From the largely anecdotal evidence coming in so far about Russian mobilization:
1⃣ They are not sticking to Putin's publicly stated target of 300k. Just vacuuming up men in the provinces;
2⃣ They are not exclusively targeting reservists and veterans;
3⃣ They are actively using call-ups as a tool of repression, punishing protesters with draft cards.
4⃣ They are recruiting more aggressive in the rural oblasts and ethnic enclaves than in St. Peter and Moscow, perhaps trying to maintain the illusion this can be a costless war.
5⃣ The Russian state is woefully unprepared and far too disorganized to competently orchestrate something on this scale.
6⃣ The Russian army is making it up as it goes along when it comes to how to arm, train, house, feed and utilize these people.
7⃣ People are being given less than 24 hours to report to enlistment sites, but also being given long lists of things they should ideally bring.
8⃣ The criminal penalties for not attending (years and years in prison) mean people ARE turning up.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The "Putin had no choice but to escalate" line assumes that mobilizing people's children into an increasingly hopeless meatgrinder in Ukraine is somehow less dangerous to his regime than announcing victory and pulling the troops back.
I guess that's possible, but I'm sceptical.
Again, as I always stress, there is absolutely no need for the official line from Moscow to reflect reality in any way.
If he can sell the country on Jewish Zelensky being a secret Nazi and Russia only having lost 5600 troops since February, he can sell a retreat as a win.
If his address this morning had claimed that the entire Special Military Operation was an elaborate faint / maskirovka buying time to evacuate good Russian people from the Donbas before NATO Nazis overran them, Solovyov and the other propogandists would have sold it. I promise.
No doubt Chomsky, Hitchens and Mearsheimer are all penning pieces condemning North Korean aid shipments for not allowing Russia to offer all its territory southwest of Volgograd, a pledge of perpetual neutrality, and immediate demilitarization, in exchange for Ukrainian mercy.
Here, I'll get them started with a summary paragraph:
"When confronted with a military superpower like Ukraine, a corruption laden and militarily incompetent minor regional player like Russia cannot truly resist, and continued fighting only needlessly prolongs the suffering."
"I'm not on any side, but I am on the side of peace - and if the cause of peace requires Russia to make some minor territorial concessions like giving Ukraine a landbridge to Georgia and Kazakhstan, then they should resist their North Korean masters and do it."
We can infer from their refusal to sell directly that China is sensitive about being seen to directly arm Russia's invasion.
There is simply no way to hide the providence of tens of thousands of Chinese artillery shells, even if you put them in Korean boxes.
Even setting aside the considerable allied HUMINT and SIGINT, I promise you if truck loads of Chinese shells turn up at the front lines, Russian soldiers will take photos and upload them to Telegram, VK and OndaKlassniki.
1/ Interesting point here about how the Russian military is paid.
A system of low base pay supplementrd by a web of bonuses awarded through an impenetrable and capricious bureaucracy is terrible, but extremely on brand for a regime built on corruption and nepotism.
2/ The less automaticity there is in a system, the more opportunities there are for corruption, nepotism and extortion.
If you are part of approving or processing someone else's income, that gives you power.
Doubly so when the process is opaque, complex and arbitrary.
3/ In peacetime, when the actual effectiveness of the military barely matters, this system enriches officers and military bureaucrats all the way up the chain of command while allowing them to reward their toadies and punish rivals.
1/ As Ukraine advances and Russian troops around Kherson soil their recently stolen underpants, it feels a good moment to unpack the Hitchens et al hypothesis that Ukrainian concessions for peace are inevitable and NATO aid merely prolongs the suffering until that moment.
2/ If you take away all the grandiose language and puffery, the argument is quite simple:
Regardless of how much aid the West sends, it is inevitable that the Russian army will eventually push Ukraine to where it is prepared to offer land for Putin's guarantee of peace.
3/ It's based on a assumptions that really don't stand up to even basic scrutiny.
First, it envisages a moment where things are going so badly for Ukraine that Zelenskyy can (politically) offer major concessions but not so badly Putin wouldn't just push for total victory.