NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On January 13 2026 03:00 Billyboy wrote: Not understanding Russians seems to be my fundamental problem and why I keep being it up. I don’t even understand what the government is selling the people (as far as a message goes) that makes them support this when there is no way they will be better off after the war than before.
Like with Trump in Venezuela he is selling that it’s a couple days work and America is going to get trillions in oil. It’s not working out like that, but I get the pitch. He gets to show his mighty jets destroy crap, helicopters with rangers rushing in a capturing a leader of a foreign country pretty easily. AND still there is way more push back from citizens. As only a small amount actually believe the narrative they are being fed, which is 100x more believable than what Putin is selling.
I can’t wrap my head around Russians being behind fucking themselves, and generations for rubble you can’t afford to rebuild.
The Russians most against them were in two camps. The ones that left while they could and still havn't gone back. Then there were the ones protesting which were rounded up and sent to the front. People forget it is a dictatorship with a strong and at the start of the war mostly loyal police/internal military force.
It is interesting if the various outlying areas running out of money means the police forces in those areas might defect to local leadership offering services for them and their family.
Short of manpower, so have to bring in a lot of Chinese people. Short of money so get disconnected from central leadership. If Russia collapses similar to the USSR case China might make a case they have to protect the Chinese people in old Chinese areas such as Manchuria (current under Russian rule). Seems they already started redrawing the borders and there isn't much Russia can do about it right now.
I do understand it is a dictatorship, and there are severe consequences for saying anything bad about Putin. But the people I'm talking about, which seems like a large amount are for this, or think it is necessary. Something along those lines. And I can not wrap my head around their logic as it seems Russia is losing on every meaningful front while gaining a minimal amount of land. The cost is no where near the return.
Like you point out one small part of how they are losing geo politically. They are also losing financially. They are also losing demographically. They are losing markets for their arms. They are losing large customers for just about everything that are not going to come back any time soon. They are losing clout. They are losing prestige, even in athletics.
It is non stop losing, but for some reason some people are so small minded that they think this snails (or technically slower in some places) gains means they are winning. It would be like going to the carnival and spending a thousand dollars to win a 2 dollar stuffed bear for a girl who is cheating on you and making fun of you for being so dumb.
The return is how respected they are these days and you can’t put a price on that. In their four year struggle against the poorest nation in Europe they’ve certainly shown everyone that they’re a serious nation and basically the USSR.
You might not see it but I’m sure if you watched Russian state tv you’d understand.
On January 13 2026 07:32 Billyboy wrote: I do understand it is a dictatorship, and there are severe consequences for saying anything bad about Putin. But the people I'm talking about, which seems like a large amount are for this, or think it is necessary. Something along those lines. And I can not wrap my head around their logic as it seems Russia is losing on every meaningful front while gaining a minimal amount of land. The cost is no where near the return.
Since Russian aims are strategic they cannot be measured by land taken in some latest offensive. Only the future of Ukraine will determine how successful (or not) they have been.
As for the Russian people - it will probably depend on a specific demographic. I'm sure urban middle-classes aren't thrilled to be heavily taxed, but then their opinion wasn't asked. OTOH the rural poor benefit a lot from re-militarization of society.
On January 13 2026 07:32 Billyboy wrote: I do understand it is a dictatorship, and there are severe consequences for saying anything bad about Putin. But the people I'm talking about, which seems like a large amount are for this, or think it is necessary. Something along those lines. And I can not wrap my head around their logic as it seems Russia is losing on every meaningful front while gaining a minimal amount of land. The cost is no where near the return.
Since Russian aims are strategic they cannot be measured by land taken in some latest offensive. Only the future of Ukraine will determine how successful (or not) they have been.
As for the Russian people - it will probably depend on a specific demographic. I'm sure urban middle-classes aren't thrilled to be heavily taxed, but then their opinion wasn't asked. OTOH the rural poor benefit a lot from re-militarization of society.
How do the rural poor benefit exactly when all of their young men went to the front instead of helping at the farm? And most of them will not return or return scarred for life. More and more of the poorer regions in Russia are reporting they're financially insolvent.
On January 13 2026 07:32 Billyboy wrote: I do understand it is a dictatorship, and there are severe consequences for saying anything bad about Putin. But the people I'm talking about, which seems like a large amount are for this, or think it is necessary. Something along those lines. And I can not wrap my head around their logic as it seems Russia is losing on every meaningful front while gaining a minimal amount of land. The cost is no where near the return.
Since Russian aims are strategic they cannot be measured by land taken in some latest offensive. Only the future of Ukraine will determine how successful (or not) they have been.
As for the Russian people - it will probably depend on a specific demographic. I'm sure urban middle-classes aren't thrilled to be heavily taxed, but then their opinion wasn't asked. OTOH the rural poor benefit a lot from re-militarization of society.
This is a huge strategic failure. It has shown how far behind their military tech is, it has made them economically weaker and dependent on very few markets who can set their own prices and control the sales. Their strategic allies are being picked off one by one.
I'm not sure that the Rural people who have bankrupted states and lost a whole generation of young men would agree (the soldiers especially on the front lines come extremely disproportionately from the poorest area's.
On January 13 2026 07:32 Billyboy wrote: I do understand it is a dictatorship, and there are severe consequences for saying anything bad about Putin. But the people I'm talking about, which seems like a large amount are for this, or think it is necessary. Something along those lines. And I can not wrap my head around their logic as it seems Russia is losing on every meaningful front while gaining a minimal amount of land. The cost is no where near the return.
Since Russian aims are strategic they cannot be measured by land taken in some latest offensive. Only the future of Ukraine will determine how successful (or not) they have been.
As for the Russian people - it will probably depend on a specific demographic. I'm sure urban middle-classes aren't thrilled to be heavily taxed, but then their opinion wasn't asked. OTOH the rural poor benefit a lot from re-militarization of society.
This is a huge strategic failure. [...]
Granted, but that's assuming this conflict will soon be over at roughly the current lines. I'm not convinced of that just yet.
On January 13 2026 07:32 Billyboy wrote: I do understand it is a dictatorship, and there are severe consequences for saying anything bad about Putin. But the people I'm talking about, which seems like a large amount are for this, or think it is necessary. Something along those lines. And I can not wrap my head around their logic as it seems Russia is losing on every meaningful front while gaining a minimal amount of land. The cost is no where near the return.
Since Russian aims are strategic they cannot be measured by land taken in some latest offensive. Only the future of Ukraine will determine how successful (or not) they have been.
As for the Russian people - it will probably depend on a specific demographic. I'm sure urban middle-classes aren't thrilled to be heavily taxed, but then their opinion wasn't asked. OTOH the rural poor benefit a lot from re-militarization of society.
This is a huge strategic failure. [...]
Granted, but that's assuming this conflict will soon be over at roughly the current lines. I'm not convinced of that just yet.
If Russia won outright after 1 year and got all their goals it was a strategic failure already. The cost for the goal was too high, that capital in manpower, goodwill, money etc could have been spent on other projects with greater return. We are in year 4 now.
Iran is shocked that Russia abandoned them and changed the narrative from "friend and ally" to "temporary tactical partner" on them. Color me surprised...
I thought that after Armenia and Syria countries would learn that Russia is not an "ally" to anyone and you don't want to count on them to come to your defense when you need it most.
On January 13 2026 07:32 Billyboy wrote: I do understand it is a dictatorship, and there are severe consequences for saying anything bad about Putin. But the people I'm talking about, which seems like a large amount are for this, or think it is necessary. Something along those lines. And I can not wrap my head around their logic as it seems Russia is losing on every meaningful front while gaining a minimal amount of land. The cost is no where near the return.
Since Russian aims are strategic they cannot be measured by land taken in some latest offensive. Only the future of Ukraine will determine how successful (or not) they have been.
As for the Russian people - it will probably depend on a specific demographic. I'm sure urban middle-classes aren't thrilled to be heavily taxed, but then their opinion wasn't asked. OTOH the rural poor benefit a lot from re-militarization of society.
This is a huge strategic failure. [...]
Granted, but that's assuming this conflict will soon be over at roughly the current lines. I'm not convinced of that just yet.
I’m with Yurie, I think the shark has already been jumped and this can’t be a strategic win. Even if they got all of Ukraine today. I mean look at resource control, Ukraine doesn’t have close to what Venezuela and Iran have. And the list goes on.
I also don’t think the lines will stay where they are. I think they will continue to grind out in Russias favour as Ukraine trades land for men and equipment at a way higher than worth price. I think the longer Russia “wins” the way they have been winning the worse it gets for them.
On January 13 2026 07:32 Billyboy wrote: I do understand it is a dictatorship, and there are severe consequences for saying anything bad about Putin. But the people I'm talking about, which seems like a large amount are for this, or think it is necessary. Something along those lines. And I can not wrap my head around their logic as it seems Russia is losing on every meaningful front while gaining a minimal amount of land. The cost is no where near the return.
Since Russian aims are strategic they cannot be measured by land taken in some latest offensive. Only the future of Ukraine will determine how successful (or not) they have been.
As for the Russian people - it will probably depend on a specific demographic. I'm sure urban middle-classes aren't thrilled to be heavily taxed, but then their opinion wasn't asked. OTOH the rural poor benefit a lot from re-militarization of society.
This is a huge strategic failure. [...]
Granted, but that's assuming this conflict will soon be over at roughly the current lines. I'm not convinced of that just yet.
I’m with Yurie, I think the shark has already been jumped and this can’t be a strategic win. Even if they got all of Ukraine today. I mean look at resource control, Ukraine doesn’t have close to what Venezuela and Iran have. And the list goes on.
I also don’t think the lines will stay where they are. I think they will continue to grind out in Russias favour as Ukraine trades land for men and equipment at a way higher than worth price. I think the longer Russia “wins” the way they have been winning the worse it gets for them.
I think that the worst part for Russia is that even if they do manage to secure land it is a negative gain in the end. Not just because of people and equipment lost but because of their tactics what they do capture is bombed to oblivion. Ruined cities, barren wastelands. After the war is over someone has to go in there, clean it all up (good luck with all those chemicals and heavy metals), rebuild all the infrastructure, housing etc. etc.
Even if war ended today the land Russia captured will be unusable for quite some time and will require substantial investment (monetary, manpower, material) to start being again useful to people. Then you'll have to wait even more time before all this investment evens out and starts being profitable.
It seems to me like people have this image in their heads where Russia wins, there's a big parade and they instantly move in to replace Ukrainians and everything continues as usual a week later but with Russians instead of Ukrainians...
Edit:
Same with Venezuela. Trump looks at the charts and sees "biggest oil reserves" and dollar signs instantly blind him. No consideration is given to required investment in infrastructure and security or thought to how hard it actually is to dig for oil in Venezuela because it's heavy oil that's deep under the mountains in rough terrain so the extraction costs are ginormous and can even eclipse the gains with the current low oil price.
And the same again with Greenland. Trump is pointing out to all those natural resource deposits but never once mentions they're there because no one was mining them so there's no pre-existing infrastructure and good luck building mines in permafrost.
I think it’s a problem with populism in general, it is built on these quick hit lines that sound good and easy but if you dig deeper there is reasons why it’s not happening now. And it is a reason why populists tend to hate academics and scientists because they bring up all those boring and difficult questions that need to be answered instead of just celebrating the cool idea.
One thing that is often overlooked is how much money and effort it takes to clear the mines. Ukraine is the world's most heavily mined country, with estimates suggesting millions of landmines and unexploded ordnance (UXO) contaminate around 20-40% of its territory, an area larger than Greece.
All of this land, if conceded to Russia is effectively an insane money sink, you need specialized equipment and incredibly skilled people to use it, some of it can't be done with machines and being a Mine Sweeper is one of the most dangerous professions with the highest death rates in the world.
On January 15 2026 01:25 Jankisa wrote: One thing that is often overlooked is how much money and effort it takes to clear the mines. Ukraine is the world's most heavily mined country, with estimates suggesting millions of landmines and unexploded ordnance (UXO) contaminate around 20-40% of its territory, an area larger than Greece.
All of this land, if conceded to Russia is effectively an insane money sink, you need specialized equipment and incredibly skilled people to use it, some of it can't be done with machines and being a Mine Sweeper is one of the most dangerous professions with the highest death rates in the world.
There's always the post WW2 version of clearing a country of mines, although probably not entirely aligned with the Geneve nor Human rights
Some interesting statistics about the composition of the Russian army based on those who surrendered or got captured. Russia using the war as a sort of social ladder...
I wish videos weren't that click-baity... 10k surrendered is less than 2% of all losses, right? Maybe about 1% if claims about 1 million total Russian losses are correct. So it changes very little if anything yet the video says "Putin's war is OVER".
And am I wrong or during Desert Storm Iraqi soldiers sometimes surrendered by 10k a day or so, and 10k in 4 years is not even close to that? Or maybe 30-35 years ago is not modern enough history anymore...
I understand click-baits earn these Youtubers money but when everything about the title of the video is wrong - I cannot help but wonder what else is wrong in the video.
Agreed, I see titles like that and I dodge the video. While if the title was analysis of what causes surrenders in a modern war, Russian case study, I would also not watch it. Somewhere in the middle is the sweet spot.
Yeah, unfortunately the flood of AI created garbage has forced legit creators to also use those generic click-bait titles. It gets harder and harder to get the real content.
To be honest, I haven't really noticed the click-bait title at first because I'm using dearrow plugin that removes click-bait titles and thumbnails from youtube so it seemed more "normal" to me.
EPT
