(06-03-2025, 12:25 AM)putnam6 Wrote: It was a heluva an accomplishment, but did it change the war's trajectory? That's the argument. 

I don't think it changed anything except perhaps prolonging the inevitable.

[Image: https://media0.giphy.com/media/6tb0l9xAT.../giphy.gif]

There were good reasons why the first and second world wars started, and why they considered throwing the first punch, but Putin does not seem to be biting, he seems to want direct attacks from individual NATO countries so he can say they started it.

(06-03-2025, 12:58 AM)Mantiss2021 Wrote: You might not have chosen the best meme to illustrate your point, there.

Despite referring to himself as "inevitable", and, at least initially "winning", Thanos was ultimately defeated (although at great cost and personal sacrifice) by his opposition, if you recall..

Has the destruction of a significant portion of Russians strategic air force turned the tide (reversing the "snap" if you will) to Ukraine's favor? Uncertain at this time.

But,  I would suggest that US recent actions and attitudes toward both Ukraine and the EU are perhaps inadvertently forging new, and stronger bonds between Ukraine and the EU.

Bonds from which the US might find itself excluded.


Consider a future wherein Russia, weakened by a war of attrition, now being waged within its own previously sacred borders, continues to degrade its military and political infrastructure, finally succumbs to Ukraine, backed by the EU, exigent of US-controlled NATO strictures.

Consider the wealth of a now deflated Russia, at the mercy of an EU/Ukraine hegonomy.

Really ??? 

Your fanciful descriptive best-case scenario is highly unlikely anytime soon, if ever,

Losing the occupied oblasts has already occurred; consequently, my inevitable interpretation is born in reality 

Thanos stole 5 years from the world, much like Russia has stolen 3 plus years of peace from Ukraine, and right now, 3 years in, losing the oblasts looks inevitable unless you can find Ukraine's Captain Marvel 

All the while...

Your EU/Ukraine hegemony can't live without Russia's LNG till 2027

Here's what Grok suggests 

Quote:The chances of Ukraine recovering lost territories in 2025 are slim, with a probability of less than 20% for significant military gains, given Russia’s current advantages and Ukraine’s resource constraints. Limited recoveries in areas like Kherson or Zaporizhzhia are more feasible (30–40% chance) if Ukraine sustains Western support and exploits Russian weaknesses. Diplomatically, a negotiated freeze or partial territorial swap appears more likely (50–60% chance), though it would likely mean accepting temporary Russian control over 18–19% of Ukraine UNLIKELY (my bolding).

Long-term recovery (beyond 2027) depends on Russia’s economic collapse or a shift in global support, but Crimea and Donbas remain the hardest to reclaim due to their entrenched status.

If true, and the underwater supports of the supports were severely damaged at the bottom level, this would be more significant than the drone attack.

MAKS 25 

@Maks_NAFO_FELLA

Quote:SBU conducted a new unique special operation and hit the Crimean Bridge for the third time - this time underwater! The operation lasted several months. SBU agents mined the supports of this illegal facility. And today, without any casualties among the civilian population, at 4:44 am the first explosive device was activated. The underwater supports of the supports were severely damaged at the bottom level - 1100 kg of explosives in the TNT equivalent contributed to this. In fact, the bridge is in a state of emergency.

(06-03-2025, 12:25 AM)putnam6 Wrote: It was a heluva an accomplishment, but did it change the war's trajectory? That's the argument. 

That's a fair point, but what it has done has shown Russia it is vulnerable.
This could make the Putin regime more desperate in it's attacks or it could lead his regime to making mistakes in attempts to protect its war infrastructure. Something like this could also lead to the Russian population deciding enough is enough??

(06-03-2025, 06:42 AM)Kurokage Wrote: That's a fair point, but what it has done has shown Russia it is vulnerable.
This could make the Putin regime more desperate in it's attacks or it could lead his regime to making mistakes in attempts to protect its war infrastructure. Something like this could also lead to the Russian population deciding enough is enough??

We have been hearing of Russia's and Putin's vulnerability since Prigozhin's march on the Kremlin, if not before. 

Your scenarios are slow to develop time time-consuming hopes. 

It's no coincidence they hit the Crimea Bridge again, allegedly

Ukraine is desperate to move the needle; already its June,

(06-03-2025, 07:13 AM)putnam6 Wrote: We have been hearing of Russia's and Putin's vulnerability since Prigozhin's march on the Kremlin, if not before. 

Your scenarios are slow to develop time time-consuming hopes. 

It's no coincidence they hit the Crimea Bridge again, allegedly

Ukraine is desperate to move the needle; already its June,

In a sense Putin, like most dictators is vulnerable, his only keeping his position by blowing up or poisoning people who become a threat. That's why he strictly controls things like the media. Once the dominos do start falling though, they quickly end up being hunted down like Saddam and Gaddafi or having to flee like Assad.

They're not hopes my friend, just what I feel stands out because of the more recent attacks. Putin stopped attacking just military targets long ago, and after all his losses of personnel and tanks, he may get more desperate and increase his carpet bombing (by the aircraft targeted by the recent drone attack), or the Russian population and military will see sense. 

The Crimean Bridge is a symbol to both sides of this conflict, so you're right it's no coincidence. 

Both sides are desperate, but Ukraine has proven it's no push over after 3 years of hard slog, and Putin has shown his weakness with his inability to just walk over the Ukrainian people with his short 'military operation'.

(06-03-2025, 09:35 AM)Kurokage Wrote: In a sense Putin, like most dictators is vulnerable, his only keeping his position by blowing up or poisoning people who become a threat. That's why he strictly controls things like the media. Once the dominos do start falling though, they quickly end up being hunted down like Saddam and Gaddafi or having to flee like Assad.

They're not hopes my friend, just what I feel stands out because of the more recent attacks. Putin stopped attacking just military targets long ago, and after all his losses of personnel and tanks, he may get more desperate and increase his carpet bombing (by the aircraft targeted by recent drone attack), or the Russian population and military will see sense. 

The Crimean Bridge is a symbol to both sides of this conflict, so you're right it's no coincidence. 

Both sides are desperate, but Ukraine has proven it's no push over after 3 years of hard slog, and Putin has shown his weakness with his inability to just walk over the Ukrainian people with his short 'military operation'.

Symbolic emotional victories filled with hope, just because Ukraine has bloodied Russia's nose, doesn't mean all of a sudden all of thier strategic advantages are gone. 

Already, one "destroyed" Russian AWACS has been upgraded to stable


Nothing beyond embarrassment, Putin/Russia aren't collapsing like Assad in Syria and certainly not like Saddam or Gaddafi, both had significant turmoil within thier borders for years. X.com and Discord are abuzz with cheerleaders, too. But to make a regime change work, you need to set up the opposition years in advance,  stir up some conflict in a few oblasts, turn loose a few American politicians and bureaucrats owned by the MIC, find a willing actor to play opposition leader, but I digress 

This isn't the case in Russia. Sounds great if you need more countries to pony up for the war effort, though.

But how realistic is this? #1 and #2, any turmoil could lead to hardliners having more of an influence. All it could take is one azzhat in the Kremlin that wants to go medieval on Zelensky after the drone attack, plenty of Russians want exactly that.

(06-03-2025, 11:49 AM)putnam6 Wrote: Symbolic emotional victories filled with hope, just because Ukraine has bloodied Russia's nose, doesn't mean all of a sudden all of thier strategic advantages are gone. 

Already, one "destroyed" Russian AWACS has been upgraded to stable


Nothing beyond embarrassment, Putin/Russia aren't collapsing like Assad in Syria and certainly not like Saddam or Gaddafi, both had significant turmoil within thier borders for years. X.com and Discord are abuzz with cheerleaders, too. But to make a regime change work, you need to set up the opposition years in advance,  stir up some conflict in a few oblasts, turn loose a few American politicians and bureaucrats owned by the MIC, find a willing actor to play opposition leader, but I digress 

This isn't the case in Russia. Sounds great if you need more countries to pony up for the war effort, though.

But how realistic is this? #1 and #2, any turmoil could lead to hardliners having more of an influence. All it could take is one azzhat in the Kremlin that wants to go medieval on Zelensky after the drone attack, plenty of Russians want exactly that.

'Symbolic emotional victories' is also what Putin is grasping for, his 'week' long special operation has dragged on now for 3 years with no real sign of ending quickly for his forces, even if he does drag out a win. This will have weakened Putins position even if he clings on to power till his death. That's why Prigozhin got as far as he did and got blown out of the sky. Putin is also having problems with simple food stuffs like potatoes. He's done deals with Belarus swapping potatoes for missiles, and with more and more countries allowing deeper strikes into Russia, the Russia people must be seeing and feeling the impact, especially after the deaths of a nearly a whole generation of young Russians.

We really don't know what's brewing under the surface in Russia because Putin and the Kremlin have control over most of the media, and are filling it with propaganda. In the west at least we can openly moan about our leaders when they mess up. 

"All it could take is one azzhat in the Kremlin that wants to go medieval" if that's to be believed then Great Britain would have been nuked 3 years back when we showed support for the Ukrainian people, with several of his mouth pieces calling for just that.   

(06-03-2025, 12:22 PM)Kurokage Wrote: 'Symbolic emotional victories' is also what Putin is grasping for, his 'week' long special operation has dragged on now for 3 years with no real sign of ending quickly for his forces, even if he does drag out a win. This will have weakened Putins position even if he clings on to power till his death. That's why Prigozhin got as far as he did and got blown out of the sky. Putin is also having problems with simple food stuffs like potatoes. He's done deals with Belarus swapping potatoes for missiles, and with more and more countries allowing deeper strikes into Russia, the Russia people must be seeing and feeling the impact, especially after the deaths of a nearly a whole generation of young Russians.

We really don't know what's brewing under the surface in Russia because Putin and the Kremlin have control over most of the media, and are filling it with propaganda. In the west at least we can openly moan about our leaders when they mess up. 

"All it could take is one azzhat in the Kremlin that wants to go medieval" if that's to be believed then Great Britain would have been nuked 3 years back when we showed support for the Ukrainian people, with several of his mouth pieces calling for just that.   

So thats the plan, we expect America to commit billions too?

The prospect of Russia overthrowing Putin isn’t realistic in 2025 or even 2026.

 It’s just not going to happen anytime soon. We’re looking at a minimum of three years before any real change occurs, and that’s relying on a hopium-induced view

Grok hits on some key points....
 

Quote:Likelihood Assessment
No definitive probability can be assigned due to unpredictable variables (e.g., sudden elite betrayal, external shocks). However:

• Short Term (1-2 years): Overthrow is unlikely. Putin’s control over institutions, lack of opposition, and propaganda dominance insulate him. Economic and military strains exist but aren’t critical yet. A coup or uprising would need a dramatic trigger (e.g., major defeat in Ukraine or elite defection), which isn’t imminent based on current data.
  
• Medium Term (3-5 years): The likelihood increases slightly if economic decline accelerates, military losses mount, or a successor emerges among elites. Posts on X suggest growing pessimism about Russia’s trajectory, which could erode Putin’s base if unchecked.
  
• Long Term (5+ years): Putin’s age (72 in 2025) and potential health issues could create a succession crisis, especially if no clear heir is groomed. Historical parallels (e.g., Soviet stagnation) suggest regimes can collapse under cumulative pressure, but timing is uncertain.
  

Critical Perspective
The establishment narrative, reflected in Western media and X posts, often amplifies Russia’s weaknesses (e.g., “collapsing” economy) to push for tougher sanctions or intervention. This may overstate Putin’s vulnerability to justify policy goals. Conversely, Kremlin sources downplay internal issues, projecting stability. Both sides have agendas, and the truth likely lies in between: Putin is entrenched but not invincible. The lack of primary data (e.g., reliable polls, elite communications) limits precision, and sudden events (e.g., a black-swan betrayal) could shift the calculus overnight.
Conclusion
Putin’s overthrow is possible but not probable in the near term. His regime faces real pressures—economic strain, military stagnation, and elite risks—but his control mechanisms and lack of opposition make a coup or uprising unlikely without a major catalyst. Medium-to-long-term risks grow if current trends worsen, but no clear timeline exists. Monitor developments like Ukraine war outcomes, elite behavior, and economic indicators for signs of change. For now, Putin remains firmly in control, though not without vulnerabilities.

[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...42-674.jpg]

(06-03-2025, 02:04 PM)putnam6 Wrote: Critical Perspective
The establishment narrative, reflected in Western media and X posts, often amplifies Russia’s weaknesses (e.g., “collapsing” economy) to push for tougher sanctions or intervention. This may overstate Putin’s vulnerability to justify policy goals. Conversely, Kremlin sources downplay internal issues, projecting stability. Both sides have agendas, and the truth likely lies in between: Putin is entrenched but not invincible. The lack of primary data (e.g., reliable polls, elite communications) limits precision, and sudden events (e.g., a black-swan betrayal) could shift the calculus overnight.
Conclusion
Putin’s overthrow is possible but not probable in the near term. His regime faces real pressures—economic strain, military stagnation, and elite risks—but his control mechanisms and lack of opposition make a coup or uprising unlikely without a major catalyst. Medium-to-long-term risks grow if current trends worsen, but no clear timeline exists. Monitor developments like Ukraine war outcomes, elite behavior, and economic indicators for signs of change. For now, Putin remains firmly in control, though not without vulnerabilities.

I pretty much agree with this assessment TBH.