Any putsch against Putin would serve the immediate objective of stopping the war. But I agree, the only people remotely capable of doing so would be from his inner circle, and those guys are cut from the same cloth. One must be delusional to assume some kind of a "color" revolution will take place and suddenly Russia goes full on liberal democracy.What comes after Putin? It would ne nice if we lived in a perfect world and that a post Putin Russia was democratic and ingratiated itself with the West. Alas we don't live in a perfect world and a post Putin Russia might bring in a era of great instability with far reaching consequences. There is also no guarantee that a post Putin Russia might be less assertive for standing up for its interests and might be accommodating to the West.
Most likely but what if the assumptions are wrong? What if a post Putin, more open Russia still sees a need to be assertive against what it perceives are Western moves which are harmful to its interests? Most assume that a post Putin Russia will be eager to ingratiate itself with the West - I'm not so sure.Any putsch against Putin would serve the immediate objective of stopping the war. .
For a start, taking Kyiv would give him the "mission accomplished" reason to declare victory and to draw-down his forces. Without a visible military "trophy", it would be seen as a defeat for him to remove the troops.What are their military objectives?
In any case, military objectives in isolation is meaningless. Military objectives makes sense just in the context of political objectives.
I fully agree. A successful putsch will see Russia withdrawing their forces in the short term. Very little chance that it would be an opposition figure which the West knows like Navalny.Most likely but what if the assumptions are wrong? What if a post Putin, more open Russia still sees a need to be assertive against what it perceives are Western moves which are harmful to its interests? Most assume that a post Putin Russia will be eager to ingratiate itself with the West - I'm not so sure.
Worse than a belligerent and invasive one?...A weakened and defeated Russia is a risky proposition to anyone.
Considering that nukes are all they have left, yes.Worse than a belligerent and invasive one?
And he'd left Germany bankrupt, with no foreign reserves to speak of, no international credit & industry converted to making goods which couldn't earn hard currency . . .If Hitler had died in.1939 he would have gone down in history as the greatest German.statesman after Bismarck. He broke Germany free of Versallies, built up the economy, rearmed the Wehrmacht and got Danzig, the Sudetenland and Austria into the Reich, all without starting a war...
I agree Western concerns about ex-Soviet republics having nukes as opposed to sending all of them back to Russia was seemingly the safest option. Clearly, it wasn’t for ex-republics.Ukraine it self basically control by Oligarchs. Also Ukraine so far has not come out with effective administrations (that West actually agree upon, but not saying that anymore after Putin invade Ukraine). Ukraine give back ex USSR nuclear because they also have much less resources than Russia to maintain them.
West support Russia to get back all ex USSR nuclear from other ex USSR Republics (including Ukraine), because regardless their worries on Russia ability to safe guard ex USSR nuclear, it is much better then let other ex USSR Republics also keep Nuclear warheads.
What Putin’s objective is isn’t entirely clear and as for exit strategy, he certainly isn’t alone wrt that issue, just like Bush 2.Before you launch a war you need to have a clearly defined objective and an exit strategy. I am not sure Russia has either.
My best guess is that Putin simply believed that the Ukrainians would roll over as soon as they saw tanks coming over the border. Putin's generals were too afraid to stand up to him and just followed orders.
That we have seen two Russian generals KIA also makes me question the competence of Russia's military leadership.
I read few comentators in Western Media that regreting Western decision to help push all ex USSR republics that have nuclear weapons in their teritory, to return it to Russia. This related to some in West wish for Ukraine to keep their Nukes, to avoid invasions.Clearly, it wasn’t for ex-republics.
Again, perhaps so, but only from a Western and Russian perspective.I read few comentators in Western Media that regreting Western decision to help push all ex USSR republics that have nuclear weapons in their teritory, to return it to Russia. This related to some in West wish for Ukraine to keep their Nukes, to avoid invasions.
For me, if West and Russia not pushing Ukraine to return the nukes to Russia, Khazakhstan and Belarus probably want to keep their Nukes too. Would West want Lukashenko and Nazarbayev to have nukes in their command ?
Returning the ex USSR Nukes to Russia is the only option.
I believe they are in fact Russian vehicles.I'm not an expert and I can't tell the difference (camo pattern, equipment, etc.), are these really Russian vehicles?
Based on Israel’s ability to penetrate Syrian airspace at will and that the Ukrainian airforce is still flying I am starting to think the fearsome S400 may not be the bogey man that the media has portrayed over the past 10 years.In my opinion this is one of the most detailed discussions which have appeared to date on the conflict.
Kofman goes into various things we already knew about but in more detail; how the Russians didn't expect any major protracted combat, not deploying and operating as per established training and doctrine, not employing all the means at their disposal [including UASs as extensively as expected - something I raised here last week], badly misreading the situation in the Ukraine, etc. Interestingly he mentions that units were only informed they were going into combat some two days prior.
Not impossible per see as NATO certainly.has the capability but it will be extremely challenging/problematic. The Ukraine is a large country and the Russian air force although clearly not as capable as NATO's isn't exactly the Iraqi, Libyan or Serbian air force. The Russians can also deploy GBADs assets they likes of which NATO has yet to face before. Various ways the Russians can contest a no fly zone without playing to NATO's strengths.
Whilst returning the nuclear weapons to Russia may have increased the ability for Russia to invade those countries and therefore increase the likelihood of conventional war, I'd argue that it has decreased the chance of nuclear war.Returning the ex USSR Nukes to Russia is the only option.
Israel does not provide air defence coverage to the whole of Syria, only specific areas. Targets hit by Israel.are not in.areas covered by the Russians. Also, we really can't say for sure that Israel's ability to penetrate Syrian airspace gives a real indication of the effectiveness of any AD system given that whatever AD systems the Syrians have may not be deployed in the way they should be, as part of an integrated and layered GBAD.Based on Israel’s ability to penetrate Syrian airspace at will and that the Ukrainian airforce is still flying I am starting to think the fearsome S400 may not be the bogey man that the media has portrayed over the past 10 years.
I think the MAD principle would still apply. India and Pakistan have managed to hold back despite their intense dislike. The argument some looney could push the button is a concern (especially the religious type looney). The question is how many in the fire control chain really want to burn for some nut job.Whilst returning the nuclear weapons to Russia may have increased the ability for Russia to invade those countries and therefore increase the likelihood of conventional war, I'd argue that it has decreased the chance of nuclear war.
I suspect it is Syrian assets being deployed incorrectly as you suggest. Highly trained and experienced pilots would be a factor as well. F-35s should be an even bigger disadvantage for Syrian GBAD as well.Israel does not provide air defence coverage to the whole of Syria, only specific areas. Targets hit by Israel.are not in.areas covered by the Russians. Also, we really can't say for sure that Israel's ability to penetrate Syrian airspace gives a real indication of the effectiveness of any AD system given that whatever AD systems the Syrians have may not be deployed in the way they should be, as part of an integrated and layered GBAD.