By now, at this point in Russia’s Special Military Operation, it should be clear that Russia is in control of the action. Putin, as he almost always is, was extremely clear about the objectives—chief of which for our purposes is “de-militarization” of Ukraine. On the other hand, the Russians are typically tight lipped about their military operations, revealing little and engaging in disinformation to conceal their true objectives. That leaves outsiders in the position of trying to understand Russia’s actions, sifting through limited reporting from Russia and vast amounts of unreliable, slanted, or outright propagandistic screeds. The UK media is probably the most aggressive purveying outright propaganda and disinformation. However, sifting through Russian media sources isn’t easy, either. There are certainly schools of Russian opinion that gravitate toward various overall tendencies: 1) Russia is being betrayed at the top by incompetents and pussy-footers—Russia should end it all tomorrow; 2) general doomsaying.
Regarding Russian doomsaying about this war, I would remind everyone that Russian history is littered with humiliating defeats against Western powers or their proxies — the Crimean War, the War of 1905, and World War I being the most obvious. All three sent political shockwaves through the Russian state.
The two exceptions, of course, were the Napoleonic Wars and World War II. However, those two conflicts were both near death experiences for the Russian state. Ultimate (and total) victory in both cases only came after initial waves of spectacular defeats. So, even those two exceptions sort of prove the rule: the Russian state has a poor track record when it comes to war against the West.
Thus I’d say it’s natural for Russians to be apprehensive and pessimistic about the conflict in Ukraine. They suffer from a permanent underdog syndrome that neatly contrasts with the Anglo-American world’s perennial sense of invincibility.
Russia’s close to flawless performance in the present conflict, especially considering its efforts on the diplomatic front, is thus truly exceptional.
How about the news of British cruise missiles hitting factory in Luhansk? Russian S400 air defense deeked by US ADM 160 missile decoys? Rumor has it only F 16’s or B 52’s can launch the 160.
Tangentially, I found the following quite interesting:
"Ukraine’s NatSec Danilov stated that Western forces are trying to secretly bring Ukraine to the negotiating table ‘on Moscow’s terms:
Oleksiy Danilov, Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine (NSDC) said that they are trying to bring Ukraine to the negotiating table on Moscow's terms with the help of other countries, which Kiev will never do:
'Now there is just such a escalation of the situation in order to quickly put us at the negotiating table on Russia's terms. There is a huge campaign going on right now. A lot of offers from different countries. If Zelensky decides to negotiate with the Russian Federation, "it will be only on the terms of our country. No one is going to give up national interests, no matter how much representatives of some countries would like it, which are actively involved in the situation.'"
So, lots of people in power in Europe apparently already know who is going to "win" in Ukraine and are trying to avoid an obviously ignominious exit. I am sure we will never see them quoted in the MSM. Nevertheless, they will do their best to lay the blame and all of the associated negative consequences on Zelensky and his government, one way or another.
Lots to digest in the Sitrep, even if much is admittedly speculative. For reasons I've gone into before I'm dubious that Russia will be interested in negotiations at this point.
If I’m understanding Simplicius, the Western ability to track Russian forces and concentration of fire result in high casualties if the Russians mass. Plus the built up over years of Ukrainian defenses are taking time to slowly grind through.
The Russians have a huge advantage in artillery of 10X, which has resulted in the Russian Strategy of a slow devastating grinding offense, with a much higher casualty rate for Ukrainians. Plus it’s become an industrial war of attrition, which Russia can sustain, and the West can’t. It was supposed to exhaust the Russians, with Afghan 2.0, not the West.
I think the noise around the counter offensive may be a last gasp of the propaganda war. Everyone knows any offensive will be a dud. Apparently Zelensky has been banned by the European Broadcasting Union of addressing the Eurovision song contest and our PM and Boris Johnson have expressed their 'disappointment'. Tide is turning.
Very comprehensive and compelling analysis of where things stand, both in the minds and on the battlefields by great analysts Mark. Yes, we’ll have to see, but as you point out, Russia is making haste slowly and in its new-found wisdom and confidence doesn’t have to be in a hurry to sue for peace. In contrast, Ukraine seems particularly flummoxed, a reflection maybe of the West’s own narrative coming apart at the seams…
He pulls together a lot of what we already know and suspect about the malthusian agenda: create food shortages in the name of climate change. The plan is to reduce carbon footprint by trapping CO2 in the ground in the root systems of those malign actors we sometimes refer to as food. Oh, and wouldn't you know it: CBDCs become awfully useful in this regime.
Madness indeed. Human beings are a carbon based life form. Following the climatista logic of their pursuit of all carbon elimination leads to a very bad outcome for us I’m afraid. Plus their theory on its face makes no sense. CO2 is a combination of atoms. One carbon and two oxygen. It breaks apart and interacts with other atoms and molecules over time. It is not some indestructible forever molecule that continues to accumulate and smother the planet forevermore. The whole damn thing is insane.
"It [CO2] breaks apart and interacts with other atoms and molecules over time. It is not some indestructible forever molecule that continues to accumulate and smother the planet forevermore."
Carbon dioxide is a stable molecule, which takes a VERY long time to degrade in the atmosphere. Reduction of the amount in the atmosphere takes place by dissolution in the oceans, and that is estimated to take 20-200 years. Before we were born, atmospheric level of CO2 was about 280 parts per million (ppm) of air. Now, the level is about 420 ppm. The rise in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is forecast to continue.
OTOH, I don't think that the increase is as big a problem as the extremists, oops, I mean environmentalists, believe.
“Before we were born, atmospheric level of CO2 was about 280 parts per million (ppm) of air. Now, the level is about 420 ppm. The rise in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is forecast to continue.”
Okay. But this begs the question: how does this compare to previous eras in Earth’s history. Without a benchmark comparison these ppm figures are meaningless. In other words, is 420+ ppm at all unusual or threatening?
"Without a benchmark comparison these ppm figures are meaningless."
Carbon dioxide levels have been massively higher than 280 ppm in the distant past. I don't believe that the level has been much lower than 280 ppm. The point that environmentalists want to make is that the recent increase is caused my man, therefore it must be really bad.
"In other words, is 420+ ppm at all unusual or threatening?"
I think I already addressed that in my original comment. IOW, no.
I saw recently something about a study of glacial ice in Greenland which indicated that the current "warming" period is actually a rather cold period by historical standards.
You are talking about the biosphere, which is approximately in equilibrium. Yes, additional CO2 contributes to the greening of the planet, but that contribution is small relative to the overall carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I guess you didn't take meteorology in seventh grade!
BTW, the first hit on a search gave: "The time it takes carbon to move through the fast carbon cycle is measured in a lifespan." So even the fast carbon cycle is slower than you imply.
In further detail, the fast carbon cycle is a biological process, whereas the processes in the atmosphere are chemical processes. Atmospheric chemistry relies on light as an energy source to effect reactions, and the reactions that take place are generally radical reactions. Whereas the biosphere relies on redox chemistry (oxidation-reduction).
Regarding Russian doomsaying about this war, I would remind everyone that Russian history is littered with humiliating defeats against Western powers or their proxies — the Crimean War, the War of 1905, and World War I being the most obvious. All three sent political shockwaves through the Russian state.
The two exceptions, of course, were the Napoleonic Wars and World War II. However, those two conflicts were both near death experiences for the Russian state. Ultimate (and total) victory in both cases only came after initial waves of spectacular defeats. So, even those two exceptions sort of prove the rule: the Russian state has a poor track record when it comes to war against the West.
Thus I’d say it’s natural for Russians to be apprehensive and pessimistic about the conflict in Ukraine. They suffer from a permanent underdog syndrome that neatly contrasts with the Anglo-American world’s perennial sense of invincibility.
Russia’s close to flawless performance in the present conflict, especially considering its efforts on the diplomatic front, is thus truly exceptional.
How about the news of British cruise missiles hitting factory in Luhansk? Russian S400 air defense deeked by US ADM 160 missile decoys? Rumor has it only F 16’s or B 52’s can launch the 160.
But we also heard that Polish Su-24s may have been modified for that purpose and given to Ukraine. I included that.
The latest Sitrep from Simplicius, addressing this topic in particular:
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/sitrep-51223-panic-ukraine-launches
Tangentially, I found the following quite interesting:
"Ukraine’s NatSec Danilov stated that Western forces are trying to secretly bring Ukraine to the negotiating table ‘on Moscow’s terms:
Oleksiy Danilov, Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine (NSDC) said that they are trying to bring Ukraine to the negotiating table on Moscow's terms with the help of other countries, which Kiev will never do:
'Now there is just such a escalation of the situation in order to quickly put us at the negotiating table on Russia's terms. There is a huge campaign going on right now. A lot of offers from different countries. If Zelensky decides to negotiate with the Russian Federation, "it will be only on the terms of our country. No one is going to give up national interests, no matter how much representatives of some countries would like it, which are actively involved in the situation.'"
So, lots of people in power in Europe apparently already know who is going to "win" in Ukraine and are trying to avoid an obviously ignominious exit. I am sure we will never see them quoted in the MSM. Nevertheless, they will do their best to lay the blame and all of the associated negative consequences on Zelensky and his government, one way or another.
Lots to digest in the Sitrep, even if much is admittedly speculative. For reasons I've gone into before I'm dubious that Russia will be interested in negotiations at this point.
Hence the EU’s version of Ruth bader ginsburgs visit to Z 2 days ago.
Steiner is assembling his men for his assault.
If I’m understanding Simplicius, the Western ability to track Russian forces and concentration of fire result in high casualties if the Russians mass. Plus the built up over years of Ukrainian defenses are taking time to slowly grind through.
The Russians have a huge advantage in artillery of 10X, which has resulted in the Russian Strategy of a slow devastating grinding offense, with a much higher casualty rate for Ukrainians. Plus it’s become an industrial war of attrition, which Russia can sustain, and the West can’t. It was supposed to exhaust the Russians, with Afghan 2.0, not the West.
Is Ukraine is planning to use the 9 brigades in Bakhmut?
Get a little rah rah win for the Ukrainian populace and American politicians?
I think the noise around the counter offensive may be a last gasp of the propaganda war. Everyone knows any offensive will be a dud. Apparently Zelensky has been banned by the European Broadcasting Union of addressing the Eurovision song contest and our PM and Boris Johnson have expressed their 'disappointment'. Tide is turning.
Very comprehensive and compelling analysis of where things stand, both in the minds and on the battlefields by great analysts Mark. Yes, we’ll have to see, but as you point out, Russia is making haste slowly and in its new-found wisdom and confidence doesn’t have to be in a hurry to sue for peace. In contrast, Ukraine seems particularly flummoxed, a reflection maybe of the West’s own narrative coming apart at the seams…
O/T, but interesting article from Simplicius' alter ego Dark Futura:
https://darkfutura.substack.com/p/truth-about-carbon-sequestration
He pulls together a lot of what we already know and suspect about the malthusian agenda: create food shortages in the name of climate change. The plan is to reduce carbon footprint by trapping CO2 in the ground in the root systems of those malign actors we sometimes refer to as food. Oh, and wouldn't you know it: CBDCs become awfully useful in this regime.
Madness.
Madness indeed. Human beings are a carbon based life form. Following the climatista logic of their pursuit of all carbon elimination leads to a very bad outcome for us I’m afraid. Plus their theory on its face makes no sense. CO2 is a combination of atoms. One carbon and two oxygen. It breaks apart and interacts with other atoms and molecules over time. It is not some indestructible forever molecule that continues to accumulate and smother the planet forevermore. The whole damn thing is insane.
"It [CO2] breaks apart and interacts with other atoms and molecules over time. It is not some indestructible forever molecule that continues to accumulate and smother the planet forevermore."
Carbon dioxide is a stable molecule, which takes a VERY long time to degrade in the atmosphere. Reduction of the amount in the atmosphere takes place by dissolution in the oceans, and that is estimated to take 20-200 years. Before we were born, atmospheric level of CO2 was about 280 parts per million (ppm) of air. Now, the level is about 420 ppm. The rise in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is forecast to continue.
OTOH, I don't think that the increase is as big a problem as the extremists, oops, I mean environmentalists, believe.
“Before we were born, atmospheric level of CO2 was about 280 parts per million (ppm) of air. Now, the level is about 420 ppm. The rise in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is forecast to continue.”
Okay. But this begs the question: how does this compare to previous eras in Earth’s history. Without a benchmark comparison these ppm figures are meaningless. In other words, is 420+ ppm at all unusual or threatening?
"Without a benchmark comparison these ppm figures are meaningless."
Carbon dioxide levels have been massively higher than 280 ppm in the distant past. I don't believe that the level has been much lower than 280 ppm. The point that environmentalists want to make is that the recent increase is caused my man, therefore it must be really bad.
"In other words, is 420+ ppm at all unusual or threatening?"
I think I already addressed that in my original comment. IOW, no.
I saw recently something about a study of glacial ice in Greenland which indicated that the current "warming" period is actually a rather cold period by historical standards.
You are talking about the biosphere, which is approximately in equilibrium. Yes, additional CO2 contributes to the greening of the planet, but that contribution is small relative to the overall carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I guess you didn't take meteorology in seventh grade!
BTW, the first hit on a search gave: "The time it takes carbon to move through the fast carbon cycle is measured in a lifespan." So even the fast carbon cycle is slower than you imply.
In further detail, the fast carbon cycle is a biological process, whereas the processes in the atmosphere are chemical processes. Atmospheric chemistry relies on light as an energy source to effect reactions, and the reactions that take place are generally radical reactions. Whereas the biosphere relies on redox chemistry (oxidation-reduction).