certainly never get anywhere near states/territories that guarantee financial secrecy. So working together makes sense, especially in a more globalised world. The problem is that makes them easy meat to Putin, because he has the most money and power of all of them, weak points indeed.

We know the intent is there, Putin's desire to sow division in the west, deligitimise democratic votes, break up the EU, etc, is widely accepted. You'd have to believe he doesn't have the means to do so... Which I don't personally but then I subscribe to the theory of him likely being the richest man alive with his wealth spread around the world in webs of shell companies, different names and various secretive tax havens where it is all easily weaponised.

Just my opinon based on everything i've read and seen since falling down a rabbit hole 8 years ago when Russia invaded Ukraine, I've been fasinated by Putin ever since. Genuinely believe he's the biggest threat to human progress and not because he has nukes.
 
The American Media having a right party tonight with their breaking news on Russia bringing in a further 7,000 troops to increase their forces.

Guess trying to hide all the Clinton stories.
 
Simbo said:
Sounds like I have some history books to read, but no, I think people in general vastly underestimate the influence Putin's Russia now has on the worlds politics, through various means. Not in the same way China, the US, etc do, not even close. Information warfare is Putin's speciality, literally his job and what he was trained to do, specifically targeting the west. Its not realised I think because he and his closest allies in the Russian government, that fought the cold war with him, actually know what they are doing. When they realised the power of the internet and social media, they have had a field day. Any defense against it just doesn't exist.

I won't argue that the groups and types of individuals you mention have always existed and I don't neccessarily believe they are now fully controlled Russian puppets or whatever. As Harms alluded to in his post, they all have common interests, corruption needs corruption to survive and thrive. Be it shady billionaires, organised crime, dodgy politicians, they all need to destabalise governments, stifle progress and ensure anti-corruption laws never see the light of day and certainly never get anywhere near states/territories that guarantee financial secrecy. So working together makes sense, especially in a more globalised world. The problem is that makes them easy meat to Putin, because he has the most money and power of all of them, weak points indeed.

We know the intent is there, Putin's desire to sow division in the west, deligitimise democratic votes, break up the EU, etc, is widely accepted. You'd have to believe he doesn't have the means to do so... Which I don't personally but then I subscribe to the theory of him likely being the richest man alive with his wealth spread around the world in webs of shell companies, different names and various secretive tax havens where it is all easily weaponised.

Just my opinon based on everything i've read and seen since falling down a rabbit hole 8 years ago when Russia invaded Ukraine, I've been fasinated by Putin ever since. Genuinely believe he's the biggest threat to human progress and not because he has nukes.
Click to expand...

From everything I have read and seen over the last 30 years, I think you are vastly underestimating the influence of the network that American right-wingers have built up over 50+ years. Their influence inside America, at least, completely dwarfs any influence Putin has. Unless you actually believe Putin controls Fox News, Newsmax, OANN, personalities like Tucker, Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, the Federalist Society, US Supreme Court justices, US think tanks like Heritage, Cato, AEI, and American conservative billionaires like The Koch brothers then I would respectfully submit that perhaps you aren't as informed about how long the right-wing in the US has been building for Trump and the current right-wing movements for generations. You can read this article and all of this is grass-roots American right-wingers, not Putin's influence.

In your post here you've elevated Putin to almost a cartoon-like super-villain who controls everything and everyone rather than reflecting the reality. That just doesn't jive with observing and studying the American right-wing over the last 30 years. Th problem with how I'm reading your post is that it removes way too much agency and influence from people from Ronald Reagan & Rush Limbaugh to groups like the Federalist Society. For instance, it's not Putin controlling the current Supreme Court justices like Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito, it's their own hard-right ideology.

Now, I certainly agree that on some issues/sectors the interests of Putin can align with the American right and they work to amplify each other. There certainly is a digital ecosystem that feeds into it but I think you are also vastly underestimating the propaganda efforts from Western right-wingers over there last 100 years. I don't think he's perfect by any means, but Adam Curtis' The Century of the Self does a decent job summarizing the evolution of propaganda in the West from Edward Bernays through 9/11. There are plenty of lesser-known figures in the west that studied and mastered all the propaganda techniques from Hill & Knowlton's narrative creation for the first gulf war to Frank Luntz' linguistic propaganda books he would produce every year for Republicans in Congress (I still have one from a long time ago).
 
calodo2003 said:
Click to expand...


Gotta love it when in between all them satellites and intelligence some random dude from twitter is the one who comes out with reports.

A few of them labelled themselves Kremlin (or china or taiwan or Afghanistan) specialist analyst and somehow dedicated a whole timeline on similar themed fearmongering.

https://twitter.com/OlgaNYC1211?s=20&t=m-xQH2GBAsC8-76tdxi4eg

I believe they call themselves NGO or something

Have look on her twitter, and tell me there's no agenda there

https://cepa.org/

Claimed as non biased NGO but filled with anti Russian material

1.png

3.png

And this is just one of many supposedly NGO but somehow being funded by the Americans, to create nonstop false reporting to shape the narratives of the big bad Russia. Make no mistakes, I don't think Putin is the good guys, but don't tell me the west has no propaganda team of their own.

Oh... the list of donators included

https://cepa.org/about/our-supporters/

BAE Systems plc
Bell Textron, Inc.
Craig Newmark Philanthropies
Daimler AG
General Atomics
General Dynamics European Land Systems GmbH
Google LLC
Government of Estonia
Hirsch Family Foundation
Improbable Worlds Limited
Larry Hirsch
Leonardo US Holdings, Inc.
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Microsoft Corporation
National Endowment for Democracy
Poses Family Foundation
Robert S. Gelbard
Russia Strategic Initiative, US European Command
Smith Richardson Foundation
Thomas Firestone
US State Department
Victor Ashe
Victor Pinchuk Foundation
 
Last edited:
The below thread seems to be a reasonable summary of the latest goings on today. Increased shelling in Donbass, Russian media claiming Ukranian aggression, Ukraine media showing bombed out kindagarten (2 minor injuries). Russian Kyiv embassy burning papers?

 
Mm, Russia have just sent U.S.' deputy ambassador* (there may be a more correct way to name his actual title) out of the country.

* edit — deputy chief of mission, cheers @MTF
 
Last edited:
Olympic closing ceremony 20th feb (Sunday)

Russian national holiday for defence of the fatherland day 23rd Feb (Wednesday)

I would guess Russia will continue to say military exercises and troops preparing to leave till Sunday ... After that I expect something (manufactured or overblowing something that naturally happens) to escalate pretty quickly
 
Let's not forget the number of posters here who were adamant that Putin wouldn't invade, the recent Russian statement literally says they will be forced to respond with "military-technical measures". This was always the plan, long before anyone in the West said anything.
 
Is Putin doing a 'Grand old Duke of York' thing marching his men to the top of the hill, only to march them down again? If so won't NATO have a front row seat in watching how the Russians would deploy their troops, if they were to invade Ukraine?

Perhaps NATO already knows how they would deploy anyway and that is whats convincing them Putin is serious?
 
sport2793 said:
Let's not forget the number of posters here who were adamant that Putin wouldn't invade, the recent Russian statement literally says they will be forced to respond with "military-technical measures". This was always the plan, long before anyone in the West said anything.
Click to expand...

Yes, it seems pretty clear that Putin has had to take a step back after having his previous theatrical false flag video was made public by the US. The plan appears to have always been to invade by generating a false flag excuse, coupled with disruptive diplomacy, disinformation, and intense propaganda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.