> ...his only instinct is going to be to double down and to try and ‘Grozny-fy’ Kyiv, if you know what I mean. And to reduce it to [rubble]
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/mar/01/uk-pol...
Add to that miscommunication within all sectors of government just to please your superiors and that's how you arrive at the, sorry, shit tier decision making surrounding this entire war.
Anyone with half a brain should have seen the economic and geopolitical disaster resulting from this. And I firmly believe that many in military, intelligence, economy etc. DID SEE IT. But talking about it was never accepted and harshly punished. This war has ended Russia as we know it and will make it just another vassal of China.
It's interesting and terrifying to observe the new fascist "Z" propaganda being pushed by Putin as well...
1. He incorrectly assumed that he'd only be facing minor sanctions for starting a war of aggression. Given how many other countries have waged wars of aggression in the past few decades, this wasn't an insane assumption... given the information he had at the time.
2. He incorrectly assumed that Ukraine would fold in less than a week. Given how the first day of the invasion looked like the Russian army was driving westwards until there wasn't any gas in the tank, this wasn't an insane assumption... given the information he had at the time.
3. There is no 3, those were the two major contributors to the shit sandwich he's now serving to both Ukraine and Russia. All the crazy shit he says about eight-hundred year old history and nazis and so on and so forth isn't what he actually believes, it's intended for internal Russian media consumption.
So no, from the perspective of someone playing at empire-building, starting this war was only 'irrational' for him with the benefit of hind-sight.
Russia's biggest source of income is their export of gas and oil. These are not sanctioned, the West is buying as much as ever and the profits are flowing straight into Putin's war chest.
> 2. He incorrectly assumed that Ukraine would fold in less than a week.
How do you know this? Russia has fought wars before, e.g. in Chechnya. They eventually won after bombing the whole country to ruins, but it took several years.
They sort of ended up sanctioned. You're right, there's nothing official, but no unconstrained buyer wants to touch energy exports from Russia.
Russia is struggling to sell its oil to unconstrained buyers [1]. Sure, Europe, in winter, with no ready alternative, is still buying, but that's about it it seems.
Also, while it's true global oil prices are sky-high, the rise in Russian oil is far more muted. Basically, there are many kinds of oil sold around the world (Brent, WTI, and many more). They usually move largely in lock step, as to a reasonable extent you can substitute one for another. But recently Urals is sold at a massive discount - because no one wants to touch it.
> How do you know this?
There are plenty of soft indications. Troops only given rations for 72-odd hours. Attempts at airborne strikes that are very rapid, but doomed to fail terribly with any but minimal resistance. Reports of Russia looking to "source" new troops - from Russian reserves, and Syrian, hmm, volunteers? All suggests the current length of the war exceeds plan A and plan B.
Of course Russia might still win a long, hard slog of a war, by bombing everything that moves...
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-has-not-sanctione... [2] https://www.neste.com/investors/market-data/urals-brent-pric...
Getting paid dollars for oil and gas doesn't do you much good when you can't spend those dollars on anything. Imports into Russia have stopped over the past week.
> How do you know this?
The propaganda leading up to the 'Minor peacekeeping action in the Donbass' certainly didn't sound like he was getting everyone ready for a forever-war.
> e.g. in Chechnya
To most Russians - even the warhawks, the war in Chechnya (much like the Winter War of 1939) was seen as a debacle and an utter embarrassment.
I mean, it's entirely possible that the war will end this week, and my second point is moot. But it's looking like it's quite possible that it won't.
This is the only type of rationality. What are you imagining when you say "objectively rational"?
> Most economic models need to stop assuming that the typical actor is rational.
Being rational as defined by your personal ideology is what economic models postulate when they assume rationality.
I really disagree. For starters, I would put "not tank your economy into the stone age" firmly into the objectively rational category of thinking. How can this war ever be "worth it" for Putin? Ukrainians will never accept the occupation force and RUSSIA DOESNT EVEN HAVE ONE to begin with. They cannot at all maintain an occupation in the Ukraine. Incapable.
This was a spear-head blitzkrieg operation aimed at replacing Selenskij within a week that was poorly planned and immediately failed and now they are completely and utterly screwed. Putin made this decision based off bad information fed to him - a downside when suppressing your subordinates, keeping bootlickers around and punishing differing opinions.
The objective results are going to be really difficult for Russia at best if not outright destructive. And it was all voluntary.
No idea why he thought any of that was worth the risk...
You're assuming an occupation of all of Ukraine is the endgame.
Especially since he has kids, he'll be leaving them an extra bad legacy, even in his own country.
You might not think it’s rational but it’s fairly common. Saying it’s irrational is explaining away pretty common behaviour with “they aren’t like me so they’re idiots”.
Except it’s more your own empathy that’s lacking for understanding another perspective.
> The seven characteristics of life include:
> responsiveness to the environment;
> growth and change;
> <<ability to reproduce;>>
> have a metabolism and breathe;
> maintain homeostasis;
> being made of cells; and.
> <<passing traits onto offspring.>>
Putin is defective, he's making the lives of his own kids harder.
I mean, I don't even need to say he's defective, it's obvious. He's a narcissist.
There can be no empathy for autocrat narcissists. They don't have any and they don't deserve any.
Plus, the former head of Mi6 warned not to try and corner Putin, since if he were to be personally severely threatened, he wouldn't hesitate to turn to using nuclear weapons and take the whole world down with him if he were to ever be ousted form power by the west.
Never gonna happen because:
1) The majority of the Russian population is still supportive of him, thinking they're fighting to liberate Ukraine from nazis and that the western sanctions are in place because the west hates them, rather than consequences for their leaders' war crimes
2) Like the former head of Mi6 said, Putin is so mad that if threatened, he's more likely to be ok with seeing the whole world get nuked, instead of going down like Gaddafi did, which is why the west is going so soft on him.
That's ok. Putin doesn't have a big red button, he actually needs a lot of people to be ok with committing a suicide, and it is likely they won't.
And nuked world might be better than world in which Russian can do what it wants.
The narrative started out that Putin is a dog backed into a corner, therefore he is bluffing and won’t actually invade. The story was also that he has the most to lose.
Maybe the premise was correct, but the conclusion hasn’t been proven valid yet.