What does regime change or a coup even look like in Russia, at the moment? I’m trying to think of the last time we caused a coup and it worked out well for us long-term. Seems Medvedev would be the most obvious successor. If you have a guerrilla type coup, we may end up regretting that bigly. Who are the Russian people going to throw their support behind? Regime change in Russia is a dicey proposition. Putin’s replacement may turn out worse. That’s a very real possibility.
Are there Americans who are still hoping to regime-change anyone other than their own demented president ?
Could very well turn out worse. I wouldn’t think Medvedev since he is so closely tied to Putin and doesn’t represent change to support a coup. More probable are people like Wagner’s commander, Prigozhan, jailed anti-Putin critic, Navalny, or some other oligarch-backed mad man (would have to be crazy to want that position).
It's a think tank run by Kimberly and Frederick Kagan, who have close ties to the DoD and gets a lot of funding from major arms manufacturers, to the extent that some have referred to it as the "Kagan industrial complex". Frederick's brother, Robert, is married to Victoria Nuland, who as you may recall was Obama's point person on Ukraine during the 2014 crisis, and the one who had the leaked conversation picking Ukraine's next leaders when she made the infamous "F the EU" comment. Here's a good article about the ISW, including its founder, funding, political alliances e.g. with Petraeus, and methodology. The article also has some good comments about think tanks in general. A case study in American propaganda - Responsible Statecraft
So, two weeks into the counter-offensive now, should be enough time to make some preliminary assessment. Ukraine has made very little advances, and now appears to be in an operational pause. The glacial speed at which the fronts have moved the past few months seem to suggest that after the wild swings the first few months of the war, we're indeed settling into a stalemate situation that could last for many years. So what's going to happen next? In the short term, on the Southern front, most likely Ukraine will regroup, replenish, and attack again. At the same time, it appears that Russia is restarting its own offensive in the north. I'm not sure that I see any changes that could make either side more successful than before, but l'll wait to see what happens.
Victoria Nuland’s conversation was “leaked”. Interesting euphemism and telling as to your point of view.
People still locked in to the assumption of Russia fighting a territorial rather than an attritional war. Why rush when your enemy comes to you to be killed ? That said, when you’re satisfied you’ve killed everything in front of you, naturally to move forward.
It started a couple days ago, now it's being confirmed by Ukraine as well. Russia Presses Attack in East as Ukraine Pushes South to Recapture Territory "Moscow has launched “offensive actions” in both the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, Ukraine’s general staff said in a daily update on Tuesday, as part of Russia’s broader campaign to take more land in a part of Ukraine where it has held substantial territory since 2014." Hmm, I'm not aware of another view on this. Do you think it's faked or something?
If we're talking Donetsk and Luhansk, it makes sense for Russia to try to make some gains there, so I wouldn't be surprised. My personal belief is the areas Russia has done well in are, for the most part, the areas they feel are important to meet their objectives. Claiming more Ukrainian territory in the East gives them the upper hand at the negotiating table. If true, it also shows they're not merely resigned to a defensive posture in southeastern Ukraine and as I've been reminding folks, there is a risk to this Ukrainian counteroffensive in that it could end up becoming a net gain for Russia. In other words, it may turn out Ukraine would have been better served to 'quit while they were ahead' after they liberated Kharkiv and Kherson, while they had Russia on the ropes. Time will tell.
No, just a strangely passive voice, omitting the agency of those who intercepted and leaked and their motivations
Stupid, if not. If Russia's military wasn't neanderthal stupid, I'd think they this is fake. The smart play would be to hunker down and let Ukraine come at them, let them spend their war assets out while picking them off, bating them forward, and waiting until Ukraine was battle weary and thinned out...then to strike. Don't misunderstand--I'm glad Russia's dumb as hell. But it remains surprising how dumb. They seem to continually outdumb themselves, just when you think they've peaked. Which makes it all the more plausible...
I'd think it's pretty obvious who had the most to gain by leaking it, and motivation obviously goes a long way in solving a "whodunit". With that said, I don't see how that's relevant in explaining ISW's background? Explaining Nuland's role in Ukraine and ISW's connection to her I think helps clarify ISW's motivations, but explaining Russia's role in her leak doesn't really contribute to that. For that plan to work you'd need Ukraine to be very stupid as well, doesn't it? At this stage of the war, and with neither side able to neutralize the other side's ISR assets, I doubt anyone can pull off some fancy strategy.
Of course. All the color revolutions were just Western manipulation. No Slavs truly want to be free or align with the declining EU as opposed to the dynamic Muscovite economic model. My mistake
I don’t get the impression people have an inkling as to how formidable the Ukrainian military (along with its fortifications and vast support) was going into the conflict. I dare suppose the US military wouldn’t have wanted to square off against it. It wasn’t an already exhausted Iraqi army with ack-ack guns for air defense.
Ukraine is/was proceeding with an offensive. Stupid or not, that was their plan. Russia resuming its costly and apparently futile offensive, seems counterproductive.
What a non-sequitur reply. Does Ukraine's desire to be free from Russia's grasp change the fact that Nuland acted with an agenda, and that ISW may serve a similar agenda? Perhaps you should re-read the last paragraph of the article I linked earlier: "Supporting Ukraine is a good cause. But undiscerning support is never a good policy." It's OK to believe that their agenda is for a good cause, but it's also important to recognize that they have an agenda and should not be considered an unbiased source.
