Thanks Tom! A really good insight into the political and cultural side of this. We mirror image Russia at our peril. Except for a tiny minority, Russians think completely differently from westerners--and anyone who doesn't realize this has already lost.
Frankly, it is rather obvious that people from different backgrounds would have different mindsets and the ways of thinking. And post-USSR background is very, very different from both US and EU backgrounds.
One remarkable thing about Putin's PRBS machine is that there's nothing original about it. It uses the same narratives as Soviet PRBS machine before. Some narratives ("Ukrainians and Belarussians are in reality Russians, but inferior") are even older. Simple and very effective, unfortunately.
U.S. and allies should ease the "do not attack Russia with our arms" ban to something like "do not attack DEEP inside Russia with our arms" and ZSU could go along the border from Urazovo to Crimea.
Last year this idea was made into a joke or a meme. Now, isn't it making a lot more sense? Suddenly, we have a highway without defensive lines and mine-free, kind of advance through the Ardennes.
Thanks Tom. Do we think the Ukrainian military knew that the dam was set to be blown? And therefore not risking a crossing downstream. Thanks again for all your hard work.
No idea. Some say they knew, others they didn't....
The entire idea for conclusions expressed above came to my mind when I recalled my visit to the Kraftwerk Freudenau, in Vienna, some 15 years ago (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraftwerk_Freudenau). On the first look, this does not look similar to the Kakhovka Dam. However, it's power plant and the spillover are, essentially, 'the same'. Foremost: when one walks through the turbine hall, and thinks about all the dozens of metres of concrete around these, about how deep into the river bed was this burried, how thick are concrete walls around it, then adds the soil pilled to support them... sorry, no 'HIMARS' goes through that. I doubt Ukrainians have any kind of a conventional warhead that could cause sufficient damage to collapse the Kakhovka Dam at two points at the same time.
So, perhaps the spillover was damaged by earlier attacks. And perhaps it suffered due to the Russian idiotic negligence. But, the turbine hall couldn't have 'just collapsed on its own'. That would take no 15 months, and no 50 HIMARS - but 150 years of negligence...
As an engineer, it's obvious that this sort of damage could not have occurred due to a surface explosion short of a nuclear weapon. And the thought that Ukrainian teams could have lugged a half ton or more of explosives across the enemy held bridge, past the Russian patrols, no matter how drunk, entered the dam interior, had enough time to strategically place the half ton of explosives at a number of places within the dam, wired it all up, and then exit the site, past all those Russian guards again, is ludicrous.
This was an inside job. A Russian sappers inside job.
"Though this be madness, yet there is method in't."
I would add to the explanation that I can easily imagine that Comrade Colonel-General was not the brightest bulb when it was about physics, ecology, floods, etc., so in his mind it was just a "more difficult obstacle for the hohols".
I assume this because of the complete lack of preparation of any kind of rescue or salvaging on the left, this time Russian bank. There is a Russian appointed governor, Russian appointed local authorities which were left - verbatim - neck deep in shit.
Engineering is not most people's strong suit but it is mine. Especially power generation. This is a great description of the difficulty of destroying such a construction. Thanks. Additionally the elimination of a major utility source is important to note. Also once the flood plain has subsided. Large awths of carefully prepared defensive works, on both side have been washed away. Of particular note a photo of a mass of anti tank mine pushed up against a bank by the water flow. Thanks again
'This with engineering' is why I'm currently recommending several friends who are still wondering about this entire tragedy: go and visit some big hydroelectric powerplant nearby. See the thickness of walls, see just how massive is the entire construction: that's not something one can 'blow away' by 'few warheads' of 91kg...
Excellent point about power generation- Russia has been targeting infrastructure throughout this war. I wonder if the nuclear power plant will be next...
I liked your articles better when it was more about facts and less about feelings. I can find rants about what a maniac Putin is everywhere on the internet. Sharp analysis on current military events in the Ukraine is a lot harder to find.
Of course you can write whatever you want, but I am also allowed to give my opinion on that. And in my opinion you dont need to repeat every blog how stupid and corrupt the Russian chain of command is. We all know that.
I hope the analysis on military actions will start playing a bigger part in your writing again.
You think this is much worse than shelling a nuclear power plant, all the mass graves with civilians or abducting thousands of Ukrainian children to Russia for 're-education'? For me these are all monstrosities and blowing up this dam is just another one in a long row. And (in my opinion) not even the worst one, because now at least they shot themselves in the foot too by depriving Crimea of water. And nature will rebuild itself (it always does) so i also dont worry about that too much. In ten years the whole area will be a big new forrest.
Anyway, you can of course write about whatever interests you. Me, I hope I can read more about the military consequences of this event.
Military consequences OF this event. Will the river be impassable when the water calms down again? Are there opportunities with all the chaos, washed away defences, troops retreating etc?
I am the opposite of Northside. I prefer a good scolding and Anti-Ruzzian statements. If they act like this, they deserve to be called fools, idiots,..
But how could they think that Ukraine was preparing something like a D-Day or Zhukov-like operations? It's completely nonsense without strong fleet , Black Sea dominance, and air superiority. Dnipro islands have too poor logistics to support operations of strategic scale. Ukraine has a land frontline which is stretching on more than 1000 km. Kharkiv-like operations are more obvious.
They boasted that they would blow up the dam for Christmas, but there was no order. The purpose of this people is to do bad things to everyone else. They don't care about Crimea either. They are strangers in this world. 140 million sick people.
I have been here in Ukraine since Jan 2010. I have been dealing with the Russians since the Cold War Days. BUT I still can not understand the Russian Brain (if they indeed have one). Since 2014 I now call this "The Decade of Russians Living Stupidly". I am beyond words over this dam, it seems like everyday the Russians do something totally without logic. Even my Beagle has more sense.... Time for the West to put on their big boy pants and simply END RUSSIA.
"Defeat" them is easily achieveable given the resources and permission the Ukrainians deserve. Subjugating or integrating them in to modern society is a different problem.
It would suffice to unmake Russian Empire. Break it up into several national states. Without resources from de-facto colonies and without a need to rule multi-national population (that have little reason to stay together), Russia will not need (or be able) to be aggressive .
The question is rather: would NATO accept Ukraine at some point, or not.
Another point is, if we leave RF as it is, it will cause trouble. Maybe it will find means to mess with UA in a way not to trigger NATO, maybe it will start a war elsewhere. Not to say, it will encourage other dictatorships to test the borders.
I believe, solving problems is preferable to avoiding them. One could avoid a problem only for so long.
I've asked similar questions about Russian culture/morals/logic without ever receiving an earnest reply. The best I have come up with on my own is that they are essentially "Gypsies" (using the stereotype) with particular emphasis on the culture of stealing and deceit, of pride in "getting away with a lie".
"What are Gypsies known for?
Fascination and Hatred: The Roma in European Culture | The ...
“Gypsies” were considered dirty, deceitful, too lazy to work, and prone to steal. The most heinous accusation was that they kidnapped the young, a charge frequently hurled against Jews as well. Several of these stereotypes clearly derive from the nomadism of Roma."
I don't believe the majority of Russians are intentionally bad people, by Western definitions. They are simply living their lives the same as those around them, with the same value system. When confronted with Western values, as presented through the filter of Russian propaganda, they understandably find "us" offensive. That point is important- what if our view of them is equally distorted? I know literally nobody with first-hand knowledge of events in Russia... I prefer to believe "our" view is accurate and correct, or at least a close approximation. This damn dam incident as example #1.
Well, search and ask those who has. For example, the majority of Ukrainians have (or at least had - before 24.02.2022) relatives, friends or buiseness partners in Russia. Not a "Roma problem" informational isolation at all.
Interesting point- Ukrainians and Russians are often blood relatives. There have been side stories about the anti-corruption activities of the Ukrainian government. Of course, we have problems here in the U.S.A. as well. People are bad all around the World. But what, if anything, distinguishes the Ukrainian mind from their Russian neighbors? Have they had more open exposure to Western culture? (Is that even the ideal we should be seeking?) Going too deep for this forum, I know. My coffee cup was recently emptied and my brain is in overdrive.
That’s obviously too big of a topic, but I will add my two kopiyka’s:
1. Ukrainians tend to be more individualistic, than Russians. Historically, both were farmers nations. Ukraine has richer soils than Russia, so Russians had to work in communities (‘obshina’) to successfully cultivate their not very generous land. In Ukraine, a hard-working farmer family could be self-sufficient in terms of agricultural activities.
2. Russians have a historical tendency to believe in “good Tzar”. “Tzar is good, but the life is bad because bad Boyars distort Tzar’s will”. On the other hand, Ukrainians did not have their own state(s) since Medieval times, hence we got used to see any government as foreign usurpers. Russians believe to their Tzar, Ukrainians are sceptical to any and every president.
Of course, these are only highlights and not even remotely a comprehensive list.
If you would like to get more insights on Russian mentality and history... I mean, real deal, and not some "we will tell them what they are already expecting" bullshit, I would recommend Kamil Galeev (https://threadreaderapp.com/user/kamilkazani).
The big difference is that Ukraine had 30 years of absolutely wild political life, and some wounds inflicted by the Soviet system had started to heal. Putin gave Russians what they wanted at the time, so cynicism, infantilism, cruelty and jealousy and, most of all, resentment still reign supreme in Russian society.
In Ukraine, people actually do have elective power: to vote for the President and for local government as well. (They would often choose poorly, but hey, that happens even in the US!)
The right to elect is taken for granted by the western folk, but Russians DO NOT have it. At all. Presidential elections in Russia are heavily rigged and governors are appointed by Putin. Police is appointed too. Russians have no elective power. Lack of power leads to infantilism and the other thing you correctly mentioned.
Jun 7, 2023·edited Jun 7, 2023Liked by Sarcastosaurus
In my personal perception, the-most-probable scenario is this battalion commander got some histerical order like "for any cost, prevent the capture of the dam", thought in panic that this order means vicious NATO mercenaries going to eat his miserable drunk battalion tomorrow, and so decided that the only way to not fail the order spectacularly is to blow up the dam immediately.
That makes a lot more sense than it was some grand strategic move on Putins part. Controlling an intact dam so you can flood your opponent whenever you wish is a better option than blowing the thing up. A drunk, panicky underling jumping the gun seems much more probable. Given the sorry state of Russia’s command/control, I could see that happening. I hope the troops manning their strategic nukes are more level headed.
According to the YouTuber "Inside Russia", a law has been adopted on 30 May, that no further examination into the reason for failure of industrial infrastructures is to be conducted on occupied territories if they have been destroyed by a terrorist attack. If this is true, it would point to a long established top-down plan.
What if that is just a preparation for their retreat? They probably understand that their retreat is inevitable. So, how would you explain such a retreat to your people? No russian will be satisfied with that idiotic "good will gesture" explanation anymore, I believe. But what if "we were forced to retreat because of 'force majeure circumstances'". Ok, so now you need to create such "circumstances". Probably, some "crash" or an "accident" on Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant might serve as a perfect argument for that. Even more, if your main goal is whether to absorb Ukraine or if you have no power to do that then at least to destroy Ukraine as much as you can to make it unviable, an "accident" on the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe perfectly serves this goal as well. And if you are to direct such an "accident" then you would probably need some sort of "cover story". So here were the Dam comes to the scene, and the narrative might look like this: they will claim that Ukrainians destroyed the Dam which led to water level drop in Dnipro, which led to an accident on Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which forced us to retreat from potentially polluted teritory. Ukraine will be left do deal with an unprecedented nuclear catastrophe which would probably eclipse Chornobyl, and at the same time you will pull out from this lost war "saving your face". Viola!
Jun 7, 2023·edited Jun 7, 2023Liked by Sarcastosaurus
"Funny" how lots of russian social medias first reported that they "blow the dam and washed ukrainians into sea" shortly after the explosion. But then, when the scale of destruction became obvious - same media started to scream "ukrainians destroyed the dam!". Exactly, precisely same pattern was observed after MH17 being shot down. First reports were from russians, that they "shot down ukrainian AN-26", which quickly turned into what we know.
Ow. That was quite widely circulating in pro-russian Telegram ("war-bloggers") and comments yesterday morning, but then quilckly finished as soon as first pictures of destructions started to appear. So no wonder why it got unnoticed by many. I don't think I can share any specific source though, I don't usually do screenshots of such things (unfortunately). You can try to monitor russian telegram as of yesterday's morning, maybe you can find something that was not deleted.
This link specifically - https://t.me/RVvoenkor/46700 - says that Ukrainian forces are drowning and retreating. It doesn't say openly who blowed up the dam, yet it's obvious they think it's them. Here is another one - https://t.me/Pravda_Gerashchenko/72773 - the same thing, he's not saying who did it, yet he's very joiful and at the end he's adding in the same joifully treatening manner that there are other Hydro Power Stations at Dniper, wich are "to deal with". It's only a pair of the multitude.
Well, we definitely have different approach to logic. None of this proves anything at all, not to say provides any evidence. But thank you for reply and your effort.
How can any social media post be a prove in the strict sence? What we all are saying from the beginning - is that the Russians en masse obviously thought initially it was their forces who blown the dam. That is really obvious from the mass of early responces.
So, an Army Group commander issued a direct order to a battalion !!!?? Guess the "max 2 levels lower" rule din not apply. For those who don't know, the superior formation can issue direct orders to subordinated formations who are max 2 levels lower but also needs to inform the intermediate formation. Example: Division can issue direct orders to its battalion commanders but is also obligated to inform their Brigade/Regiment. Cannot and wil not ever issue direct orders to companies or platoons.
It does not work like that in combat situation of big scale and/or when command structure is constantly targeted by enemy or changing in semi-chaotic way (rotations, etc). Command chain becomes filled with "random" people, which forces commanders to go down directly to who they know in person.
Yes it does, especialy in big scale operations. Unicity of command is the holiest rule of all. I can't think of any reason why a Division cmdr. would need to give direct orders to one of the companies of it's subordinated Brigades/Regiments.
Clearly, you don't have experience serving in post-USSR military in war time. It is understandable though. I am just trying to point out that not everything can be explained by a theory.
Even though I am too young to have cought the Warsaw pact, other members of my family are not, so I am pretty familiar with ante and post USSR styles and the current NATO one.
I rarely encountered lt.colones or lower who could read a Division level map, so I doubt Putin is able. As a former Intelligence officer, his military operations understanding and knowledge is low, as it should be and it's the same even today for all, no matter the service. Their NDCC is young and modeled after the US's NMCC, same as ours. Some Russian flavours, of course. I don't even think they have direct connections with the battalion commanders, nor would it bring them any advantage if they had.
Nobody said Pudding can read any kind of military maps, or this brought them any kind of advantages. Pudding can't care less about military maps, and anybody explaining him about 'disadvantages' is telling him 'bad news' - which he's refusing to hear.
He is micromanaging the situation on the basis of his own maps - by calling commanders of, for example, 'battalion tactical groups' (while any were still around) to issue his orders.
Is that too complex to understand - for example 'because it's against regular procedures'?
Well, that's what one gets in a dictatorship. Saddam and Qaddaffi were doing exactly the same.
To give orders to the Military Districts or Army cmdr. I can understand and it's normal, war is a political endeavour also, after all. There are military objectives and there are political ones. Infighting between the 2 have existed since the first human picked up a stick and sharpened it. But direct ordeering battalion commanders ? I don't believe it and it does not make sense because the level is too small to get involved into. Things are pretty straigh forward at this level, not too much room for imagination or art. Problems with the command structure of the BTG, this is another story. Blame should lie with the genius who decided to give too much forces to a simple battalion command structure, while the Bde. staff which generated the BTG were free to smoke and drink tea all day long.
I don't believe that for a second, it's folklore. The offensive capabilities and force projection of an infantry battalion are meagre. What can a battalion do besides going on offensive on a 2 km, 2.5 km max width of front and getting stoped by a company plus the AT reserves ?
There are enough intercepted communications to make this issue a matter of fact.
Call me a shameless self-advertiser, but when it comes to contemporary military history, all the bibles, toras, qorans etc. are not going to help: the best solution is always to read specialised contemporary military history books.
Thanks, I will give it a try. I am a bit of bigot when it comes to the "uninitiated" and military matters but I will keep an open mind. Somebody, in the comments area, suggested that the blowing of the dam might be the work of a panicked battalion commander. Leaving aside that distroying infrastructure like this or cultural edifices needs the political OK, this reminded me of a simmilar situation we had a couple of years ago. Heavy rains in the S of the country were so bad that the option of destroying a dam and flood some villages was considered and prepared. Only that a Bde. cmdr. didn't had the pacience and decided to give the order himself. Even worst, you need at least a Division level order for such types of infrastructure, it was never his call. The result, around 40 villages flooded. Only a Parliamentary commision managed to pull him back from the mess. Now he is retired and a very sought after SPECIALIST on almost all TV channels.
Isn't it a bit early to have history books about the war in Ukraine. It can give a general outline, but there must be so much that has not surfaced. Some never will, but I am sure we will get a lot more information once this chaos is over from interviews or documents that are declassified or captured by opposition.
Then again I have not read the book, so not sure what information it contains
What do u smoke???
Arestovych, is it you?
Thanks Tom! A really good insight into the political and cultural side of this. We mirror image Russia at our peril. Except for a tiny minority, Russians think completely differently from westerners--and anyone who doesn't realize this has already lost.
I very much second this.
Frankly, it is rather obvious that people from different backgrounds would have different mindsets and the ways of thinking. And post-USSR background is very, very different from both US and EU backgrounds.
....especially after 20+ years of 'modelling' by Pudding's PRBS-machinery....
One remarkable thing about Putin's PRBS machine is that there's nothing original about it. It uses the same narratives as Soviet PRBS machine before. Some narratives ("Ukrainians and Belarussians are in reality Russians, but inferior") are even older. Simple and very effective, unfortunately.
'Never change the winning team'....
U.S. and allies should ease the "do not attack Russia with our arms" ban to something like "do not attack DEEP inside Russia with our arms" and ZSU could go along the border from Urazovo to Crimea.
Last year this idea was made into a joke or a meme. Now, isn't it making a lot more sense? Suddenly, we have a highway without defensive lines and mine-free, kind of advance through the Ardennes.
Thanks Tom. Do we think the Ukrainian military knew that the dam was set to be blown? And therefore not risking a crossing downstream. Thanks again for all your hard work.
There is a video on twitter from last december in which a russian soldier is bragging about undermining the dam to blow up.
No idea. Some say they knew, others they didn't....
The entire idea for conclusions expressed above came to my mind when I recalled my visit to the Kraftwerk Freudenau, in Vienna, some 15 years ago (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraftwerk_Freudenau). On the first look, this does not look similar to the Kakhovka Dam. However, it's power plant and the spillover are, essentially, 'the same'. Foremost: when one walks through the turbine hall, and thinks about all the dozens of metres of concrete around these, about how deep into the river bed was this burried, how thick are concrete walls around it, then adds the soil pilled to support them... sorry, no 'HIMARS' goes through that. I doubt Ukrainians have any kind of a conventional warhead that could cause sufficient damage to collapse the Kakhovka Dam at two points at the same time.
So, perhaps the spillover was damaged by earlier attacks. And perhaps it suffered due to the Russian idiotic negligence. But, the turbine hall couldn't have 'just collapsed on its own'. That would take no 15 months, and no 50 HIMARS - but 150 years of negligence...
As an engineer, it's obvious that this sort of damage could not have occurred due to a surface explosion short of a nuclear weapon. And the thought that Ukrainian teams could have lugged a half ton or more of explosives across the enemy held bridge, past the Russian patrols, no matter how drunk, entered the dam interior, had enough time to strategically place the half ton of explosives at a number of places within the dam, wired it all up, and then exit the site, past all those Russian guards again, is ludicrous.
This was an inside job. A Russian sappers inside job.
"Though this be madness, yet there is method in't."
I would add to the explanation that I can easily imagine that Comrade Colonel-General was not the brightest bulb when it was about physics, ecology, floods, etc., so in his mind it was just a "more difficult obstacle for the hohols".
I assume this because of the complete lack of preparation of any kind of rescue or salvaging on the left, this time Russian bank. There is a Russian appointed governor, Russian appointed local authorities which were left - verbatim - neck deep in shit.
Engineering is not most people's strong suit but it is mine. Especially power generation. This is a great description of the difficulty of destroying such a construction. Thanks. Additionally the elimination of a major utility source is important to note. Also once the flood plain has subsided. Large awths of carefully prepared defensive works, on both side have been washed away. Of particular note a photo of a mass of anti tank mine pushed up against a bank by the water flow. Thanks again
'This with engineering' is why I'm currently recommending several friends who are still wondering about this entire tragedy: go and visit some big hydroelectric powerplant nearby. See the thickness of walls, see just how massive is the entire construction: that's not something one can 'blow away' by 'few warheads' of 91kg...
Excellent point about power generation- Russia has been targeting infrastructure throughout this war. I wonder if the nuclear power plant will be next...
After this one, it's sure: I have no doubts. Yes, it will be.
If for no other reason then because Putin is always exploiting such opportunities for some 'testing of the ground' - through 'gradual escalation'.
I liked your articles better when it was more about facts and less about feelings. I can find rants about what a maniac Putin is everywhere on the internet. Sharp analysis on current military events in the Ukraine is a lot harder to find.
Of course you can write whatever you want, but I am also allowed to give my opinion on that. And in my opinion you dont need to repeat every blog how stupid and corrupt the Russian chain of command is. We all know that.
I hope the analysis on military actions will start playing a bigger part in your writing again.
The moment a monstrosity of this kind lefts me indifferent, I'll go doing something else.
You think this is much worse than shelling a nuclear power plant, all the mass graves with civilians or abducting thousands of Ukrainian children to Russia for 're-education'? For me these are all monstrosities and blowing up this dam is just another one in a long row. And (in my opinion) not even the worst one, because now at least they shot themselves in the foot too by depriving Crimea of water. And nature will rebuild itself (it always does) so i also dont worry about that too much. In ten years the whole area will be a big new forrest.
Anyway, you can of course write about whatever interests you. Me, I hope I can read more about the military consequences of this event.
Half the feature is discussing military consequences that lead to this event.... but then, sure: I'm not chaining anybody to my 'blog'.
Military consequences OF this event. Will the river be impassable when the water calms down again? Are there opportunities with all the chaos, washed away defences, troops retreating etc?
I am the opposite of Northside. I prefer a good scolding and Anti-Ruzzian statements. If they act like this, they deserve to be called fools, idiots,..
But how could they think that Ukraine was preparing something like a D-Day or Zhukov-like operations? It's completely nonsense without strong fleet , Black Sea dominance, and air superiority. Dnipro islands have too poor logistics to support operations of strategic scale. Ukraine has a land frontline which is stretching on more than 1000 km. Kharkiv-like operations are more obvious.
'Good news'....
It doesn't matter. What matters is that Makarevich can report 'good news' to Pudding....
They boasted that they would blow up the dam for Christmas, but there was no order. The purpose of this people is to do bad things to everyone else. They don't care about Crimea either. They are strangers in this world. 140 million sick people.
I have been here in Ukraine since Jan 2010. I have been dealing with the Russians since the Cold War Days. BUT I still can not understand the Russian Brain (if they indeed have one). Since 2014 I now call this "The Decade of Russians Living Stupidly". I am beyond words over this dam, it seems like everyday the Russians do something totally without logic. Even my Beagle has more sense.... Time for the West to put on their big boy pants and simply END RUSSIA.
"Defeat" them is easily achieveable given the resources and permission the Ukrainians deserve. Subjugating or integrating them in to modern society is a different problem.
That's not even necessary.
It would suffice to unmake Russian Empire. Break it up into several national states. Without resources from de-facto colonies and without a need to rule multi-national population (that have little reason to stay together), Russia will not need (or be able) to be aggressive .
For Ukraine there is even an easier solution: join NATO and leave Russia to eat itself in any manner they'll enjoy.
The question is rather: would NATO accept Ukraine at some point, or not.
Another point is, if we leave RF as it is, it will cause trouble. Maybe it will find means to mess with UA in a way not to trigger NATO, maybe it will start a war elsewhere. Not to say, it will encourage other dictatorships to test the borders.
I believe, solving problems is preferable to avoiding them. One could avoid a problem only for so long.
I've asked similar questions about Russian culture/morals/logic without ever receiving an earnest reply. The best I have come up with on my own is that they are essentially "Gypsies" (using the stereotype) with particular emphasis on the culture of stealing and deceit, of pride in "getting away with a lie".
"What are Gypsies known for?
Fascination and Hatred: The Roma in European Culture | The ...
“Gypsies” were considered dirty, deceitful, too lazy to work, and prone to steal. The most heinous accusation was that they kidnapped the young, a charge frequently hurled against Jews as well. Several of these stereotypes clearly derive from the nomadism of Roma."
I don't believe the majority of Russians are intentionally bad people, by Western definitions. They are simply living their lives the same as those around them, with the same value system. When confronted with Western values, as presented through the filter of Russian propaganda, they understandably find "us" offensive. That point is important- what if our view of them is equally distorted? I know literally nobody with first-hand knowledge of events in Russia... I prefer to believe "our" view is accurate and correct, or at least a close approximation. This damn dam incident as example #1.
Well, search and ask those who has. For example, the majority of Ukrainians have (or at least had - before 24.02.2022) relatives, friends or buiseness partners in Russia. Not a "Roma problem" informational isolation at all.
Interesting point- Ukrainians and Russians are often blood relatives. There have been side stories about the anti-corruption activities of the Ukrainian government. Of course, we have problems here in the U.S.A. as well. People are bad all around the World. But what, if anything, distinguishes the Ukrainian mind from their Russian neighbors? Have they had more open exposure to Western culture? (Is that even the ideal we should be seeking?) Going too deep for this forum, I know. My coffee cup was recently emptied and my brain is in overdrive.
That’s obviously too big of a topic, but I will add my two kopiyka’s:
1. Ukrainians tend to be more individualistic, than Russians. Historically, both were farmers nations. Ukraine has richer soils than Russia, so Russians had to work in communities (‘obshina’) to successfully cultivate their not very generous land. In Ukraine, a hard-working farmer family could be self-sufficient in terms of agricultural activities.
2. Russians have a historical tendency to believe in “good Tzar”. “Tzar is good, but the life is bad because bad Boyars distort Tzar’s will”. On the other hand, Ukrainians did not have their own state(s) since Medieval times, hence we got used to see any government as foreign usurpers. Russians believe to their Tzar, Ukrainians are sceptical to any and every president.
Of course, these are only highlights and not even remotely a comprehensive list.
Interesting insight. Thank you!
If you would like to get more insights on Russian mentality and history... I mean, real deal, and not some "we will tell them what they are already expecting" bullshit, I would recommend Kamil Galeev (https://threadreaderapp.com/user/kamilkazani).
Too much for my generalist mind. Any recommendation for something a bit more "Encyclopedia Britannica"?
The big difference is that Ukraine had 30 years of absolutely wild political life, and some wounds inflicted by the Soviet system had started to heal. Putin gave Russians what they wanted at the time, so cynicism, infantilism, cruelty and jealousy and, most of all, resentment still reign supreme in Russian society.
Very true.
In Ukraine, people actually do have elective power: to vote for the President and for local government as well. (They would often choose poorly, but hey, that happens even in the US!)
The right to elect is taken for granted by the western folk, but Russians DO NOT have it. At all. Presidential elections in Russia are heavily rigged and governors are appointed by Putin. Police is appointed too. Russians have no elective power. Lack of power leads to infantilism and the other thing you correctly mentioned.
In my personal perception, the-most-probable scenario is this battalion commander got some histerical order like "for any cost, prevent the capture of the dam", thought in panic that this order means vicious NATO mercenaries going to eat his miserable drunk battalion tomorrow, and so decided that the only way to not fail the order spectacularly is to blow up the dam immediately.
That makes a lot more sense than it was some grand strategic move on Putins part. Controlling an intact dam so you can flood your opponent whenever you wish is a better option than blowing the thing up. A drunk, panicky underling jumping the gun seems much more probable. Given the sorry state of Russia’s command/control, I could see that happening. I hope the troops manning their strategic nukes are more level headed.
According to the YouTuber "Inside Russia", a law has been adopted on 30 May, that no further examination into the reason for failure of industrial infrastructures is to be conducted on occupied territories if they have been destroyed by a terrorist attack. If this is true, it would point to a long established top-down plan.
Yup, such a law was officially published by Pravda, too.
Wow. They actually passed such a law? 100% Certain this is real?!? I am unable to find any news about it, but my Google skills are mediocre at best.
What if that is just a preparation for their retreat? They probably understand that their retreat is inevitable. So, how would you explain such a retreat to your people? No russian will be satisfied with that idiotic "good will gesture" explanation anymore, I believe. But what if "we were forced to retreat because of 'force majeure circumstances'". Ok, so now you need to create such "circumstances". Probably, some "crash" or an "accident" on Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant might serve as a perfect argument for that. Even more, if your main goal is whether to absorb Ukraine or if you have no power to do that then at least to destroy Ukraine as much as you can to make it unviable, an "accident" on the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe perfectly serves this goal as well. And if you are to direct such an "accident" then you would probably need some sort of "cover story". So here were the Dam comes to the scene, and the narrative might look like this: they will claim that Ukrainians destroyed the Dam which led to water level drop in Dnipro, which led to an accident on Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which forced us to retreat from potentially polluted teritory. Ukraine will be left do deal with an unprecedented nuclear catastrophe which would probably eclipse Chornobyl, and at the same time you will pull out from this lost war "saving your face". Viola!
That's disturbingly plausible. Especially given the level of "Doctor Strangelove" antics of the Russian command/leadership.
Yup, very likely something of that kind - 'just without the rear withdrawal': troops were drowned, not withdrawn...
Much easier to deny payments to Russian families if no bodies are recovered from the flood...
"Funny" how lots of russian social medias first reported that they "blow the dam and washed ukrainians into sea" shortly after the explosion. But then, when the scale of destruction became obvious - same media started to scream "ukrainians destroyed the dam!". Exactly, precisely same pattern was observed after MH17 being shot down. First reports were from russians, that they "shot down ukrainian AN-26", which quickly turned into what we know.
can you share at least one link for such posts? I have never seen a single one.
Ow. That was quite widely circulating in pro-russian Telegram ("war-bloggers") and comments yesterday morning, but then quilckly finished as soon as first pictures of destructions started to appear. So no wonder why it got unnoticed by many. I don't think I can share any specific source though, I don't usually do screenshots of such things (unfortunately). You can try to monitor russian telegram as of yesterday's morning, maybe you can find something that was not deleted.
He's right. Saw lots of such reports - and nope: didn't care to save any of the telegram and vkontakte links.
https://t.me/jurnko/7938
It doesn’t say anything of the kind.
This link specifically - https://t.me/RVvoenkor/46700 - says that Ukrainian forces are drowning and retreating. It doesn't say openly who blowed up the dam, yet it's obvious they think it's them. Here is another one - https://t.me/Pravda_Gerashchenko/72773 - the same thing, he's not saying who did it, yet he's very joiful and at the end he's adding in the same joifully treatening manner that there are other Hydro Power Stations at Dniper, wich are "to deal with". It's only a pair of the multitude.
Well, we definitely have different approach to logic. None of this proves anything at all, not to say provides any evidence. But thank you for reply and your effort.
How can any social media post be a prove in the strict sence? What we all are saying from the beginning - is that the Russians en masse obviously thought initially it was their forces who blown the dam. That is really obvious from the mass of early responces.
https://archive.ph/c0iHL
“AFU are running away from Kherson islands at this very moment, Russian artillery and drones are hitting them”, etc.
Short, precise and to the point. Thank you
So, an Army Group commander issued a direct order to a battalion !!!?? Guess the "max 2 levels lower" rule din not apply. For those who don't know, the superior formation can issue direct orders to subordinated formations who are max 2 levels lower but also needs to inform the intermediate formation. Example: Division can issue direct orders to its battalion commanders but is also obligated to inform their Brigade/Regiment. Cannot and wil not ever issue direct orders to companies or platoons.
It does not work like that in combat situation of big scale and/or when command structure is constantly targeted by enemy or changing in semi-chaotic way (rotations, etc). Command chain becomes filled with "random" people, which forces commanders to go down directly to who they know in person.
Yes it does, especialy in big scale operations. Unicity of command is the holiest rule of all. I can't think of any reason why a Division cmdr. would need to give direct orders to one of the companies of it's subordinated Brigades/Regiments.
Clearly, you don't have experience serving in post-USSR military in war time. It is understandable though. I am just trying to point out that not everything can be explained by a theory.
Even though I am too young to have cought the Warsaw pact, other members of my family are not, so I am pretty familiar with ante and post USSR styles and the current NATO one.
Ok, well, then you need to bet everything on the theory and make all your conclusions based on that.
'Unity of command is the holiest rule of all.'
...so also in the Russian military doctrine. Then came Pudding, though....
I rarely encountered lt.colones or lower who could read a Division level map, so I doubt Putin is able. As a former Intelligence officer, his military operations understanding and knowledge is low, as it should be and it's the same even today for all, no matter the service. Their NDCC is young and modeled after the US's NMCC, same as ours. Some Russian flavours, of course. I don't even think they have direct connections with the battalion commanders, nor would it bring them any advantage if they had.
OK, the final try.
Nobody said Pudding can read any kind of military maps, or this brought them any kind of advantages. Pudding can't care less about military maps, and anybody explaining him about 'disadvantages' is telling him 'bad news' - which he's refusing to hear.
He is micromanaging the situation on the basis of his own maps - by calling commanders of, for example, 'battalion tactical groups' (while any were still around) to issue his orders.
Is that too complex to understand - for example 'because it's against regular procedures'?
Well, that's what one gets in a dictatorship. Saddam and Qaddaffi were doing exactly the same.
To give orders to the Military Districts or Army cmdr. I can understand and it's normal, war is a political endeavour also, after all. There are military objectives and there are political ones. Infighting between the 2 have existed since the first human picked up a stick and sharpened it. But direct ordeering battalion commanders ? I don't believe it and it does not make sense because the level is too small to get involved into. Things are pretty straigh forward at this level, not too much room for imagination or art. Problems with the command structure of the BTG, this is another story. Blame should lie with the genius who decided to give too much forces to a simple battalion command structure, while the Bde. staff which generated the BTG were free to smoke and drink tea all day long.
Putin is known to have regularly called battalion commanders. How many levels is that 'below 2 levels'....
That's why 'bardak'....
I don't believe that for a second, it's folklore. The offensive capabilities and force projection of an infantry battalion are meagre. What can a battalion do besides going on offensive on a 2 km, 2.5 km max width of front and getting stoped by a company plus the AT reserves ?
Beliefs are something for places of religious worship.
True but sometimes it's all we have.
There are enough intercepted communications to make this issue a matter of fact.
Call me a shameless self-advertiser, but when it comes to contemporary military history, all the bibles, toras, qorans etc. are not going to help: the best solution is always to read specialised contemporary military history books.
https://www.helion.co.uk/military-history-books/war-in-ukraine-volume-2-russian-invasion-february-2022.php?sid=aa1250867fc5ac08db54699308970885
Thanks, I will give it a try. I am a bit of bigot when it comes to the "uninitiated" and military matters but I will keep an open mind. Somebody, in the comments area, suggested that the blowing of the dam might be the work of a panicked battalion commander. Leaving aside that distroying infrastructure like this or cultural edifices needs the political OK, this reminded me of a simmilar situation we had a couple of years ago. Heavy rains in the S of the country were so bad that the option of destroying a dam and flood some villages was considered and prepared. Only that a Bde. cmdr. didn't had the pacience and decided to give the order himself. Even worst, you need at least a Division level order for such types of infrastructure, it was never his call. The result, around 40 villages flooded. Only a Parliamentary commision managed to pull him back from the mess. Now he is retired and a very sought after SPECIALIST on almost all TV channels.
Isn't it a bit early to have history books about the war in Ukraine. It can give a general outline, but there must be so much that has not surfaced. Some never will, but I am sure we will get a lot more information once this chaos is over from interviews or documents that are declassified or captured by opposition.
Then again I have not read the book, so not sure what information it contains
Well, your life seems quite miserable if you have nothing in it except of blind beliefs. Maybe it's worth trying to change the lifestyle.
I guess Razvan is asking for direct or circumstancial evidence that putler did indeed give orders to specific batallions.