Let's look at a few changes in Russia's situation over the past few weeks:

1. Trump will send Tomahawks. There are about 750 about to be scrapped, so it's safe to assume that this is the stock we're talking about. Trump wants a veto on certain targets.

1/ 2. Kazachstan has now closed the border for sanctioned tech and military parts. Long lines at the border. Lots of cargo is getting confiscated.
Other Central Asian countries and Turkey should follow suit.
It seems China is getting a bit nervous too.

2/

Since the beginning of the war, Russia has been borrowing Rubles from Russian banks in exchange for Government bonds in Rubles. Banks are forced into buying these paper promises (no collateral).

1. It means that savings and pensions are being converted into worthless paper.

1/

https://twitter.com/evgen1232007/status/1963285765615755327

2. It also means that Putin's war chest is empty. Officially it is claimed there is still money in the national welfare fund, but this may not be true.

3. By september Putin already surpassed the level of 2024. Het already borrowed the equivalent of €34 bn.

2/

Contrary to the information that Americans are being fed by Russia, Europe doesn't lack an army. Adding things up, the US Army has 452689 active duty personnel, adding the National Guard and reservists, you get 954875 uniformed personnel, yet Europe has twice as many soldiers.
1/ And the European army is well equipped. Lots of US gear too.

Before the war in Ukraine it could be argued that there wasn't enough ammunition for more than a few weeks of intensive fighting, but ammo production has geared up. Besides the US had exactly the same problem.

2/

What is the truth about the story of 'the US paying for Europe's defence'?

Why does the US have a higher defence expenditure than other NATO countries?

How is that story being used politically?

1/ 1. Historically, the US basically didn't want European countries (outside of the UK and France) to be independent military powers: they had support roles to the US army.

2/

Putin's Russia is not after any rational advantage of a military land grab in Ukraine. If we expect rationality, in the sense of a positive cost->profit outcome like 'realists' assume, we won't find any. Instead, private and domestic reasons may explain the Kremlin's choices.

1/ We should instead consider:
1. Putin's private motives
2. Paranoia from the KGB kitchen
3. Stories (for the home front) in which Russia is threatened
4. Perceived cultural/racist superiority on which Russian imperialism floats.

2/

Why do some in the West get Russia so wrong?

I mean: fundamentally wrong.

And not just average people who have other jobs, but the very people whose job it is to gather intelligence and make sense of it, like Isa Yusibov mentioned:



Why is this?

1/

https://x.com/Isa_Yusibov/status/1947198531262935099

The basic error in the West is that they attribute rationality to Kremlin leaders.

They're wrong. Kremlin leaders can perfectly _MIMIC_ rational thought, but that's not the same.

Their lead ideology is imperialism and their modus operandi is sabotage, bluff and opportunism.

2/

People are very much interested in how cheaply Ukraine is able to kill Shaheds.

Everyone sees that Ukraine kills them in high numbers.
Does taking them out cost more than it costs Russia to make them?

1/ The answer is no. Ukraine destroys the Shaheds at a fraction of Russia's cost to build one.

Let's break it down:

Russia produces the simplest Shaheds for around 15.000 USD.

Ukraine shoots down 80% of them with plain air defence machine guns.

At what cost?

2/

What are some of Russia's weak points?

1. Russia's size is a typical structural weakness. They have such a large territory that to defend it all, you need insane amounts of air defence.

Ukraine can hit whatever they like.
Maybe in a roundabout way, but they can.

1/ 2. Their leaders are delusional and paranoid, they lack in reality testing, they probably don't get to hear the truth from their commanders.

2/

For those who insist that Soviet successes in space were essentially Russian... let's remember Sergei Korolev.

He designed the GIRD-9 and 10 rockets, the R1 (that became the Scud), the R7 that put the Sputnik and Yuri Gagarin into orbit.

1/ Korolev went on to design the N1 rocket that would take the Luna moonlander to the moon. Tragically, he died two weeks before it landed on the moon.

His space rockets were a great success and became famous under the name of Soyuz.

2/

This is how Trump thinks about trade:

Trump thinks about trade in a very 2-dimensional way, in terms of trade deficit or trade surplus with single trade partners.

So in this picture he thinks the red countries are the bad guys while green ones are good.

But is that real?

1/ It's not real.

In the example of Canada/US we see that the US buys crude oil from Canada. Why? Because when you calculate both transport and price it is most profitable for American companies to do so.

Does offering the most profitable option make Canada a bad guy?

No.

2/

What is the US blind to?

Current US politicians are blind to the historical division of tasks within NATO. The US after WW2 saw itself as the 'managing director' (so to speak) of NATO.

Other NATO members offered military details for projects that the US deemed necessary.

1/ Other NATO countries don't even have the software to organise a coordinated military operation.

Fighter jet squadrons to the Middle East? OK. Or covertly listening in to Russian nuclear subs? OK. Protecting merchant shipping in the Atlantic, the Red Sea? OK.

2/

Putin's war and fertiliser

150 years ago, guano and similar fertiliser used to be mined from Peru and Chile. Later on it was produced using natural gas (producing lots of CO2) by countries like Russia that have an abundance of gas.

But that's going to change.

1/ Natural gas based fertiliser has certain disadvantages:

1. It's the chemical process that produces the most CO2 of all - all things being equal, we'd prefer a process that produces less of it;

2. In the case of Russia: we'd like less of that as well.

Why?

[,,]

2/

How does Russia's 'small step' advance on the battlefield actually work?

How do the pieces of the puzzle fit together?
I will describe the essence here.

We all heard that Russia changed its 'meat grinder' tactics - but why did the number of casualties go up?

1/ It took an interview with a defected Russian soldier and some Telegram messages to make the pieces fit together.

The general background picture is firstly that Russia is in a 'make do' situation: this is the best they can do with their present weapons and men.

Meaning?

2/

Reality

Russia is sliding downwards in every sense: their stocks of weapons are almost empty, production doesn't keep up, the normal economy goes downhill fast, the war economy is paid for with money they don't have.

Should the world be in a hurry to negotiate peace?

No.

1/ Military aid for Ukraine is picking up. The West has increased its production of shells. More weapons of every kind are on the way. Ukraine's own weapons inventions prove very effective.

Yes, countering glide bombs and meat wave tactics are still a challenge to be resolved.

2/

The Ruble doesn't find support. It entered into a fee fall. Now Russia has stopped trading. This means that the exchange rate will just SEEM to have stabilised, but that's not the case. The Ruble has become a 'black market only' currency.

What's a free fall?

1/
pic: Moscow It means the value goes down and nothing stabilises it, nothing moves it up. It means the Ruble is not supported anymore. Not by foreign buyers who need Rubles to buy Russian exports. And not by short term measures of the Russian Central Bank.

For instance [..]

2/

Normally, what is produced continues to play a further role in the economy. Industry makes an electric drill. A builder makes a shop with it. The shop sells boots. Farmers buy the boots and produces butter. Value makes more value.

War production does not make such a chain.

1/4 In war, governments pay to produce bombs.
They explode and the value is gone.

Especially true in a war of attrition. The government makes dead-end-payments.

Economists do not make this distinction, they say Russia's GDP last year was great.

2/4

🧵
What is the "Russian Imperial Mindset"?

The 'Russian imperial mindset' is very strongly present in many Russians. It is not a 'stand-alone' kind of thing. Jung might have described it as a 'complex' accompanied by a few other peculiarities.

Here's a list:
[..]

1/ Elements of the Russian Imperial Mindset:
- a sense of how big Russia is
- an assumption of invincibllity, based on sheer size
- that the size of Russia needs a strongman to be governed
- that this requires a hierarchy with the strongman at the top holding absolute power

2/

I've been saying this for years.

Anne Applebaum always manages to hit the nail right on the head.

And we can wonder why does Putin broadly advertise his war crimes? Because it's an 'impunity-show''.

But why?

1/

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1854448523485270214

And why does Putin orchestrate all these war crimes and advertise them so much?

Because he thereby displays his fascist philosophy that it's neither international law, nor agreements, nor moral values or human rights that dictate or limit his behaviour, but power only. Why?

2/

Translation Telegram post:

We are making progress in the development of unique weapons, - Scout Thirteen

The commander of the DIU's special unit “Group 13” with the call sign Thirteen exclusively for journalists of the Japanese edition NHK

www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/2024…
[..]
1/ x.com/DI_Ukraine/sta… [..] told about the work of the MAGURA V5 maritime attack drone.

✔️ The article about the newest Ukrainian weapon for fighting enemy ships and other targets describes its technical characteristics: length 5.5 meters, speed over 80 kilometers per hour, payload 250 kilograms.

2/

🧵
What is the US afraid of when it comes to giving Ukraine what it needs to win?

The US mentioned 'escalation' but that's the wrong word. They probably chose it because they thought it was a non-technical word that the general public would understand.

What is it then?

1/
I suspect the US actually wanted to avoid what is called a 'runaway feedback loop'.

The concept originates from the field of engineering and involves mathematics and schematic descriptions. Many might find that too specialistic.

Let's apply it to Ukraine:

2/
pic: Russian bomb

🧵It is getting more simple by the day to fight Russia in Ukraine.

Ukraine's allies must use their overwhelming economic and technical potential to help Ukraine.

Europe alone is 10 times larger than Russia in terms of technical and economic potential.

What does that mean?

1/ Let's look at it systematically:

Why simpler?

Because many alternatives have fallen away for Russia.

Before february 2022, Russia did large scale exercises near Ukraine's borders. They played out a large scale tank battle with their more modern equipment.

All gone now.

2/