He’s desperate but he is also trying to leverage support eliciting Palestine …. Which has currency…..it is a Russian version of trump’s “we have bad ppl too”……plus I would not be surprised Russians are somehow helping Bibi along with GOP
@@ptonpc yes. After angering Serbia, they now did it with Israel. I am mulling over the way they might anger Hungary. With Orban it will be very difficult but Lavrov might just find a way 😁
@@ptonpc Not even considering the fact that Israel holds licencing rights over a lot of anti-tank and anti-air tech and now might be much more hesitant in stopping NATO countries sending a few of I don't know Spike LR or NLOS systems mounted on IMVs over. Expecting Russians can just shittalk Israel that would just take it in the ass was a unwise idea, because the whole Israeli defense policy is based on punishing any threat, however small, it is called the "fighting between wars" policy.
Mobilisation does not automatically give Putin a tick for winning in Ukraine unless he is thinking of carrying on the war for years - something that would be unpopular in Russia. Conscripted military personnel need equipment, logistics, training, leadership plus money. There will be old Soviet equipment in storage, but apart from that his resources are limited. Russia’s GDP is about the same as Canada’s, and shrinking, so the ability to suddenly deploy a large modern military just is not there.
Good point. The benefits of mobilisation is way off in time, if at all possible. One question here is how well informed Putin is *now* about the state of his forces. (He clearly didn't have a totally accurate picture before the invasion, though the greater failure of information was sure wrt Ukranian sentiments.) I've been really uneasy about these western predictions of declaration of war and mobilisation of Victory Day. Now I'm much less so, because it just doesn't make sense. Except maybe if planned as a short-lived PR move, ie the goal would be a national rallying NOT actually building up and using a greater military capability (which would take years to gain). But IF he does this, then he would be in a hurry to end to war.
Russia's GDP is rather less than Canada's. Before the war started it was about the same as Florida's; it will be less now. Anything close to full mobilisation will hugely damage an already withering Russian economy. They can't sustain the war they have now, let alone a full mobilisation.
@@malcaniscsm5184 As a Canadian, I have to point out that, while you are correct in terms of nominal GDP, in terms of purchasing power parity Russia is closer to France in real GDP.
Its interesting that you can listen to this several months later and its still mostly relevant, thing yas just been grinding on with more death and suffering
I think your priorities and their order is a good representation. A question is: Can "Putin Keep power in Russia" if Putin does not achieve "Winning in Ukraine"? Losing the war in Ukraine may cause Putin to be ousted. I doubt if the world (USA and Ukraine mostly) can allow Russia to look like they won the war (consider China-Taiwan and Russian re-invading other countries)
I think Anders underestimates the ability of Putin to be crushed in Ukraine and claim total victory and say that it was "exacly what they were aiming for". 🤣🤣
This analysis really resonated with me. It was unbiased, non-emotional, objective and logical. Makes a lot of sense without being sensational. Great video!
Anders Puck Nielsen is a Military analyst at the Defense Academy Centre for Maritime Operations in Denmark, and used to be Commanding Officer of the DIANA-class patrol boats for the Royal Danish Navy, so not really the usual RUclipsr, but a highly knowable analyst in his field, and as far away from network journalism as you can possible get.
I think that this is the last chance that Russia has to push back on the west. Russia is going to loose oil revenue to the point that they will have effectively no purchasing power outside the country. Russia, even if they put everything into building a military, just doesn't have the economy to do so for very long (if at all).
Russia has huge natural reserves. When all is said and done those have become marginalized on the international market. And if that comes true and is sustained because the mayor buyers have shifted to other sources and greener sources then he is in the same state as the GDR was before the wall came down. Everything spent on military or, in Russia's case, taken by oligarchs and the industry in shambles. Putin has neglected the normal economy because he could substitute it by purchasing consumer goods from the west. Once he has no more money and is sanctioned the country will fall back. And it is to be seen how that works out. My bet is that with his grip on the media and suppression forces there will be no October revolution against Tzar Vladimir. He will die some day like Stalin and, hopefully, more reasonable forces come into power.
Andres, you have a mastery of understanding of the Russian mindset and of the ongoing issues in the Russo-Ukrainian War. Thank you for this thoughtful piece.
@@TommyTCGT wow, and you bring so much insight and so many fantastic counter-arguments to back up your critic, we must most certainly believe you right away and flee on others channels.... Or not......
Im grateful for your analysis but to declare Putin being a try patriot is like declaring Hitler a patriot. As a german born after WW II I wouldn’t agree with such a view of an egotistical nationalistic brutal ruler, as he is harming his “beloved” country.
Putin doesn't see it as harming. He believes he is doing what he must to ensure the future of Russia as he knows his demographics won't support a large war in the future.... attack in order to protect... IMO
@@Ben-ry1py You could describe Putin as a 'patriot' if you think that Putin thinks that what he's doing is good for his country. He may well believe that because he has every incentive to believe that because his acts have been exceptionally good for himself and his allies. Not so good for the rest of the country though, and increasingly worse. I will believe he is a patriot when I see him doing something that is good for Russia but NOT good for HIM at the same time. I haven't seen that yet. Otherwise there really is no difference in this respect between him and people like Hitler. That's why I think the comment about Putin being a patriot was so wrong.
@@klapsigaarenbasgitaar1931 I hear that, but I disagree. I believe Putin believes this war was necessary to expa6and protect Russia. Remember, he thought Ukraine would roll over when he invaded. Given his mafia mentality, giving up is devastating. He can be Russia's worst enemy and not know it. He's a relic of the past, but still controls a rathe6large country. I believe that Putin wants Russia to expand it's power, but he miscalculated badly and it's not a simple thing for a dictator to loose a was he started.
I'd say Putin is a "patriot" to his own idea what that means. He also takes great influence from Stalin and Peter the Great. It all morphs into a view Putin sees as a way to gather support from the masses while he and his criminal cronies stuff their pockets with billions every year. How does a low end KGB guy become worth $92 billion? That's just one of Putin's old buddies. He has a lot more and they all hang together or they will hang separately.
Mr. Nielsen, thanks for your well considered content. Your knowledge a d thinking is really good. I’ve seen about three of your videos now and they are all excellent. You seriously earned my sub. Thank you again.
I appreciate your logical explanation... but everyone was saying that invading Ukraine was so utterly dumb and self-destructive that Putin wouldn't do it. And yet he went ahead anyway. Never underestimate stupidity!
Putin himself will never except defeat he never has in the past .he will twist it all around to make a defeat a victory. You are right ..and Russia has only just begun I mean even if he wins Ukraine he is not going to arrive to the borders of Moldova. Estonia Latvia etc and just tell his troops well boys the jobs done we will all head on home now . Putins dream has always been to claw back all the states that once belonged to Russia. Use nukes? of course he would and why would he own them if only to look at them for the next 20 years . Putins like a cornered cat .. he is not going to back down. I mean to say financialy he's already starting to go broke. Putins a man with nothing to lose. I don't think though putin could take all the other states with the rag tag outdated conventional army he has now .Nato combined would put putins army all in the grave before lunchtime, if they wanted too. His nukes are his only real ace card that he has left. Although I think a coup via his own people towards him will bring him down in the nor to distant future.
If you think Putin is stupid, you're underestimating your enemy which is a dangerous mistake. Case in point, look at Putin's colossal miscalculation about Ukraine and where it got him.
Mass mobilization also means mass armament, and I don't think Russia has the arms to do it if the last few months is any indication. Besides lack of quality equipment, it takes time to organize civilians into an army, and it looks like their existing military is already near maximum effort just maintaining a debilitating stalemate in Ukraine right now.
Russia still has a huge supply of captured weapons from WW2. They imported a mind boggling amount of Mosin-Nagant rifles (and ammo) of various types to the US after 1991. But they still have the bulk of the captured automatic rifles and machine-guns plus the captured ammo. The ammo is probably close to worthless by now based on how careless they operate in other aspects. But say they did issue them out, what kind of slapped together contraption type army would they have?? It would certainly be a disorganized cannon fodder army for starters. It would be no better than Hitler's Volkssturm rabble army.
@@LuvBorderCollies Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics. It doesn't matter how many weapons you have, Russia cannot supply its army without overseas assistance, and even China isn't going to be seen to supply Russia with the means to start WW3. Ukraine has proven that even the Russian regular army *as it stands* cannot self-sustain, and once it runs out of basic supplies it becomes a leaderless gang of rapists and murderers who cannot stand up to disciplined resistance. The only thing Putin can really do is flood the East with conscripts in a short-term 'surge' and hope to overwhelm local defences... but they *already tried that once* when Ukraine didn't have entrenched defences all throughout the West. All Ukraine has to do is withdraw in orderly fashion, and watch the conscripts die and starve.
Don’t let it cause you stress. Putin, his Generals and all the people who have got mega rich hanging onto his coattails all have their wealth and assets in the west, you wouldn’t firebomb a house when you knew your pension pot was inside.
@@andrehunter1295 his notion is that none of the former Soviet republics have any self determination. And we should have sold off all those newly formed democracys too Russia in the long run, Too buy the peace for our selfs. Sry I am not a impressed by the professor.
@@JMAssainatorz Oh, yes it is. At least for Putin's generation (which is where his support lies). But that withstanding I am more optimistic than Olga P. We could read the nuclear saber-rattling as being mostly for domestic consumption, as a way to build up to the heroism of preventing ww3.
@@JMAssainatorz Majority of Russian population is old enough to remember how devastating it was. It is not so much about the fact itself, but the way how it happened and its outcome. Russians call the end of Soviet Union "razval" - breakdown, collapse, demolition from inside. Another often used wording is "prosrali sojuz" - those in charge screwed it, waisted potential, made things worse etc. At first under Putin things started to turn better. Any other Russian president could afford ending up worse than he started, but not Putin. Any outcome of the conflict that reminds 1991 will be impossible to sell as a victory. Hmm, can Russians really think "hooray, we became the 2. Iran, but we got Donbas!"?
Putin's future will be interesting. How does he spin fighting Ukraine to a stalemate, two new NATO countries on Russia's border, and economic sanctions that will cripple Russia for decades? How is this better?
@@pax6833 The average Russian and oligarchs will remember the good times before February 24, 2022. The average N. Korean doesn't have any good times to remember, so it was easier for Kim.
@@UnipornFrumm Putin certainly doesn't believe in (or even give lip service to) economic equality, so I wouldn't call him a communist. Fascist nationalist seems closer.
That alone is not mass Mobilisation and unlikely to help. Calling a war would give Putin addition powers but the Russians are generally apathetic to fighting for Ukraine (they like the idea of getting Ukraine but don’t see it as something worth fighting for at all costs) Putins problems isn’t a lack of people alone, his problem is deeply systematic- remember this army is the reformed army after their disappointing performance in 2008. It’s clear that corruption has corrupted the army to a point that it will take years to fix, assuming that’s even possible because Putin doesn’t know how to rule without corruption. At this stage sending more soldiers to Ukraine is just Russia finding out the answer to the age old question “what is maximum no. of Russian soldiers that can be killed by a single howitzer 777”? Demographically Russia is not doing well either, asking families to send their only son to the front will it be popular. Add to this that the “best and brightest” have been steadily leaving Russia for the past decade as well as the 300000 that have left due to this war and you get a sense of just how bad things really are. This was Russias last gasp, and it’s a gamble that will not pay off.
Russia has already been defeated in Ukraine. They just haven't admitted it yet. Half there tanks are gone and they may not admit it until all there tanks are gone and still then they may not admit it.
Som altid en god forklaring! One question, lets for a moment assume that western deliveries of weapons to Ukraine, results in an ukrainian counter-attack, and that Donetsk and Luhansk, and possibel even Crimea is at risk of falling... What will then be the most likely result for Putin? Will he accept that he might lose those territories? Or will he have to escalate futher? Luhansk and Donetsk are not as I understand it, particular important to Putin or the Russians, but Crimea and particular Sevastapol are a "Hero"-city, and are close to sacret places in Russian understanding.
But the question is: how could he escalate? It is very hard to see a way for him to escalate that would both be possible, and in any way have any positive outcomes for him. Can't really mobilise - would create instability (and be too slow anyway). Can't use nukes. Already practically blockading the coast - will not become more able to do this. Has already declared the airspace closed - again, will not become more able to enforce this. Can't cut UA off from the West without engaging Poland/Romania => direct conflict with NATO Could use chemical weapons - but the negatives would outweigh the positives. The only feasible escalation I could see is intense bombing of cities. Which would mean many dead Ukrainians, but not really any gains for Russia. So what he could do is bomb Kharkiv, Mikolajev or Odessa to smithereens and then accept a "victory" of internationally guaranteed Russian access to Crimea for 25 or 50 years. He has destroyed ukro-nazis' high command (the city bombed to rubble - Russian propaganda can surely find something or someone to celebrate as the most horrid devil being taken out*), and he secured Crimea for decades to come! Hurray! * From a propaganda angle he could probably use Mariupol for this. Blow up the steelworks in some spectacular fashion, declare victory, withdraw from Donbas and negotiate Crimea over the next 20 years. There's probably some other place (in the Donbas) that could also serve as this "victory" - I just know too little about RU propaganda to be able to pinpoint it. From a propaganda angle, Odessa would also work well for this, unfortunately.
@@Asptuber I am honestly not sure how much more he can escalete, in practical terms, but I would assume that he has a lot of options. What the russians mostly need right now, is infantry, and there are ways for them to get that. Also while it has not been really a big part of this conflict, in ways that were talked about earlier, there are options for mercenary troops... Low quality sure, but arguably better than nothing, and unlike the russian conscribts, mercenaries from Africa, or India or whereever those may be recruited, would not have family in Ukraine. It is a long shot, I know, and unlikely... But it is an option.
Sevastapol mostly holds strategic value as a black sea naval base, but if Russian naval losses keep up at their current rate that might make it a much less bitter pill to swallow, since there'll barely be a navy to station there.
@@hedgehog3180 No, Sevastapol is a something of a "holy" city in russian understanding. The Crimean war, and WW2 had significant battles fought over it, and something around 2 mio russians died defending and retaking the city... It is not only important strategically, it is very significant for russian military culture.
@@MrBandholm Great job at contradicting for nothing. The main reason IS geostrategic. It IS the current harbor of the Black Sea fleet, which has monstruous implications. THEN there are historical regions, for sure. Noone was saying the contrary....
Yes, there is no exit strategy for a dictator, he cant just go and retire in his palace on the black sea. Apparently Putin was obsessed with the killing of Qadafi and watched the video over and over again.
Well, that's true for almost all founding fathers of countries (Yeltsin obviously doesn't count). They are the best at holding power, because otherwise they couldn't have been the founding father.
If you knew what Putin is really against, you would side with him.if the US is to control the globe unopposed you can expect a tyrannical one government world which would make PRC look like a kindergarten, you will live a dystopian existence, the people pushing this agenda have already started testing things to come, covid was an exercise in mass population control, next will be digital currency. What humanity needs is a multi polar world, because if there's only 1 power and its hijacked it leaves humanity in peril.
I would go along with all this if it were not for fact that Putin was crazy enough to attempt an invasion in the first place. He also thought nothing of a chemical attacks on UK soil that also affected bystanders. Actually the Russian regime thought that it was quite funny.
Putin is not logical. The poison attacks, including not just the Skripals, but also Alexander Litvinenko, were done to show Putin's power. The people who were killed had already defected to the UK. There was nothing to gain by killing them except to show Russia's strength and abilities.
I think Putin will announce they have annexed the regions they control atm, and then also say any attacks in those regions as attacks on Russia proper and say they will escalate as needed.
Mobilization could be worse, declaration of war means Ukraine can atack russian soil, as well. Anyway, this analysis is the best one and a real challenge for the dissection in pretty good comments I saw here. Again, well done.
Thank you Anders for this commentary and analysis I think your views are well thought out. Someone once said that the truth has a certain ring to it, and that’s what I hear when you speak .
@@klapsigaarenbasgitaar1931 I have a good friend who grew up in the Soviet Union, he said the Russian people have been brainwashed by the gov. Media for so long its hopeless . At least here [ USA ] we have multiple choices for information, you choose .
@@kenboydart You are right! Whatever they say about 'main stream media', which I think is a misleading concept introduced by opponents of free press, we should cherish the options we have in the West and support those platforms that are having a hard time because of a loss of income in the digital age.
Very nice video: thank you. However, I disagree on mobilization resulting in victory over Ukraine. Not enough trained men, equipment. To achieve victory by number you also need a very mild resistance and Ukraine resistance is incontestably fierce
Very interesting. However, I think money is a factor here, in particular Putin's own fortune and that of his cronies. Also consider Putin's physical and mental health.
You are absolutely correct. 1) Putin is not stupid and knows the consequences of using nuclear weapons. It will be game over, and he doesn't want to lose power, so that's a non starter. 2) Similarly, conscription broadcasts a need, which equates to "we're losing troops", which breeds concerned citizenry. 3) Putin will want to save face by acknowledging he's removed the "NAZI" threat (which never was) One further point, what if Ukraine decides it wants Donbas, Luhansk, The Crimea etc back, and launches a counter-offensive to reclaim those territories? In that scenario, I think Putin would have to call up reserves.
Losing the war in Ukraine (accepting defeat) would significantly undermine his power in Russia. That’s because Ukraine will not stop at getting back to pre war status, they will want to retake what was lost in 2014. Too much damage has been done. Even if zelensky says that it’s victory, Ukraine will see it as betrayal and eventually will try to get back to it. Losing Donbas or Crimea is a loss you can’t spin
i don't think ukraine will be in. a position to take crimea back after this war. i think ukraine will be lucky to get mariupol back. ukraine is itself taking heavy loses while its economy and infrastructure is destroyed.
Putin can accept defeat and declare victory by claiming that "denazification" is complete. Donetsk and Luhansk could become autonomous areas within Ukraine.
@@johnridout6540 i find that unlikely, unless the war is already highly unpopular in russia. Putin needs to maintain an image of strength and competence to hold on to power in any significant measure. Such a 'victory' reeks too much of the bad excuse that it is. Too many people would see through such a thing and lose trust in him.
@@nanonano2595 Putin needs to publish more manly photos of him without his shirt.LOL Its a mystery to me but I guess Russian women have a much different view of manliness than European or No.American women.
@@nanonano2595 The Russian propaganda is doing a great job brainwashing the people. They will make Russians believe they won even if they really lost. I know some Russians living in northern Germany and in southern Denmark who even still today are total believers in the lies from Russian media.
Excellent analysis. But what you shouldn't forget is that without declaring martial law. Russia is likely going to be without an army soon. Simply because most solders are going to quit and go home (which they can in a special operation, but not in a war). So to keep being in power. Putin has to find one way or the other to keep the Russian army intact.
Hmm. But couldn't Putin do some variant of stop-loss? Lengthen existing contracts and make it really hard to get out of them. It might also be possible to fiddle with conscription in such a way to make it even more unattractive than taking a contract (wasn't conscription in Soviet times multiple years? Bring that back, maybe even worse and offer 15month contracts as an alternative...). With something like that he could probably keep it going quite a few months longer, before he faces so much displeasure that it risks societal stability. Though there might be a problem here with regional (ethnic) displeasure/instability creeping up on him.
@@Asptuber currently there is an existing Putin degree that's forbidding conscripts to serve outside Russia and a lot of rumors that conscripts have been turned into contract soldiers without their knowledge. But the core problem is still that unless Putin declares a war. Contract soldiers can quit their existing contract prematurely and can only be harresed, but not court martialed in return.
@@digitaleswerken I think it would probably be easier to change the law to make it harder for contract soldiers to quit than it would be to do general mobilisation. Even though it is a conscript army, it is not like in Finland or Israel - the popular support for the armed forces, and the personal connections to it, just isn't there at the same scale. If you try mobilisation it will be chaos, and dangerously unpopular. But if you just change the rules to make it harder for the poor sods who can't avoid the army to leave the middle class in European Russia won't mind much.
'The Tzar has the ears of a goat!' That old Slavic folk tail is apt here. It is not the Tzar's fault it is his bad advisors. He will claim it is General's fault, so hopefully a pull out after he purges the Army brass.
I'm still missing a discussion of the russian leadership's ideology, which clearly is incompatible to almost the rest of the world. An outcome like the one outlined here may eventually overcome the present crisis, but it would also mean the can gets kicked further down the road - until next time? In other words, how could their ruling ideology be challenged? This ought to be a global discussion, and why not through the UN?
Right. Putin can now see how ineffectual his military is. Any withdrawal will be followed by an attempted strengthening of his military. And their ideology is fascism with a kleptocratic power structure. The best way I can think to counter them is to call them out publicly for their lying and for their atrocious behavior. Make it impossible for other countries to deny. And then do everything we can to get the Russian people good information. We could also work at buying off the oligarchs to help us since they’re non-ideological.
The UN is toothless as Russia sits in the security council. And yes Russia will try again, the only chance for Ukraine is to defeat Russia now and become part of the west (EU/NATO) to put it out of reach from Russia.
There is also the fact that mobilisation would worsen a lot actual problems and would take a lot of time. Conscripts are inefficient in comparison to professional soldiers.
Seen it for a very outside position and perspective, I can notice some "aggressive alliance that is made for be a pain in the ars to Russia", it may not be an existential threat but is definitely for undermine Russia's regional power, and just to clarify I'm not supporting Russia's acts, I just pointing the obvious.
I think there's a lot of assumptions in this piece. Is it really that easy to sell a defeat at home? It might have been before Bucha, but at this point, I don't see Ukraine giving anything up that Putin could sell as a win. But I simply do not know enough about Russia to compare the internal risks of trying to spin a defeat and mobilization.
Its easy. They believed the garbage about Nazis, they'll believe whatever he tells them. Those who don't are not going to do anything about it. That kind of makes me worry about mobilization, even if tens of thousands of people complain that their sons got killed, he doesn't have to care.
(eh, misread you at first) I don't think Bucha matters at home at all. Enough people either don't believe in it, or think it is no worse than what Russian propaganda has been all about for years re. "the children of Donbas". But in the long run, Ukraine can't go to war to avenge Bucha (or Mariupol) for ever. Maybe for a year or two, but not indefinitely. For selling a defeat as a victory Putin really only needs _something_, however minor. Even something like international guarantees of Crimea being Russian for 50 years might do it. (Not that this is minor, but Ukraine could easily agree to it, especially if it came with a few goodies (money, special rights for Ukrainians in Crimea (visa freedom, right of residence and other things that would actually also be in the interest of Russia))). I'm not too up on the Ukrainian constitution when it comes to regions - I only know that (as with anything to do with UA politics over the last 20+ years) this is an area where you could easily make some tweaks (direct elections of governors, oblast-level assemblies, whatever) that wouldn't matter one jota to Ukraine (it's not like how regional governing works is an integral part of the national identity), but could easily be sold by Putin as "liberating the people from the Nazis in Kiev, bringing democracy to the villages".
@@Asptuber To elaborate, the reason I think Bucha matters is that I think it makes it really hard for Selensky to make any concessions regarding Cimea or Donbass. Before, I think Ukraine could and would have agreed to stipulations like you are proposing, right now, I think it wouldn't go over well with the Ukrainian population. I might be wrong, though, I'm not Ukrainian and I'm a pampered westerner that never lived through war myself. It's just my takeaway from recent reporting.
I think Bucha is more of a rallying cry than an actual reason, Ukraine is currently winning and there are really no signs that'll change so the Ukrainian leadership is probably eyeing the possibility of retaking their entire border. And NATO is surely encouraging this because if Ukraine restored it's borders then it could join NATO without issue. Russia has barely made any gains in Donbass while Ukraine has made some major counterattacks in Kharkiv and are poised to set up a much bigger offensive that could threaten supplies to Izyum in the same way they forced a Russian retreat North West of Kyiv by being poised to cut the supply lines. In Kherson Ukraine seems to also be gettimg ready for a much bigger counterattack, they've been on the outskirts of the city for weeks now and taking it could threaten Russian supplies from Crimea. It might be the case that Ukrainian attacks on the Russian navy are part of a strategy to free up garrison forces in Odessa for such a counterattack.
This was superb, you deserve many more active subscribers. I particularly like your style of calm, dispassionate analysis used in a persuasive logical and rational manner. With this video though, there is one slight weakness in your hypothesis. You have provided a framework for rational and logical decision making at strategic level. However, does the hypothesis stand up to attaching to a (arguably) illogical and irrational Putin? Perhaps you could ‘reverse engineer’ your hypothesis for the logic and rationale for Putin embarking on this adventure? Or have you done that and I missed it? Keep up the excellent work.👍😀
What has Putin done that is illogical or irrational from his position at the time? He has made decisions based on incorrect information, but that doesn't make him crazy.
I like your analysis, but it seems to me that in this video you haven't tackled what we might call the "hard problem" - also the most important problem of this situation. By that, I mean this: Europe will never be at peace until the majority of the Russian population learns and accepts that they have been lied to terribly for 20 years, that not only is their army astonishingly incompetent rather than the powerful force they've been encouraged to believe it to be, but also that the army has tortured, raped, and murdered Ukrainian civilians and stolen their washing machines - and that this kind of behaviour is totally unacceptable on the modern battlefield. And that Ukraine is really not full of Nazis and has a right to exist as an independent nation. What we have here is a situation that, no matter how the war ends and whether Putin remains in power or not, there is a large proportion of the Russian population that thinks it's perfectly OK to invade Ukraine to get them back under the influence of the motherland, and that "war is war", so it's acceptable for the boys to go over there and loot what they can. The fastest way of solving this problem, it seems to me, would be for Russia to suffer a crushing, humiliating defeat, such that even ordinary Russians feel the consequences in their everyday lives. That's the only way Nazi Germany finally ended, after all. And we're facing a similar problem now with Russia.
He didn´t tackle it much in this video because his focus was on Putin´s narrative. He did talk about Putin´s need to control information in Russia so the russians don´t get the reality of what they are and are doing in Ukraine and why. He talked about how Putin could spin the fiasco in Ukraine as a victory and in that scenario the russian people don´t know the truth and are not going to. From Putin´s perspective.
Regardless of what happens next, Putin' himself will be enshrined in Russian history as the leader of the worst two military failures in modern day history - Battle of Mariupol and Battle of Kyiv (not to mention the loss of the Moskva). On the other hand, Ukraine has gained an international respect and admiration that no one could have ever imagined. For Putin, it's already a loose/loose situation, he has shamed his county militarily, and set his country back decades of economic prosperity.
Quite good analysis, if not at time (probably purposely over-simplistic). I think it recognises options quite well, but I do not necessarily agree with the outcomes. For example I see loss in Ukraine as threat to putka, not to russian regime, but for putka himself it could be a trigger. I do believe that invasion was partially due to internal pressures and it was a way to bolster the regime - very similar reason why Argentina invaded Falklands... and it worked all the way until they lost. And I feel similar is true for russia, now people rallied around putka and "Z" and "bug ribbon", but if russians were to lose I think It would crumble. Sure russia has much better grip on narrative and nation which is generally brain washed (because some of propaganda they tell is just ridiculous), but losing the war would still be big enough to cause trouble back home. But there is more - russian arms export would suffer (already suffering), russian soft and hard power would be totally destroyed, basically russians can't even threaten with war, because nobody will be afraid of them. So whereas domestic narrative matters international narrative is important as well. I would put - international narrative as number 4 on your list. So it is number 4, but still one of top priorities. As for mass mobilisation, I think that could be sub-divided further i.e. there are many levels at which they can mobilise, from as low as taking volunteers from reserves, to mandatory mobilisation for everyone between 16 and 45, so there is large scale of possibilities. I agree that most extreme forms can threaten the regime, but not more than lost war, probably about the same. But I agree that overall it is not good, especially when putka started from saying it is "special operation" for a week or two, but now admits he was wrong and it is actually year long war. This is similar to admitting defeat and would be seen as very damaging the regime. However, I don't agree that mass mobilisation would necessary result in victory. First of all, that is because Ukraine is now 2 months ahead when it comes to mass mobilisation, and it would take russia at least 3 months to mobilise in my opinion. By that time they might have already lost the war. In short I don't even believe russia can out mobilise Ukraine unless they would really go mass mobilisation route which I doubt they will take. Further, they have already lost their best troops or rendered them combat ineffective, why would mobilising conscripts and reservists would change this - the only thing which it could result in is cannon fodder and loses could be so grave that even russia can't handle it. I still think that russia will go the route of declaring war on 9th of May and will have limited mobilisation, at which point war will grind for another 6 months and russias goal would be to tire the western society with the war in hopes of support eventually stop, or Ukraine faces some other issues like shortage of ammo, weapons, fuel etc. Which despite of west support they may still face. Where I agree - nuclear option is not on the table. russians are nasty war criminals, but they are not insane and using nukes can only lead to the end for everyone, but that means the end of their regime as well. So they won't do it. As well I am not sure what Ukraine should do when it comes to bringing war to russian soil, on one hand that might be unnecessary "escalation", in other hand I think it would be tactically very beneficial, because it would mean russia could not count on Ukrainians stopping on their border and being safe there. So tactically it would be good, but I am not sure yet whenever that would be good strategically.
@@LuvBorderCollies I always like some constructive suggestions. RUclips comments are not exactly meant to gives many "formatting" options, but there are 4 paragraphs already. The only extra thing I can do is to separate them by extra line.
@@lp9280 Okay. It doesn't come out that way on my browser or RUclips. It all looks crammed together single spaced, like condensed alphabet chart. I always double space between thoughts/paragraphs. Sometimes RUclips formatting will really mess up cut & paste stuff so I spend quality time fixing it for readers.
I'm only part way through your video but want to suggest you clear a bit of space on your wall - that RUclips 100 K member plaque won't be long in arriving based on what I've seen in just two of your videos, so far! Exceptional analysis, presentation, annunciation, pace, lighting, background; even wearing a shirt with collar - and tie... You missed your calling as a University instructor perhaps Professor Nielsen?? I look forward to the rest of your catalogue.
Yet another excellent video. This is an insightful exercise in game theory. Let's just hope Anders' matrix is correct and valid, and accurately reflects Putin's mind set. Let's hope Putin is rational enough to see his options as clearly as set forth in this grid of logical options and outcomes. That Putin is not so obsessed with his delusions that he cannot see what is in his own best interest. Problem: Who's going to tell him, isolated as he is?
1:40 - One way of looking at it, is by announcing the US wants to see Russia's military crippled is that those around Putin see that he is playing into the US hands. If the US said that their goal was to keep Russia from taking any land, then Putin is free to throw away 1/4 of his military but as long as he gets land, he "beat the United States". But now, even if Russia takes the Donbass region, he is seen as giving the US exactly what it wants, a weakened military. Edit: The rest of your video basically says this but in a lot more detail.
I think you are right that a lot of these statements are actually very calculated messages to Russia also in view of possible (secret) negotiations that will inevitably have to take place at some point.
Super yacht news gives good insight into the unreal wealth of Putin's "friends", who are mostly KGB buddies. The "buddies" owe all their wealth to Putin, so to keep their unbelievably lavish lifestyles they have to support Vlad or disappear. They control all the infrastructure, minerals, basically anything worth anything. So if Vlad goes down, they are hanging on a thin string. Vlad's right hand man picked to cover for him during his cancer surgery does NOT have a support base at all, unlike Putin however undeserved it is.
You are over simplifying what the war in Ukraine means for Putin and why he went to war in the first place. The war in Ukraine wasn’t just a lark Putin had. It’s success was vital to his ability to maintain control in Russia. If Russia fails in ukraine Putin can’t retain control. Ironically the damage Russia has inflected on Ukrainian infrastructure has made it impossible for Russia to see any return on investment even if they somehow won.
Any kind of peace agreement would have to include full compensation of the economic damage done to Ukraine meaning that Russia would have to declare bancruptcy immediately
There are a couple of parts where I would like to disagree: 1. Mobilization. Overall, the arguments against mobilization are weak. Putin control over the narrative means that a certain percentage of conscripts in the mobilization may be convinced that it is patriotic to go fight in Ukraine. This will allow him to augment his numbers without jeopardizing his popularity. The security forces that keeps him in power will not be disaffected by mobilization. If mobilization does not occur, where will Putin draw more forces, his security forces. Therefore, it is in their interest to have mobilization to avoid being sent to the front. 2. Nuclear weapons usage. I think a differentiation should be done to separate the use of tactical nukes versus strategic nukes. We are in agreement that strategic nukes may not be use, but nothing to stop Putin from use nukes of about 1 kiloton yield or slightly more to neutralize strong points of resistance. The reaction of the West may not be as strong as US and NATO may hesitate in the face of the willingness of Russia to use tactical nukes. They would not invade East and the sanction options has already being exhausted. 3. There is more more option that you have not analyze, which is the use of chemical or biological weapons to reduce the military resistance. Yes, that may trigger international condemnation from the West but we have already seen in Syria that not much happens beyond words. With "friends" like India and China, they will spin it or totally ignore it.
On the point of tactical nukes versus strategic nukes... I do believe that a nuke is a nuke, not matter the size of the thing.... If that happen and the word come out... It not gonna be "Putin use tactical nuke on such and such place and it is not cross the line" NO.... It gonna be spin like "Putin just nuke Ukraine city of such and such..... This is unacceptable and we need to make sure Putin is not got away with it".... That may start WWIII right there.... And the justify reason of the west is "Putin start using a nuke first in a traditional warfare and that is a d*ck move... And we need to punish him for being a d*ck" in which good luck try to spin it to the world that it is "just a tactical nuke" =w= And any "friendly country" Putin may have left can't side with him because "You side with the one who Nuke first and do it against enemy who have give up the nuke for peace and security"
I love the term "tactical" nukes. Reminds me of how the USSR's European war plan was to use "tactical" nukes, thinking NATO wouldn't retaliate with nuking USSR, because it was a "tactical" nuke. 🤣 The truth is, "tactical" or not, if a leader is willing to use a nuke to wipe out a city population, or a base population, Nato will see that as a threat that must be neutrized at all costs. If the threat is not neutralized, then Nato would lose power anyways. Now whatever Putin wants, he gets for fear of him using a nuke... and leaders don't give up power like that.
@@RobBCactive Western governments said there would be a 'proportional response' to the invasion of Ukraine itself, and yet that has not amounted to sending troops.
@@joefox9875 The west pulled the plug on the Russian economy and delivered billions of dollars of weapons to Ukraine, not to mention intel that gets Russian generals killed and little stuff like that. As they stop buying gas, it is just going to get worse.
I can see the scenario at 14:14 being the most likely if Russia loses in Ukraine, or in the (hopefully) unlikely event of it winning. It would be a lot easier to spin it as a fight for the Motherland against the 'Nazis' in any case.
Thank you for this, lays out a convincing argument, and provides a few off ramps for Russia and the West, better than 99% of the mainstream coverage and manages to do it with moralising.
More than 25 Nations have joined in purchasing and delivering weapons to support Ukraine's war effort. The United States and over 30 countries have imposed sanctions on Russia . Over 1000 coumpanies have stopped business affairs with Russia. However, the Ruble is stronger than before the war.. Biden accidently let Regime change slip out of his mouth on March 27 2022 . Between 1947 and 1989, the United States participated in changing other nations’ governments 72 times .Since 1989 it participated in Regime change , 10 times. Iraq in1992, and in 2002, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Haiti, The Gaza strip, Somalia, Iran, Libya, Syria, Biden even said he will supply Ukraine with arms until the last one standing . No talks , no negotiations. Those wars are about Regime change . Lebanon was once a vacation destination . Women once became doctors in Iraq, now look at afghanistan it’s destitute. Afghanistan and the US were friends, now go and take a poll and ask them how they feel about them now.
Your ability to simply and logically explain complex systems is very special.
I like Anders’ use of the decision chart, and combined with his detailed analysis in constructing the chart, it’s very persuasive.
@Peter Isherwell Did you watch a different video?
"Anybody can be nazis" - well, it seems that Lavrov has chosen to include the Israeli nazis. Not a wise move.
He’s desperate but he is also trying to leverage support eliciting Palestine …. Which has currency…..it is a Russian version of trump’s “we have bad ppl too”……plus I would not be surprised Russians are somehow helping Bibi along with GOP
Especially since Israel was still being friendly to Russia.
@@ptonpc yes. After angering Serbia, they now did it with Israel. I am mulling over the way they might anger Hungary. With Orban it will be very difficult but Lavrov might just find a way 😁
@@ptonpc Not even considering the fact that Israel holds licencing rights over a lot of anti-tank and anti-air tech and now might be much more hesitant in stopping NATO countries sending a few of I don't know Spike LR or NLOS systems mounted on IMVs over. Expecting Russians can just shittalk Israel that would just take it in the ass was a unwise idea, because the whole Israeli defense policy is based on punishing any threat, however small, it is called the "fighting between wars" policy.
@@huskytail It will be interesting to see how they do it 🤣
Mobilisation does not automatically give Putin a tick for winning in Ukraine unless he is thinking of carrying on the war for years - something that would be unpopular in Russia. Conscripted military personnel need equipment, logistics, training, leadership plus money. There will be old Soviet equipment in storage, but apart from that his resources are limited. Russia’s GDP is about the same as Canada’s, and shrinking, so the ability to suddenly deploy a large modern military just is not there.
Good point. The benefits of mobilisation is way off in time, if at all possible. One question here is how well informed Putin is *now* about the state of his forces. (He clearly didn't have a totally accurate picture before the invasion, though the greater failure of information was sure wrt Ukranian sentiments.)
I've been really uneasy about these western predictions of declaration of war and mobilisation of Victory Day. Now I'm much less so, because it just doesn't make sense. Except maybe if planned as a short-lived PR move, ie the goal would be a national rallying NOT actually building up and using a greater military capability (which would take years to gain). But IF he does this, then he would be in a hurry to end to war.
They can't even feed their soldiers at the moment.
Russia's GDP is rather less than Canada's. Before the war started it was about the same as Florida's; it will be less now. Anything close to full mobilisation will hugely damage an already withering Russian economy. They can't sustain the war they have now, let alone a full mobilisation.
@@malcaniscsm5184 As a Canadian, I have to point out that, while you are correct in terms of nominal GDP, in terms of purchasing power parity Russia is closer to France in real GDP.
And this is why the US is threatening to bleed Russia white if they keep fighting.
"Comrade. Our advance has stalled on every front and we had to retreat from key positions but you have 5 days to win this war."
Or 5 days to start the war officially.
Thank you for making these videos, I don't know why I don't see you on DW, CNN, and big channels giving your points of view.
At least he´s on the major danish news channels
Hes not on big news networks because he actually knows what hes talking.
He makes too much sense and he will be contrary to the media's message. So, we can't have facts or logic messing up the narrative.
RUclips is a fairly big channel and he's on it already
Its interesting that you can listen to this several months later and its still mostly relevant, thing yas just been grinding on with more death and suffering
I think your priorities and their order is a good representation.
A question is: Can "Putin Keep power in Russia" if Putin does not achieve "Winning in Ukraine"?
Losing the war in Ukraine may cause Putin to be ousted.
I doubt if the world (USA and Ukraine mostly) can allow Russia to look like they won the war (consider China-Taiwan and Russian re-invading other countries)
Your Analysis is so good. Shame that your channel is so underrated
I think the same, this guy should have million of views
🎯
maybe bc this channel is basically a CIA bot
using CCN to calculate the outcome of the war? nah it's not a good analysis...
Imponerende - passer jo indtil videre fuldstændigt på situationen, som den udspiller sig her i september 2022
I think Anders underestimates the ability of Putin to be crushed in Ukraine and claim total victory and say that it was "exacly what they were aiming for". 🤣🤣
This analysis really resonated with me. It was unbiased, non-emotional, objective and logical. Makes a lot of sense without being sensational. Great video!
Its not American news, emotions and sensations has nothing to do with a analysis 😉
Anders Puck Nielsen is a Military analyst at the Defense Academy Centre for Maritime Operations in Denmark, and used to be Commanding Officer of the DIANA-class patrol boats for the Royal Danish Navy, so not really the usual RUclipsr, but a highly knowable analyst in his field, and as far away from network journalism as you can possible get.
THANK YOU 🙏 of all the news media from countless sources YOU make the MOST sense out of this situation by far. 👏👏👏👏
I think that this is the last chance that Russia has to push back on the west. Russia is going to loose oil revenue to the point that they will have effectively no purchasing power outside the country. Russia, even if they put everything into building a military, just doesn't have the economy to do so for very long (if at all).
Russia has huge natural reserves. When all is said and done those have become marginalized on the international market. And if that comes true and is sustained because the mayor buyers have shifted to other sources and greener sources then he is in the same state as the GDR was before the wall came down. Everything spent on military or, in Russia's case, taken by oligarchs and the industry in shambles. Putin has neglected the normal economy because he could substitute it by purchasing consumer goods from the west. Once he has no more money and is sanctioned the country will fall back. And it is to be seen how that works out. My bet is that with his grip on the media and suppression forces there will be no October revolution against Tzar Vladimir. He will die some day like Stalin and, hopefully, more reasonable forces come into power.
Andres, you have a mastery of understanding of the Russian mindset and of the ongoing issues in the Russo-Ukrainian War. Thank you for this thoughtful piece.
Great work, as an American, I appreciate the balance view you present. Better than the talking heads in media, lol.
Have a look at Perun on YT.
Being well informed is only possible with people like Anders Puck Nielsen and various panels.
he is actually a frequent guest in a danish tv program covering the war!
He is an absolute jem and I am so glad to have found him...🤔thank RUclips??🤔🤔
Thank you for enumerating the various possibilities and for analysing their probabilities and consequences.
Brilliant Anders
How does this man not have more subscribers?
Great analysis. I’m looking forward to your next episodes. Keep going.
A lot to admire in this excellent analysis, in agreement and disagreement.
Excellent. Thank you. Now let's see!
Another great analysis, and very comforting that you and your colleagues at "Forsvarsakademiet" have such great insight, keep the good work up.
Everything you said turned up to be true. Great work.
Super analyse. Rigtig godt, Anders!
Load of baloney. Try the Saker, SouthFront or Moon of Alabama.
@@TommyTCGT wow, and you bring so much insight and so many fantastic counter-arguments to back up your critic, we must most certainly believe you right away and flee on others channels....
Or not......
@@TommyTCGT
Parroting Kremlin talking points makes you a free thinker, I'm told.
Russian troll
Great video! Thanks for sharing, very happy to have found your channel.
Im grateful for your analysis but to declare Putin being a try patriot is like declaring Hitler a patriot. As a german born after WW II I wouldn’t agree with such a view of an egotistical nationalistic brutal ruler, as he is harming his “beloved” country.
I agree that was a mistake.
Putin doesn't see it as harming. He believes he is doing what he must to ensure the future of Russia as he knows his demographics won't support a large war in the future.... attack in order to protect... IMO
@@Ben-ry1py You could describe Putin as a 'patriot' if you think that Putin thinks that what he's doing is good for his country. He may well believe that because he has every incentive to believe that because his acts have been exceptionally good for himself and his allies. Not so good for the rest of the country though, and increasingly worse. I will believe he is a patriot when I see him doing something that is good for Russia but NOT good for HIM at the same time. I haven't seen that yet. Otherwise there really is no difference in this respect between him and people like Hitler. That's why I think the comment about Putin being a patriot was so wrong.
@@klapsigaarenbasgitaar1931 I hear that, but I disagree. I believe Putin believes this war was necessary to expa6and protect Russia. Remember, he thought Ukraine would roll over when he invaded.
Given his mafia mentality, giving up is devastating. He can be Russia's worst enemy and not know it. He's a relic of the past, but still controls a rathe6large country. I believe that Putin wants Russia to expand it's power, but he miscalculated badly and it's not a simple thing for a dictator to loose a was he started.
I'd say Putin is a "patriot" to his own idea what that means. He also takes great influence from Stalin and Peter the Great. It all morphs into a view Putin sees as a way to gather support from the masses while he and his criminal cronies stuff their pockets with billions every year. How does a low end KGB guy become worth $92 billion? That's just one of Putin's old buddies. He has a lot more and they all hang together or they will hang separately.
Mr. Nielsen, thanks for your well considered content. Your knowledge a d thinking is really good. I’ve seen about three of your videos now and they are all excellent.
You seriously earned my sub.
Thank you again.
I really like your insights, Tak.
I appreciate your logical explanation... but everyone was saying that invading Ukraine was so utterly dumb and self-destructive that Putin wouldn't do it. And yet he went ahead anyway. Never underestimate stupidity!
Putin himself will never except defeat he never has in the past .he will twist it all around to make a defeat a victory. You are right ..and Russia has only just begun I mean even if he wins Ukraine he is not going to arrive to the borders of Moldova. Estonia Latvia etc and just tell his troops well boys the jobs done we will all head on home now . Putins dream has always been to claw back all the states that once belonged to Russia. Use nukes? of course he would and why would he own them if only to look at them for the next 20 years . Putins like a cornered cat .. he is not going to back down. I mean to say financialy he's already starting to go broke. Putins a man with nothing to lose.
I don't think though putin could take all the other states with the rag tag outdated conventional army he has now .Nato combined would put putins army all in the grave before lunchtime, if they wanted too. His nukes are his only real ace card that he has left.
Although I think a coup via his own people towards him will bring him down in the nor to distant future.
I think it´s safe to say that stupidity drives evil.
Intelligence has it's limits. Stupidity knows no bounds.
Actually in a debate on the 22nd or 23rd with Peter Viggo, Anders *did* correctly predict the invasion.
If you think Putin is stupid, you're underestimating your enemy which is a dangerous mistake. Case in point, look at Putin's colossal miscalculation about Ukraine and where it got him.
Would you do a video about Transnistria?
Mass mobilization also means mass armament, and I don't think Russia has the arms to do it if the last few months is any indication. Besides lack of quality equipment, it takes time to organize civilians into an army, and it looks like their existing military is already near maximum effort just maintaining a debilitating stalemate in Ukraine right now.
Russia still has a huge supply of captured weapons from WW2. They imported a mind boggling amount of Mosin-Nagant rifles (and ammo) of various types to the US after 1991. But they still have the bulk of the captured automatic rifles and machine-guns plus the captured ammo. The ammo is probably close to worthless by now based on how careless they operate in other aspects.
But say they did issue them out, what kind of slapped together contraption type army would they have?? It would certainly be a disorganized cannon fodder army for starters. It would be no better than Hitler's Volkssturm rabble army.
@@LuvBorderCollies Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics. It doesn't matter how many weapons you have, Russia cannot supply its army without overseas assistance, and even China isn't going to be seen to supply Russia with the means to start WW3. Ukraine has proven that even the Russian regular army *as it stands* cannot self-sustain, and once it runs out of basic supplies it becomes a leaderless gang of rapists and murderers who cannot stand up to disciplined resistance.
The only thing Putin can really do is flood the East with conscripts in a short-term 'surge' and hope to overwhelm local defences... but they *already tried that once* when Ukraine didn't have entrenched defences all throughout the West. All Ukraine has to do is withdraw in orderly fashion, and watch the conscripts die and starve.
It always makes me happy to see analysis that using nukes is unlikely since that has been causing me stress recently.
Don’t let it cause you stress. Putin, his Generals and all the people who have got mega rich hanging onto his coattails all have their wealth and assets in the west, you wouldn’t firebomb a house when you knew your pension pot was inside.
People should see some videos from Professor John Mearsheimer, he warned about this scenario we now see for years.
And he was right about everything.
@@andrehunter1295 his notion is that none of the former Soviet republics have any self determination. And we should have sold off all those newly formed democracys too Russia in the long run,
Too buy the peace for our selfs.
Sry I am not a impressed by the professor.
What a good grasp on Putin's point of view, and the situation overall. Thank you Anders.
Today is 11-May, two days after 9-May-2022.
I believe your analysis is closer to current development. Keep up the great job👍
Thanks, my analysis is the same, Putin will End the war & say he prevented WW3
That would be to good to be true. You can only do this stunt ones. It is a spent idea after dissolution of the Soviet Union.
@@olgap. Thats not quite in recent memory though for many a russian?
@@JMAssainatorz Oh, yes it is. At least for Putin's generation (which is where his support lies).
But that withstanding I am more optimistic than Olga P. We could read the nuclear saber-rattling as being mostly for domestic consumption, as a way to build up to the heroism of preventing ww3.
@@JMAssainatorz Majority of Russian population is old enough to remember how devastating it was. It is not so much about the fact itself, but the way how it happened and its outcome. Russians call the end of Soviet Union "razval" - breakdown, collapse, demolition from inside. Another often used wording is "prosrali sojuz" - those in charge screwed it, waisted potential, made things worse etc. At first under Putin things started to turn better. Any other Russian president could afford ending up worse than he started, but not Putin. Any outcome of the conflict that reminds 1991 will be impossible to sell as a victory. Hmm, can Russians really think "hooray, we became the 2. Iran, but we got Donbas!"?
That is unfortunately a very likely scenario.
Phenomenal work Anders
Putin's future will be interesting. How does he spin fighting Ukraine to a stalemate, two new NATO countries on Russia's border, and economic sanctions that will cripple Russia for decades? How is this better?
Given all the BS he told to justify the invasion, he’ll come up with a BS reason why it’s a victory not a defeat.
Kim Ill Sung did it
@@pax6833 The average Russian and oligarchs will remember the good times before February 24, 2022. The average N. Korean doesn't have any good times to remember, so it was easier for Kim.
@@poopyanalbumhole The sanctions are a response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, so sanctions are Russia's fault.
This is an amazing video and channel. I'm subscribing!
As a russian I'd like to note that Putin is anything but a patriot
he is a hard core comunist
@@UnipornFrumm Putin certainly doesn't believe in (or even give lip service to) economic equality, so I wouldn't call him a communist. Fascist nationalist seems closer.
He is a gangster leader.
Best video I have seen on this topic so far.
FYI: Putin has already committed conscripts to the war.
What, you mean he lied? Who could possibly have seen that coming.
That alone is not mass Mobilisation and unlikely to help. Calling a war would give Putin addition powers but the Russians are generally apathetic to fighting for Ukraine (they like the idea of getting Ukraine but don’t see it as something worth fighting for at all costs) Putins problems isn’t a lack of people alone, his problem is deeply systematic- remember this army is the reformed army after their disappointing performance in 2008. It’s clear that corruption has corrupted the army to a point that it will take years to fix, assuming that’s even possible because Putin doesn’t know how to rule without corruption. At this stage sending more soldiers to Ukraine is just Russia finding out the answer to the age old question “what is maximum no. of Russian soldiers that can be killed by a single howitzer 777”? Demographically Russia is not doing well either, asking families to send their only son to the front will it be popular. Add to this that the “best and brightest” have been steadily leaving Russia for the past decade as well as the 300000 that have left due to this war and you get a sense of just how bad things really are. This was Russias last gasp, and it’s a gamble that will not pay off.
Anders, are you able to enlighten us about the political stability in the Kremlin, and the growing speculation of a coup brewing?
Spot on.
Russia has already been defeated in Ukraine. They just haven't admitted it yet. Half there tanks are gone and they may not admit it until all there tanks are gone and still then they may not admit it.
😂😂😂
Merci!
Thanks! Glad you found the video useful.
Som altid en god forklaring!
One question, lets for a moment assume that western deliveries of weapons to Ukraine, results in an ukrainian counter-attack, and that Donetsk and Luhansk, and possibel even Crimea is at risk of falling... What will then be the most likely result for Putin? Will he accept that he might lose those territories? Or will he have to escalate futher?
Luhansk and Donetsk are not as I understand it, particular important to Putin or the Russians, but Crimea and particular Sevastapol are a "Hero"-city, and are close to sacret places in Russian understanding.
But the question is: how could he escalate?
It is very hard to see a way for him to escalate that would both be possible, and in any way have any positive outcomes for him.
Can't really mobilise - would create instability (and be too slow anyway).
Can't use nukes.
Already practically blockading the coast - will not become more able to do this.
Has already declared the airspace closed - again, will not become more able to enforce this.
Can't cut UA off from the West without engaging Poland/Romania => direct conflict with NATO
Could use chemical weapons - but the negatives would outweigh the positives.
The only feasible escalation I could see is intense bombing of cities. Which would mean many dead Ukrainians, but not really any gains for Russia.
So what he could do is bomb Kharkiv, Mikolajev or Odessa to smithereens and then accept a "victory" of internationally guaranteed Russian access to Crimea for 25 or 50 years. He has destroyed ukro-nazis' high command (the city bombed to rubble - Russian propaganda can surely find something or someone to celebrate as the most horrid devil being taken out*), and he secured Crimea for decades to come! Hurray!
* From a propaganda angle he could probably use Mariupol for this. Blow up the steelworks in some spectacular fashion, declare victory, withdraw from Donbas and negotiate Crimea over the next 20 years. There's probably some other place (in the Donbas) that could also serve as this "victory" - I just know too little about RU propaganda to be able to pinpoint it. From a propaganda angle, Odessa would also work well for this, unfortunately.
@@Asptuber I am honestly not sure how much more he can escalete, in practical terms, but I would assume that he has a lot of options.
What the russians mostly need right now, is infantry, and there are ways for them to get that. Also while it has not been really a big part of this conflict, in ways that were talked about earlier, there are options for mercenary troops... Low quality sure, but arguably better than nothing, and unlike the russian conscribts, mercenaries from Africa, or India or whereever those may be recruited, would not have family in Ukraine.
It is a long shot, I know, and unlikely... But it is an option.
Sevastapol mostly holds strategic value as a black sea naval base, but if Russian naval losses keep up at their current rate that might make it a much less bitter pill to swallow, since there'll barely be a navy to station there.
@@hedgehog3180 No, Sevastapol is a something of a "holy" city in russian understanding.
The Crimean war, and WW2 had significant battles fought over it, and something around 2 mio russians died defending and retaking the city...
It is not only important strategically, it is very significant for russian military culture.
@@MrBandholm Great job at contradicting for nothing. The main reason IS geostrategic. It IS the current harbor of the Black Sea fleet, which has monstruous implications. THEN there are historical regions, for sure. Noone was saying the contrary....
Some of the most cogent and thoughtful analysis I’ve seen. He understands Putin’s true motive, which is to stay in power. All else is secondary.
You're absolutely right, all else is secondary (which this analysis doesn't really say unfortunately)
Yes, there is no exit strategy for a dictator, he cant just go and retire in his palace on the black sea. Apparently Putin was obsessed with the killing of Qadafi and watched the video over and over again.
Well, that's true for almost all founding fathers of countries (Yeltsin obviously doesn't count). They are the best at holding power, because otherwise they couldn't have been the founding father.
If you knew what Putin is really against, you would side with him.if the US is to control the globe unopposed you can expect a tyrannical one government world which would make PRC look like a kindergarten, you will live a dystopian existence, the people pushing this agenda have already started testing things to come, covid was an exercise in mass population control, next will be digital currency.
What humanity needs is a multi polar world, because if there's only 1 power and its hijacked it leaves humanity in peril.
Interesting. Qadafi must be an example that makes all despots nervous.
I'd be interested on if Anders has the same perspective or has more insight on this topic.
Thanks, Puck. I hope you’re right!
Brilliant analysis!
I would go along with all this if it were not for fact that Putin was crazy enough to attempt an invasion in the first place. He also thought nothing of a chemical attacks on UK soil that also affected bystanders. Actually the Russian regime thought that it was quite funny.
The invasion wasn't irrational for an ultranationalist like putin, but he acted on bad information.
Putin is not logical. The poison attacks, including not just the Skripals, but also Alexander Litvinenko, were done to show Putin's power. The people who were killed had already defected to the UK. There was nothing to gain by killing them except to show Russia's strength and abilities.
Probably the most accurate analysis so far!
I think Putin will announce they have annexed the regions they control atm, and then also say any attacks in those regions as attacks on Russia proper and say they will escalate as needed.
Thanks for sharing this outstanding Analysis of the current situation, and the impacts.
Mobilization could be worse, declaration of war means Ukraine can atack russian soil, as well.
Anyway, this analysis is the best one and a real challenge for the dissection in pretty good comments I saw here. Again, well done.
Ukraine is already attacking Russian soil. Or 'someone' is. Fuel and weapons depots have been struck.
@@oldmandoinghighkicksonlyin1368 - Yes, but as you said 'someone'. Nobody claim the atacks because there is no 'declaration of war'.
Superb analysis
Thank you Anders for this commentary and analysis I think your views are well thought out. Someone once said that the truth has a certain ring to it, and that’s what I hear when you speak .
No offence but that's what a lot of Russians think when they watch the news....
@@klapsigaarenbasgitaar1931 I have a good friend who grew up in the Soviet Union, he said the Russian people have been brainwashed by the gov. Media for so long its hopeless . At least here [ USA ] we have multiple choices for information, you choose .
@@kenboydart You are right! Whatever they say about 'main stream media', which I think is a misleading concept introduced by opponents of free press, we should cherish the options we have in the West and support those platforms that are having a hard time because of a loss of income in the digital age.
Very nice video: thank you. However, I disagree on mobilization resulting in victory over Ukraine. Not enough trained men, equipment. To achieve victory by number you also need a very mild resistance and Ukraine resistance is incontestably fierce
Chilling but excellent analysis
Very interesting. However, I think money is a factor here, in particular Putin's own fortune and that of his cronies. Also consider Putin's physical and mental health.
You are absolutely correct.
1) Putin is not stupid and knows the consequences of using nuclear weapons. It will be game over, and he doesn't want to lose power, so that's a non starter.
2) Similarly, conscription broadcasts a need, which equates to "we're losing troops", which breeds concerned citizenry.
3) Putin will want to save face by acknowledging he's removed the "NAZI" threat (which never was)
One further point, what if Ukraine decides it wants Donbas, Luhansk, The Crimea etc back, and launches a counter-offensive to reclaim those territories? In that scenario, I think Putin would have to call up reserves.
Losing the war in Ukraine (accepting defeat) would significantly undermine his power in Russia. That’s because Ukraine will not stop at getting back to pre war status, they will want to retake what was lost in 2014. Too much damage has been done. Even if zelensky says that it’s victory, Ukraine will see it as betrayal and eventually will try to get back to it. Losing Donbas or Crimea is a loss you can’t spin
i don't think ukraine will be in. a position to take crimea back after this war. i think ukraine will be lucky to get mariupol back. ukraine is itself taking heavy loses while its economy and infrastructure is destroyed.
Putin can accept defeat and declare victory by claiming that "denazification" is complete. Donetsk and Luhansk could become autonomous areas within Ukraine.
@@johnridout6540 i find that unlikely, unless the war is already highly unpopular in russia. Putin needs to maintain an image of strength and competence to hold on to power in any significant measure. Such a 'victory' reeks too much of the bad excuse that it is. Too many people would see through such a thing and lose trust in him.
@@nanonano2595 Putin needs to publish more manly photos of him without his shirt.LOL Its a mystery to me but I guess Russian women have a much different view of manliness than European or No.American women.
@@nanonano2595 The Russian propaganda is doing a great job brainwashing the people. They will make Russians believe they won even if they really lost. I know some Russians living in northern Germany and in southern Denmark who even still today are total believers in the lies from Russian media.
Enlightening analysis. Very nice. Thanks
Excellent analysis. The chart really helped in understanding.
Excellent analysis. But what you shouldn't forget is that without declaring martial law. Russia is likely going to be without an army soon. Simply because most solders are going to quit and go home (which they can in a special operation, but not in a war). So to keep being in power. Putin has to find one way or the other to keep the Russian army intact.
Hmm. But couldn't Putin do some variant of stop-loss? Lengthen existing contracts and make it really hard to get out of them.
It might also be possible to fiddle with conscription in such a way to make it even more unattractive than taking a contract (wasn't conscription in Soviet times multiple years? Bring that back, maybe even worse and offer 15month contracts as an alternative...).
With something like that he could probably keep it going quite a few months longer, before he faces so much displeasure that it risks societal stability. Though there might be a problem here with regional (ethnic) displeasure/instability creeping up on him.
@@Asptuber currently there is an existing Putin degree that's forbidding conscripts to serve outside Russia and a lot of rumors that conscripts have been turned into contract soldiers without their knowledge.
But the core problem is still that unless Putin declares a war. Contract soldiers can quit their existing contract prematurely and can only be harresed, but not court martialed in return.
Well so far resignations have just been denied but obviously that isn't sustainable.
@@digitaleswerken I think it would probably be easier to change the law to make it harder for contract soldiers to quit than it would be to do general mobilisation. Even though it is a conscript army, it is not like in Finland or Israel - the popular support for the armed forces, and the personal connections to it, just isn't there at the same scale.
If you try mobilisation it will be chaos, and dangerously unpopular. But if you just change the rules to make it harder for the poor sods who can't avoid the army to leave the middle class in European Russia won't mind much.
Interesting analysis thankyou
'The Tzar has the ears of a goat!' That old Slavic folk tail is apt here. It is not the Tzar's fault it is his bad advisors. He will claim it is General's fault, so hopefully a pull out after he purges the Army brass.
Very well done, a carefully considered argument.
This is superb.
I'm still missing a discussion of the russian leadership's ideology, which clearly is incompatible to almost the rest of the world. An outcome like the one outlined here may eventually overcome the present crisis, but it would also mean the can gets kicked further down the road - until next time? In other words, how could their ruling ideology be challenged? This ought to be a global discussion, and why not through the UN?
Right. Putin can now see how ineffectual his military is. Any withdrawal will be followed by an attempted strengthening of his military.
And their ideology is fascism with a kleptocratic power structure. The best way I can think to counter them is to call them out publicly for their lying and for their atrocious behavior. Make it impossible for other countries to deny.
And then do everything we can to get the Russian people good information.
We could also work at buying off the oligarchs to help us since they’re non-ideological.
The UN is toothless as Russia sits in the security council. And yes Russia will try again, the only chance for Ukraine is to defeat Russia now and become part of the west (EU/NATO) to put it out of reach from Russia.
There is also the fact that mobilisation would worsen a lot actual problems and would take a lot of time. Conscripts are inefficient in comparison to professional soldiers.
Seen it for a very outside position and perspective, I can notice some "aggressive alliance that is made for be a pain in the ars to Russia", it may not be an existential threat but is definitely for undermine Russia's regional power, and just to clarify I'm not supporting Russia's acts, I just pointing the obvious.
People should see some videos from Professor John Mearsheimer, he warned about this scenario we now see for years.
And he was right about everything.
Excellent and helpful analysis!
I think there's a lot of assumptions in this piece. Is it really that easy to sell a defeat at home? It might have been before Bucha, but at this point, I don't see Ukraine giving anything up that Putin could sell as a win. But I simply do not know enough about Russia to compare the internal risks of trying to spin a defeat and mobilization.
Its easy. They believed the garbage about Nazis, they'll believe whatever he tells them. Those who don't are not going to do anything about it.
That kind of makes me worry about mobilization, even if tens of thousands of people complain that their sons got killed, he doesn't have to care.
Mobilization is admitting a defeat in the conventional war. I don't think they even have the capability to do it though.
(eh, misread you at first) I don't think Bucha matters at home at all. Enough people either don't believe in it, or think it is no worse than what Russian propaganda has been all about for years re. "the children of Donbas".
But in the long run, Ukraine can't go to war to avenge Bucha (or Mariupol) for ever. Maybe for a year or two, but not indefinitely.
For selling a defeat as a victory Putin really only needs _something_, however minor. Even something like international guarantees of Crimea being Russian for 50 years might do it. (Not that this is minor, but Ukraine could easily agree to it, especially if it came with a few goodies (money, special rights for Ukrainians in Crimea (visa freedom, right of residence and other things that would actually also be in the interest of Russia))).
I'm not too up on the Ukrainian constitution when it comes to regions - I only know that (as with anything to do with UA politics over the last 20+ years) this is an area where you could easily make some tweaks (direct elections of governors, oblast-level assemblies, whatever) that wouldn't matter one jota to Ukraine (it's not like how regional governing works is an integral part of the national identity), but could easily be sold by Putin as "liberating the people from the Nazis in Kiev, bringing democracy to the villages".
@@Asptuber To elaborate, the reason I think Bucha matters is that I think it makes it really hard for Selensky to make any concessions regarding Cimea or Donbass. Before, I think Ukraine could and would have agreed to stipulations like you are proposing, right now, I think it wouldn't go over well with the Ukrainian population. I might be wrong, though, I'm not Ukrainian and I'm a pampered westerner that never lived through war myself. It's just my takeaway from recent reporting.
I think Bucha is more of a rallying cry than an actual reason, Ukraine is currently winning and there are really no signs that'll change so the Ukrainian leadership is probably eyeing the possibility of retaking their entire border. And NATO is surely encouraging this because if Ukraine restored it's borders then it could join NATO without issue. Russia has barely made any gains in Donbass while Ukraine has made some major counterattacks in Kharkiv and are poised to set up a much bigger offensive that could threaten supplies to Izyum in the same way they forced a Russian retreat North West of Kyiv by being poised to cut the supply lines. In Kherson Ukraine seems to also be gettimg ready for a much bigger counterattack, they've been on the outskirts of the city for weeks now and taking it could threaten Russian supplies from Crimea. It might be the case that Ukrainian attacks on the Russian navy are part of a strategy to free up garrison forces in Odessa for such a counterattack.
Excellent analysis which is sorely lacing in the US media.
Very well explained and entirely plausible.
This was superb, you deserve many more active subscribers. I particularly like your style of calm, dispassionate analysis used in a persuasive logical and rational manner.
With this video though, there is one slight weakness in your hypothesis. You have provided a framework for rational and logical decision making at strategic level. However, does the hypothesis stand up to attaching to a (arguably) illogical and irrational Putin?
Perhaps you could ‘reverse engineer’ your hypothesis for the logic and rationale for Putin embarking on this adventure?
Or have you done that and I missed it?
Keep up the excellent work.👍😀
What has Putin done that is illogical or irrational from his position at the time? He has made decisions based on incorrect information, but that doesn't make him crazy.
Nice summary.
I'm from the future.
He chose option 4, partial mobilisation.
Sneeky little bastard 🙄
Finally some no nonsense talk about what to expect! Great and many thanks
I like your analysis, but it seems to me that in this video you haven't tackled what we might call the "hard problem" - also the most important problem of this situation. By that, I mean this: Europe will never be at peace until the majority of the Russian population learns and accepts that they have been lied to terribly for 20 years, that not only is their army astonishingly incompetent rather than the powerful force they've been encouraged to believe it to be, but also that the army has tortured, raped, and murdered Ukrainian civilians and stolen their washing machines - and that this kind of behaviour is totally unacceptable on the modern battlefield. And that Ukraine is really not full of Nazis and has a right to exist as an independent nation. What we have here is a situation that, no matter how the war ends and whether Putin remains in power or not, there is a large proportion of the Russian population that thinks it's perfectly OK to invade Ukraine to get them back under the influence of the motherland, and that "war is war", so it's acceptable for the boys to go over there and loot what they can. The fastest way of solving this problem, it seems to me, would be for Russia to suffer a crushing, humiliating defeat, such that even ordinary Russians feel the consequences in their everyday lives. That's the only way Nazi Germany finally ended, after all. And we're facing a similar problem now with Russia.
He didn´t tackle it much in this video because his focus was on Putin´s narrative. He did talk about Putin´s need to control information in Russia so the russians don´t get the reality of what they are and are doing in Ukraine and why.
He talked about how Putin could spin the fiasco in Ukraine as a victory and in that scenario the russian people don´t know the truth and are not going to. From Putin´s perspective.
I guess the only point that comes to my mind is: what if Putin regards victory in Ukraine as synonymous with his survival …?
It is. He's a goner if things keep going like that.
Very good Anders
Regardless of what happens next, Putin' himself will be enshrined in Russian history as the leader of the worst two military failures in modern day history - Battle of Mariupol and Battle of Kyiv (not to mention the loss of the Moskva). On the other hand, Ukraine has gained an international respect and admiration that no one could have ever imagined. For Putin, it's already a loose/loose situation, he has shamed his county militarily, and set his country back decades of economic prosperity.
A logical and rational analysis. Unfortunately , leaders don't always act rationally.
Quite good analysis, if not at time (probably purposely over-simplistic). I think it recognises options quite well, but I do not necessarily agree with the outcomes. For example I see loss in Ukraine as threat to putka, not to russian regime, but for putka himself it could be a trigger. I do believe that invasion was partially due to internal pressures and it was a way to bolster the regime - very similar reason why Argentina invaded Falklands... and it worked all the way until they lost. And I feel similar is true for russia, now people rallied around putka and "Z" and "bug ribbon", but if russians were to lose I think It would crumble. Sure russia has much better grip on narrative and nation which is generally brain washed (because some of propaganda they tell is just ridiculous), but losing the war would still be big enough to cause trouble back home. But there is more - russian arms export would suffer (already suffering), russian soft and hard power would be totally destroyed, basically russians can't even threaten with war, because nobody will be afraid of them. So whereas domestic narrative matters international narrative is important as well. I would put - international narrative as number 4 on your list. So it is number 4, but still one of top priorities.
As for mass mobilisation, I think that could be sub-divided further i.e. there are many levels at which they can mobilise, from as low as taking volunteers from reserves, to mandatory mobilisation for everyone between 16 and 45, so there is large scale of possibilities. I agree that most extreme forms can threaten the regime, but not more than lost war, probably about the same. But I agree that overall it is not good, especially when putka started from saying it is "special operation" for a week or two, but now admits he was wrong and it is actually year long war. This is similar to admitting defeat and would be seen as very damaging the regime. However, I don't agree that mass mobilisation would necessary result in victory. First of all, that is because Ukraine is now 2 months ahead when it comes to mass mobilisation, and it would take russia at least 3 months to mobilise in my opinion. By that time they might have already lost the war. In short I don't even believe russia can out mobilise Ukraine unless they would really go mass mobilisation route which I doubt they will take. Further, they have already lost their best troops or rendered them combat ineffective, why would mobilising conscripts and reservists would change this - the only thing which it could result in is cannon fodder and loses could be so grave that even russia can't handle it.
I still think that russia will go the route of declaring war on 9th of May and will have limited mobilisation, at which point war will grind for another 6 months and russias goal would be to tire the western society with the war in hopes of support eventually stop, or Ukraine faces some other issues like shortage of ammo, weapons, fuel etc. Which despite of west support they may still face.
Where I agree - nuclear option is not on the table. russians are nasty war criminals, but they are not insane and using nukes can only lead to the end for everyone, but that means the end of their regime as well. So they won't do it. As well I am not sure what Ukraine should do when it comes to bringing war to russian soil, on one hand that might be unnecessary "escalation", in other hand I think it would be tactically very beneficial, because it would mean russia could not count on Ukrainians stopping on their border and being safe there. So tactically it would be good, but I am not sure yet whenever that would be good strategically.
A constructive suggestion on posting. Break it up into paragraphs so its easier to read.
@@LuvBorderCollies I always like some constructive suggestions. RUclips comments are not exactly meant to gives many "formatting" options, but there are 4 paragraphs already. The only extra thing I can do is to separate them by extra line.
@@lp9280 Okay. It doesn't come out that way on my browser or RUclips. It all looks crammed together single spaced, like condensed alphabet chart. I always double space between thoughts/paragraphs. Sometimes RUclips formatting will really mess up cut & paste stuff so I spend quality time fixing it for readers.
I'm only part way through your video but want to suggest you clear a bit of space on your wall - that RUclips 100 K member plaque won't be long in arriving based on what I've seen in just two of your videos, so far!
Exceptional analysis, presentation, annunciation, pace, lighting, background; even wearing a shirt with collar - and tie... You missed your calling as a University instructor perhaps Professor Nielsen?? I look forward to the rest of your catalogue.
Yet another excellent video. This is an insightful exercise in game theory. Let's just hope Anders' matrix is correct and valid, and accurately reflects Putin's mind set. Let's hope Putin is rational enough to see his options as clearly as set forth in this grid of logical options and outcomes. That Putin is not so obsessed with his delusions that he cannot see what is in his own best interest. Problem: Who's going to tell him, isolated as he is?
This is the second video I have seen of yours, I enjoy the content and you speak great English 👍🏻.
1:40 - One way of looking at it, is by announcing the US wants to see Russia's military crippled is that those around Putin see that he is playing into the US hands. If the US said that their goal was to keep Russia from taking any land, then Putin is free to throw away 1/4 of his military but as long as he gets land, he "beat the United States". But now, even if Russia takes the Donbass region, he is seen as giving the US exactly what it wants, a weakened military.
Edit: The rest of your video basically says this but in a lot more detail.
I think you are right that a lot of these statements are actually very calculated messages to Russia also in view of possible (secret) negotiations that will inevitably have to take place at some point.
Super yacht news gives good insight into the unreal wealth of Putin's "friends", who are mostly KGB buddies. The "buddies" owe all their wealth to Putin, so to keep their unbelievably lavish lifestyles they have to support Vlad or disappear. They control all the infrastructure, minerals, basically anything worth anything. So if Vlad goes down, they are hanging on a thin string.
Vlad's right hand man picked to cover for him during his cancer surgery does NOT have a support base at all, unlike Putin however undeserved it is.
Super Yacht News ruclips.net/user/eSysmanSuperYachtsvideos
Fremragende analyse man ikke ser andre steder. Har først opdaget din kanal for nyligt og dit bagkatalog viser at du er god til at forudsige udvikling.
You are over simplifying what the war in Ukraine means for Putin and why he went to war in the first place. The war in Ukraine wasn’t just a lark Putin had. It’s success was vital to his ability to maintain control in Russia. If Russia fails in ukraine Putin can’t retain control. Ironically the damage Russia has inflected on Ukrainian infrastructure has made it impossible for Russia to see any return on investment even if they somehow won.
Any kind of peace agreement would have to include full compensation of the economic damage done to Ukraine meaning that Russia would have to declare bancruptcy immediately
Great and pragmatic analysis
I just subscribed
There are a couple of parts where I would like to disagree:
1. Mobilization. Overall, the arguments against mobilization are weak. Putin control over the narrative means that a certain percentage of conscripts in the mobilization may be convinced that it is patriotic to go fight in Ukraine. This will allow him to augment his numbers without jeopardizing his popularity. The security forces that keeps him in power will not be disaffected by mobilization. If mobilization does not occur, where will Putin draw more forces, his security forces. Therefore, it is in their interest to have mobilization to avoid being sent to the front.
2. Nuclear weapons usage. I think a differentiation should be done to separate the use of tactical nukes versus strategic nukes. We are in agreement that strategic nukes may not be use, but nothing to stop Putin from use nukes of about 1 kiloton yield or slightly more to neutralize strong points of resistance. The reaction of the West may not be as strong as US and NATO may hesitate in the face of the willingness of Russia to use tactical nukes. They would not invade East and the sanction options has already being exhausted.
3. There is more more option that you have not analyze, which is the use of chemical or biological weapons to reduce the military resistance. Yes, that may trigger international condemnation from the West but we have already seen in Syria that not much happens beyond words. With "friends" like India and China, they will spin it or totally ignore it.
There absolutely WILL be a proportionate response and Russia's military has had that made clear to them.
On the point of tactical nukes versus strategic nukes... I do believe that a nuke is a nuke, not matter the size of the thing.... If that happen and the word come out... It not gonna be "Putin use tactical nuke on such and such place and it is not cross the line" NO.... It gonna be spin like "Putin just nuke Ukraine city of such and such..... This is unacceptable and we need to make sure Putin is not got away with it".... That may start WWIII right there.... And the justify reason of the west is "Putin start using a nuke first in a traditional warfare and that is a d*ck move... And we need to punish him for being a d*ck" in which good luck try to spin it to the world that it is "just a tactical nuke" =w= And any "friendly country" Putin may have left can't side with him because "You side with the one who Nuke first and do it against enemy who have give up the nuke for peace and security"
I love the term "tactical" nukes. Reminds me of how the USSR's European war plan was to use "tactical" nukes, thinking NATO wouldn't retaliate with nuking USSR, because it was a "tactical" nuke. 🤣
The truth is, "tactical" or not, if a leader is willing to use a nuke to wipe out a city population, or a base population, Nato will see that as a threat that must be neutrized at all costs. If the threat is not neutralized, then Nato would lose power anyways. Now whatever Putin wants, he gets for fear of him using a nuke... and leaders don't give up power like that.
@@RobBCactive Western governments said there would be a 'proportional response' to the invasion of Ukraine itself, and yet that has not amounted to sending troops.
@@joefox9875 The west pulled the plug on the Russian economy and delivered billions of dollars of weapons to Ukraine, not to mention intel that gets Russian generals killed and little stuff like that. As they stop buying gas, it is just going to get worse.
What about emp? This is more attractive than destroying targets on the ground.
I can see the scenario at 14:14 being the most likely if Russia loses in Ukraine, or in the (hopefully) unlikely event of it winning. It would be a lot easier to spin it as a fight for the Motherland against the 'Nazis' in any case.
Outstanding analysis, objective, reasoned and informed!
Very good analysis. Thanks for your effort!
Thank you for this, lays out a convincing argument, and provides a few off ramps for Russia and the West, better than 99% of the mainstream coverage and manages to do it with moralising.
More than 25 Nations have joined in purchasing and delivering weapons to support Ukraine's war effort. The United States and over 30 countries have imposed sanctions on Russia . Over 1000 coumpanies have stopped business affairs with Russia. However, the Ruble is stronger than before the war..
Biden accidently let Regime change slip out of his mouth on March 27 2022 . Between 1947 and 1989, the United States participated in changing other nations’ governments 72 times .Since 1989 it participated in Regime change , 10 times. Iraq in1992, and in 2002, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Haiti, The Gaza strip, Somalia, Iran, Libya, Syria, Biden even said he will supply Ukraine with arms until the last one standing . No talks , no negotiations. Those wars are about Regime change . Lebanon was once a vacation destination . Women once became doctors in Iraq, now look at afghanistan it’s destitute. Afghanistan and the US were friends, now go and take a poll and ask them how they feel about them now.