Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[Storebought]

The Russian allegations of Ukraine being a "Nazi Country" have a real chance of sticking in the nonaligned countries if Ukraine/Poland don't take issue with this.

LOL. As if Russia doesn't have a neo-Nazi problem? Hello Kettle, it's Pot!

Russian ultranationalists aren't Nazis. Yes -- two sides of the same difference -- but you already know this.

Ukraine does an outstanding job messaging to US/Europe, but I say they have a tin ear with respect to the sympathetic nonaligned countries.

Yes, the authoritarians in Nigeria and India love Russia irrespective of right or left just for the very fact Russia is aggressive and hegemonic, but Ukraine isn't making it easier to win hearts and minds with making the coloureds sit in the back of the bus if there is a bus at all.

[Damocles]

Yes, the authoritarians in Nigeria and India love Russia irrespective of right or left just for the very fact Russia is aggressive and hegemonic, but Ukraine isn't making it easier to win hearts and minds with making the coloureds sit in the back of the bus if there is a bus at all.

[citation needed]

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Assuming Russia survives this wave of sanctions (if it can make it past the first couple of months then most likely it will have survived) then it will be a Russia vs Europe race on who can decouple from each other faster.  

On paper Europe has an edge in terms of getting alternative sources of energy.  For the USA to help I recommend USA/Canada go on a "Hydrocarbon New Deal" to have a massive surge in gas and oil energy output to be exported to Europe.  Russia has the tougher job to shift their energy exports to PRC and India.  Russia also has to find alternative sources of imports (mostly manufacturing goods from PRC) to replace those that it gets from Europe.  Here the ability to transport these goods over the vast Eurasian plain would be a challenge.   From this vantage point Xi's Belt and Road idea from 10 years ago now looks like genius.

The big winner from this war - both Russia merely launching it, and the West's response - is China.
The main levers of the West's response are sanctions.
As I said yesterday:

https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/1497927186329780229

This highlights an underappreciated downside of sanctions.
They inherently undermine global ties and links by forcing people to not rely on international institutions.
Forcing Russia off SWIFT works in the short term, but in the long run, it only gives us less leverage vis a vis Russia, not more.
Yes, there is gain to be made from cutting them off temporarily. But countries relying on institutions you at least sort of control is the main means of leverage in the modern world, which is heavily shaped by institutions collectively influenced by various nations, in various proportions.
Say there is fragmentation and Russia has survived by teaming up with China in key areas. What leverage do we have left?
War?
Will Americans stand for that?

China and India can make themselves into kingmakers of a new world order that is polarized between Russia and America.

[Storebought]

Does it strike you that "Denazification of Ukraine" sounds suspiciously like "Dekulakization of Ukraine"?

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1498419741106397185?s=20&t=uvCMy75UXrWzl3E7zA...

[Storebought]

Yes, the authoritarians in Nigeria and India love Russia irrespective of right or left just for the very fact Russia is aggressive and hegemonic, but Ukraine isn't making it easier to win hearts and minds with making the coloureds sit in the back of the bus if there is a bus at all.

[citation needed]

From the very article I posted:

The Nigerian president, Muhammadu Buhari, said on Monday: “All who flee a conflict situation have the same right to safe passage under UN convention and the colour of their passport or their skin should make no difference,” citing reports that Ukrainian police had obstructed Nigerians.

“From video evidence, first-hand reports, and from those in contact with ... Nigerian consular officials, there have been unfortunate reports of Ukrainian police and security personnel refusing to allow Nigerians to board buses and trains heading towards Ukraine-Poland border,” he said.

“One group of Nigerian students having been repeatedly refused entry into Poland have concluded they have no choice but to travel again across Ukraine and attempt to exit the country via the border with Hungary.”

[jaichind]

The big winner from this war - both Russia merely launching it, and the West's response - is China.
The main levers of the West's response are sanctions.
  kingmakers of a new world order that is polarized between Russia and America.

When two parties attack each other, everyone else benefits.  So it is not a surprise that PRC wins as well as likely the USA energy industry.  Europe can only hope to achieve what we Chinese call "殺敵一千，自損八百" (Kill 1000 of the enemy ranks but lose 800 from your own ranks).  That was the nature of the Trump tariffs against the PRC.  Clearly, both USA and PRC lost but the PRC lost more.  It as only COVID-19 turning PRC into the producer of last resort that turned it around for the PRC.

[WMS]

Bolsonaro is not on Russia's side. He just refuses to take Ukraine's side.
Maduro on the other hand...

‘Neutral’ and ‘On Russia’s side’ is quite a fine distinction these days.

Only because the Western narrative decided to force places that aren’t involved with this to pick a side.

Brazil has long been a neutral country, that’s our main diplomatic approach since the 90s. We don’t want enemies. Bolsonaro adopting neutral stance, against these harsh sanctions against Russia, is something that even a leftist government would support because it’s close to a consensus approach:

https://www.twitter.com/BrazilBrian/status/1498370398496477191
At least on this some level of long-term consistency is maintained although they messed on the UN vote. Follows neutrality position and helps to not isolate Russia even more. Literally the first thing this government does in almost 4 years that isn’t completely dumb and a reason of shame. This isn’t our conflict and it’s wrong to take any side, stay friends with both US and Russia in order to find a middle ground solution.

Especially when there’s the risk of nuclear conflict, it’s scary how some people here want to escalate things so aggressively when them and their countries are not even involved on this.

Well then, under your logic Brazil should follow the same stance if the U.S. invaded, say, Cuba?

I somehow doubt that would be the case, tankie.

Neither USA or RUSSIA or CHINA. Cuba, Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina are Latin American neighbors and therefore ARE our problem. Other places far away are not.

If everyone who doesn’t side with your cause is a “tankie” you will find not much sympathy here, as the mainstream forces here on both right and left support neutrality.

If you don’t respect or sympathize with the Latin American background and perspective, there’s not much reason for people to try to look through the Eastern European one either.

The Ukrainian cause is valid, but there’s a whole context behind it that relates to each place differently. And that’s okay.

You won’t find this “shame rhetoric forcing into submission to what I want” to work that much here within our diplomacy or with me. I favor respectful debates.

I’m exposing the hypocrisy of your position. I specifically chose Cuba because it is closer to the U.S. than Brazil and thus by the standards you set Brazil should be neutral because Cuba is more a neighbor of the U.S. than of Brazil. If you really oppose countries invading other countries to annex them de jure or de facto, then you should react the same way to identical scenarios, should you not?

But of course you won’t, because your stance isn’t about either morality or legality. It’s about anti-Westernism and especially anti-Americanism above all other considerations. You can try to cloak that in rubric about ‘the Latin American viewpoint’ all you want, but those are just window dressing to cover your less-than-scrupulous neutrality.

I call you and those like you tankies because that’s what you are.
https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/1496871285917470720?s=21

You are known in part by the company you keep. You actually going to ‘both sides’ this? Have you checked what the various human rights organizations of the world are saying?

If you want a respectful debate, try not defending a morally vacuous and hypocritical position.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Assuming Russia survives this wave of sanctions (if it can make it past the first couple of months then most likely it will have survived) then it will be a Russia vs Europe race on who can decouple from each other faster.  

On paper Europe has an edge in terms of getting alternative sources of energy.  For the USA to help I recommend USA/Canada go on a "Hydrocarbon New Deal" to have a massive surge in gas and oil energy output to be exported to Europe.  Russia has the tougher job to shift their energy exports to PRC and India.  Russia also has to find alternative sources of imports (mostly manufacturing goods from PRC) to replace those that it gets from Europe.  Here the ability to transport these goods over the vast Eurasian plain would be a challenge.   From this vantage point Xi's Belt and Road idea from 10 years ago now looks like genius.

The big winner from this war - both Russia merely launching it, and the West's response - is China.
The main levers of the West's response are sanctions.
As I said yesterday:

https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/1497927186329780229

This highlights an underappreciated downside of sanctions.
They inherently undermine global ties and links by forcing people to not rely on international institutions.
Forcing Russia off SWIFT works in the short term, but in the long run, it only gives us less leverage vis a vis Russia, not more.
Yes, there is gain to be made from cutting them off temporarily. But countries relying on institutions you at least sort of control is the main means of leverage in the modern world, which is heavily shaped by institutions collectively influenced by various nations, in various proportions.
Say there is fragmentation and Russia has survived by teaming up with China in key areas. What leverage do we have left?
War?
Will Americans stand for that?

China and India can make themselves into kingmakers of a new world order that is polarized between Russia and America.

China will just make itself king.

[Vosem]

I sort of wonder if the Suez crisis felt a little like this in real time. On one hand, the stakes here are obviously higher due to the extreme irrationality of the aggressor power. On the other hand, at least in this case there was already a general sense among sane people that Russia's glory days were behind it, whereas my understanding of the events of 1956 was that many people still thought of Britain as a more or less equal partner to the USA and USSR until it tried to intervene in Egypt and got soundly thrashed by a bunch of pissed-off Arab nationalist boat pilots.

In the Suez Crisis it felt like the notion that Britain and France were yesterday's powers had the aspect of self-fulfilling prophecy to it, in that their military objectives were obtained easily but it was revealed that they could not operate without the backing of the United States, which insanely refused to support them. This time around it seems like plenty of sane observers, both within and without Russia (Samo Burja comes to mind immediately) had a very high opinion of the Russian military, but while it will probably end up winning, belief in its fundamental competency, both at the operational and propaganda levels, has been pretty much shattered.

For this to be similar to the Suez Crisis, Russia would've had to walk over Ukraine and then give them back their independence when China backstabbed them. It doesn't seem like that is what's happening (although any sane observer knows, after this, that inasmuch as a Sino-Russian partnership exists Russia is very much the junior partner, much as Britain was obviously the junior partner in an Anglo-American partnership after 1956).

Is that good or bad that Russia is falling into the orbit of China instead of vice versa?

Vice versa hasn't really been an option since Project 596, and was unrealistic by the end of the Chinese Civil War.

(Similarly, vice versa for Anglo-American partnership was never really an option after the end of the Civil War, and was unrealistic by the signing of the Oregon Treaty).

Anyway, obviously bad, but if that particular die hadn't been cast this invasion wouldn't have happened in the first place and the world as a whole would look extremely different.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The big winner from this war - both Russia merely launching it, and the West's response - is China.
The main levers of the West's response are sanctions.
  kingmakers of a new world order that is polarized between Russia and America.

When two parties attack each other, everyone else benefits.  So it is not a surprise that PRC wins as well as likely the USA energy industry.  Europe can only hope to achieve what we Chinese call "殺敵一千，自損八百" (Kill 1000 of the enemy ranks but lose 800 from your own ranks).  That was the nature of the Trump tariffs against the PRC.  Clearly, both USA and PRC lost but the PRC lost more.  It as only COVID-19 turning PRC into the producer of last resort that turned it around for the PRC.

Two things.
1, I learned two Chinese characters (千 and 百)! Thank you!
2, it's hard to deny this reality that you speak of more broadly. (IIRC) even anti-PRC hawks are saying that China will benefit, but see Russia as a bigger evil.

[Red Velvet]

Bolsonaro is not on Russia's side. He just refuses to take Ukraine's side.
Maduro on the other hand...

‘Neutral’ and ‘On Russia’s side’ is quite a fine distinction these days.

Only because the Western narrative decided to force places that aren’t involved with this to pick a side.

Brazil has long been a neutral country, that’s our main diplomatic approach since the 90s. We don’t want enemies. Bolsonaro adopting neutral stance, against these harsh sanctions against Russia, is something that even a leftist government would support because it’s close to a consensus approach:

https://www.twitter.com/BrazilBrian/status/1498370398496477191
At least on this some level of long-term consistency is maintained although they messed on the UN vote. Follows neutrality position and helps to not isolate Russia even more. Literally the first thing this government does in almost 4 years that isn’t completely dumb and a reason of shame. This isn’t our conflict and it’s wrong to take any side, stay friends with both US and Russia in order to find a middle ground solution.

Especially when there’s the risk of nuclear conflict, it’s scary how some people here want to escalate things so aggressively when them and their countries are not even involved on this.

Well then, under your logic Brazil should follow the same stance if the U.S. invaded, say, Cuba?

I somehow doubt that would be the case, tankie.

Neither USA or RUSSIA or CHINA. Cuba, Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina are Latin American neighbors and therefore ARE our problem. Other places far away are not.

If everyone who doesn’t side with your cause is a “tankie” you will find not much sympathy here, as the mainstream forces here on both right and left support neutrality.

If you don’t respect or sympathize with the Latin American background and perspective, there’s not much reason for people to try to look through the Eastern European one either.

The Ukrainian cause is valid, but there’s a whole context behind it that relates to each place differently. And that’s okay.

You won’t find this “shame rhetoric forcing into submission to what I want” to work that much here within our diplomacy or with me. I favor respectful debates.

I’m exposing the hypocrisy of your position. I specifically chose Cuba because it is closer to the U.S. than Brazil and thus by the standards you set Brazil should be neutral because Cuba is more a neighbor of the U.S. than of Brazil. If you really oppose countries invading other countries to annex them de jure or de facto, then you should react the same way to identical scenarios, should you not?

But of course you won’t, because your stance isn’t about either morality or legality. It’s about anti-Westernism and especially anti-Americanism above all other considerations. You can try to cloak that in rubric about ‘the Latin American viewpoint’ all you want, but those are just window dressing to cover your less-than-scrupulous neutrality.

I call you and those like you tankies because that’s what you are.
https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/1496871285917470720?s=21
You are known in part by the company you keep. You actually going to ‘both sides’ this? Have you checked what the various human rights organizations of the world are saying?

If you want a respectful debate, try not defending a morally vacuous and hypocritical position.

It’s not hypocritical at all, it’s having an uniform moral ruler and not being submissive towards white supremacy rule that treats some places as more relevant than others. When they are not.

Brazil didn’t try to isolate USA when it invaded non-white countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and so it won’t do the same against Russia. Consistency check.

Brazil doesn’t approve of Ukraine invasion just as it doesn’t approve of wars done by western countries on the Middle East or Asia, which are normalized as acceptable by your media. Consistency check.

Your proposal to leave a neutral position when something that is not of our concern but ONLY when it happens against an European/Western territory but not doing the same when those places are the aggressors and invaders. THAT would be a big contradiction.

Ukraine is a sovereign country just like Iraq, Palestine, Yemen are. And it deserves to have that respected. But to have an uniform moral ruler in the geopolitical context would mean either picking a fight with EVERYONE or NOBODY.

To pick a fight with everyone would be stupid as hell, so we don’t antagonize US, Russia or anyone for stuff that isn’t related to us. That’s why the “fight nobody” neutral stance is embraced all across ideological boards.

It must be distressing to hear we don’t consider you or anyone as “the big hero” in the geopolitical stage, but that’s just a self-congratulatory delusion you chose to feed yourself on. There are no saints anywhere and US absolutely has no bigger moral ruler than the one that Brazil, a peaceful country, has.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

1, I learned two Chinese characters (千 and 百)! Thank you!

They mean the same things in Japanese too btw. 千 is sen and 百 is hyaku.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

1, I learned two Chinese characters (千 and 百)! Thank you!

They mean the same things in Japanese too btw. 千 is sen and 百 is hyaku.

I figured as much.
(And Jisho.org confirmed my suspicions)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Regarding Red Velvet's defense of Brazilian neutrality, he gets that the forces that drive his part of the world to (rightly) see American hegemony as an especially serious threat are the same forces that drive Volodymyr Zelensky's part of the world to (rightly) see Russian hegemony as an especially serious threat, doesn't he? That being the case, a "moral ruler" that actively objects to one but not the other only really makes sense if one sees Latin America as a proper Brazilian sphere of influence (or something), or else see the world outside Latin America as too far away to be any of one's concern.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It is a waste of time, focus, and energy to try to force the entire neutral world to your side against their will. Thankfully that's not what the Biden Administration is doing.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Seems like the past couple of days have been a logistical and operational pause and reassessment by the Russian army. Failed to take any major city in a thunder run so are waiting to move up larger numbers of troops and equipment to probably siege instead, with greater use of firepower.

[super6646]

'Show this to Putin.' A 6-year-old girl killed by Russian shelling

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/28/europe/gallery/ukraine-girl-killed/index.html

Ugh that choked me up

[Frodo]

Russia is finding out the hard way that its 'partnership without limits' with China isn't all it cracked up to be:

https://twitter.com/AJEnglish/status/1498214365140602881

[Storr]

Another free T-72, this one appears barely used:

https://twitter.com/NotWoofers/status/1498435530341720070?s=20&t=XhOHu322KlD...

[Damocles]

Russia is finding out the hard way that its 'partnership without limits' with China isn't all it cracked up to be:

It's almost like China and Russia have diverging political interests in Central Asia, and China lays claim to Tannu Tuva as well as Khabarovskiy and Primorskiy Krai regions. Their "partnership" was founded on mutual disdain for Western institutions, not any actual substantive principles of cooperation.

[WMS]

Bolsonaro is not on Russia's side. He just refuses to take Ukraine's side.
Maduro on the other hand...

‘Neutral’ and ‘On Russia’s side’ is quite a fine distinction these days.

Only because the Western narrative decided to force places that aren’t involved with this to pick a side.

Brazil has long been a neutral country, that’s our main diplomatic approach since the 90s. We don’t want enemies. Bolsonaro adopting neutral stance, against these harsh sanctions against Russia, is something that even a leftist government would support because it’s close to a consensus approach:

https://www.twitter.com/BrazilBrian/status/1498370398496477191
At least on this some level of long-term consistency is maintained although they messed on the UN vote. Follows neutrality position and helps to not isolate Russia even more. Literally the first thing this government does in almost 4 years that isn’t completely dumb and a reason of shame. This isn’t our conflict and it’s wrong to take any side, stay friends with both US and Russia in order to find a middle ground solution.

Especially when there’s the risk of nuclear conflict, it’s scary how some people here want to escalate things so aggressively when them and their countries are not even involved on this.

Well then, under your logic Brazil should follow the same stance if the U.S. invaded, say, Cuba?

I somehow doubt that would be the case, tankie.

Neither USA or RUSSIA or CHINA. Cuba, Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina are Latin American neighbors and therefore ARE our problem. Other places far away are not.

If everyone who doesn’t side with your cause is a “tankie” you will find not much sympathy here, as the mainstream forces here on both right and left support neutrality.

If you don’t respect or sympathize with the Latin American background and perspective, there’s not much reason for people to try to look through the Eastern European one either.

The Ukrainian cause is valid, but there’s a whole context behind it that relates to each place differently. And that’s okay.

You won’t find this “shame rhetoric forcing into submission to what I want” to work that much here within our diplomacy or with me. I favor respectful debates.

I’m exposing the hypocrisy of your position. I specifically chose Cuba because it is closer to the U.S. than Brazil and thus by the standards you set Brazil should be neutral because Cuba is more a neighbor of the U.S. than of Brazil. If you really oppose countries invading other countries to annex them de jure or de facto, then you should react the same way to identical scenarios, should you not?

But of course you won’t, because your stance isn’t about either morality or legality. It’s about anti-Westernism and especially anti-Americanism above all other considerations. You can try to cloak that in rubric about ‘the Latin American viewpoint’ all you want, but those are just window dressing to cover your less-than-scrupulous neutrality.

I call you and those like you tankies because that’s what you are.
https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/1496871285917470720?s=21
You are known in part by the company you keep. You actually going to ‘both sides’ this? Have you checked what the various human rights organizations of the world are saying?

If you want a respectful debate, try not defending a morally vacuous and hypocritical position.

It’s not hypocritical at all, it’s having an uniform moral ruler and not being submissive towards white supremacy rule that treats some places as more relevant than others. When they are not.

Brazil didn’t try to isolate USA when it invaded non-white countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and so it won’t do the same against Russia. Consistency check.

Brazil doesn’t approve of Ukraine invasion just as it doesn’t approve of wars done by western countries on the Middle East or Asia, which are normalized as acceptable by your media. Consistency check.

Your proposal to leave a neutral position when something that is not of our concern but ONLY when it happens against an European/Western territory but not doing the same when those places are the aggressors and invaders. THAT would be a big contradiction.

Ukraine is a sovereign country just like Iraq, Palestine, Yemen are. And it deserves to have that respected. But to have an uniform moral ruler in the geopolitical context would mean either picking a fight with EVERYONE or NOBODY.

To pick a fight with everyone would be stupid as hell, so we don’t antagonize US, Russia or anyone for stuff that isn’t related to us. That’s why the “fight nobody” neutral stance is embraced all across ideological boards.

It must be distressing to hear we don’t consider you or anyone as “the big hero” in the geopolitical stage, but that’s just a self-congratulatory delusion you chose to feed yourself on. There are no saints anywhere and US absolutely has no bigger moral ruler than the one that Brazil, a peaceful country, has.

Ah, there’s that “whataboutism” I was waiting for! Seriously, it’s like you’re determined to check every tankie box on a form. And mentioning “white supremacy” too! Got to get that in there somehow I guess. Wait, so opposing Russia’s invasion is ‘white supremacy’ now? That’s wild.

Oh, you think it was wrong for the U.S. to go into Afghanistan?! God damn you hate the U.S. no matter what, don’t you? Thanks for providing evidence of your guiding principle! And you actually think racism was why the U.S. went into both Afghanistan and Iraq? We could’ve filled those needs much closer to home. There were motives both divine and devilish behind the U.S.’ actions - well, the revealed hidden documents suggest there wasn’t a plan of any stripe involved because that would require having enough competence to organize one - but in neither case was annexation a thing. But this is what you want, isn’t it, to deflect from your lack of consistency by changing the topic?

You do realize Iran is the primary force behind Yemen’s descent into civil war? They backed the Houthis and the former tyrant who had been overthrown by a popular uprising’s return to power. The Saudis and the rest became involved after that.

And just earlier today I read in the Brazilian election thread that support for condemning Russia is also “embraced all across ideological boards”. Funny how you didn’t mention that.

And there’s your last paragraph where you just couldn’t help yourself from an anti-American rant! Thanks for confirming again that your guiding principle is anti-Americanism above everything else. Your position can be argued for from a realpolitik position, but has no basis in morality, legality, or consistency.

It’s been amazing watching the true colors of the tankies worldwide get revealed.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

As for Russia becoming a client state of China, I'm sceptical. Reading this paper on the underwhelming level of economic cooperation between Russia and China since 2014 was illuminating: https://www.martenscentre.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Martens-Centre-Policy-Brief-Milov.pdf

Basically there are huge geographic and infrastructural barriers to trade between the two countries. Russia's population and economy is overwhelmingly Europe-facing, including oil and gas pipelines, and redirecting it over the Siberian wasteland would involve the kind of massive inefficiencies that doomed the USSR.



On top of that China doesn't really see much to invest in the Russian economy at the moment. Its foreign investments are typically ownership of assets for geopolitical purposes, and it's difficult to see Russia ever allowing a foreign government control its major companies like Rosneft or Gazprom, even if they required major investment.

Also competition in Central Asia is kind of an issue. Russia isn't going to want to give up a sphere of influence there any more than it has wanted to in Eastern Europe.

I think a more likely future for Russia under Putin is a giant petrostate North Korea: an independent, isolated actor trying to balance itself against all of its neighbours through nuclear weapons.

[Storr]

I don't blame Bulgaria for not sending their MiG-29s. It is several years off from receiving its replacement F-16s. I believe their claim if they gave their planes to Ukraine, there wouldn't be enough aircraft and parts left to defend Bulgaria. https://twitter.com/NotWoofers/status/1498440837830782978?s=20&t=XhOHu322KlD...

[Alcibiades]

At this point I’m pretty sceptical that the Russians will ever be able to recover from their disastrous start, and that their apparent tactical pause will be able to fix the fundamental issues they face. As far as I see it, their best-case scenario is now a crushingly pyrrhic victory.

The problems with the Russian army we’ve been seeing go well beyond simply an initial bad plan; it seems pretty clear that it is rotten from top to bottom, with gross incompetence at all levels. Ultimately, I think, what we are seeing are the consequences of having an army deeply embedded within a kleptocracy.

In addition, I fail to see how Russian morale is ever going to improve from its current rock-bottom status. It’s difficult to overemphasise how crippling this has been to the Russian effort so far, and it really seems that many analysts totally overlooked that morale is still very relevant to modern war prior to the invasion.

My biggest fear is that the Russians ramp up the indiscriminate bombing of civilians — the absolute nightmare scenario is that Putin turns Kyiv into another Grozny. I in no way want to minimise how awful this would be for the people of Ukraine, but the actual strategic value of this, especially in anything other than the very short term, is doubtful for Russia; particularly I imagine this would cause any last sanctions and measures that Western nations are holding back to be implemented, possibly plunging the Russian economy into total meltdown.