Russians are simultaneously more and less stupid than they seem to be at the same time. They are really run by the intelligence services, and they often "test narratives" to see how messaging goes over with the populations. They use deliberate 'repeaters', messengers and role players within their sociey to gague themes to try and advance their goals. You see public figures following their scripts consistently, from froth-mouthed apocalyptic lunatics like Solovyev and Medvedev threatening to end the world, down to malcontent grunt Z-Bloggers like Girkin muttering tactical level failures, acting as a release valve for the failings of the state 'not going far enough'. The ones who are allowed to speak on an ongoing basis are sanctioned to do so, for reasons that make sense to the FSB.
Until recently, any public talk of even ACKNOWLEDGING, much less ending the SMO/ aka "War" would get you locked up for discrediting the army. Now, they are starting to seep out war-ending off-ramp strategies. This is the first time I've seen one around the idea that the war should be stopped "for the good of the economy". That sounds more high minded than verboten military or moral alternatives like "we're losing" or "it's the humane thing to do". At any rate, it's at least tolerated public dialogue that explicitly talks of ending the war. None of these narrative tests are accidental - some are outbursts, where the messager is locked up or killed - but this is different in that it's from a named public figure.
Having them say "it's for the good of the economy" allows them to at least try to avoid the humiliation of a completely stalled front that they have been unable to move substantially for nearly two years. It ignores their invasion's absolute failure, doesn't acknowledge that maybe little brother ukraine isn't an inherently inferior race, or that the entire country ackshually belongs to Rusia, because - reasons - and doesn't have a right to exist. It doesn't even mention NATO as the REAL reason why they aren't vacationing in Kyiv today.
It's all a colossal tragedy, of course. But putting that aside - it's both funny and somewhat pathetic that this is where they're at more than four years in having squandered their entire soviet inhertiance on a petty 20th century revenge project led by an overpromoted gangster ghoul. But - it's also a good thing that they're openly talking about how to exit an aggressive war of invasion while being WELL short of their goals of conquest.
Will be interesting to see if this "for the economy" theme persists as a face-saving tactic. What do you think?
Well - sure. All reasonable people with a remote appetite for justice would like that.
It's kind of fascinating that this is where russia has ended up, given all their theoretical advantages before the full scale invasion. Russia is squealing for some kind of favorable settlement it doesn't deserve. The central "Problem" seems to be that they can't advance anymore. They can't stop Ukrainian drone production, they can't stop effective drone deployment. The Russian theory of victory has two parts to achieve one outcome:
#1 is a REAL problem for Russia, as it's labour and logistically intensive. But also because the only way it's successful is if Ukraine agrees to stop killing Russian soldiers at the front. Pushing low-functioning grunts into blasted puddles of toxic rainwater until they are eventually killed isn't a great occupation strategy. The point of a war of conquest is that you get to reap the benefits of economic activity in the land you conquer. But workers and occupation forces can't generate wealth while under fire. They can't live in charred craters - they live in soft housing and barracks and rely on there being peace in order to control the territory. But if Ukraine refuses to stop killing them - then the exploitation of the conquered territory can never begin. This is a BASIC and seemingly unsolvable problem for Russia at present.
#2 is also HUGELY resource intensive, uses platforms with EXPENSIVE inputs and things they don't manufacture domestically, and machines you can't replace at scale in the near term. It also has never, ever worked as a strategy for conquest in history against an industrial society. Even WW2 levels of YEARS of strategic bombing against Germany and Japan STILL requried ground forces for the former, and atomic weapons for the latter to force captiulation.
So - neither #1 or #2 can, by themselves, achieve Russia's strategic goals. Ukraine doesn't seem to be in such desperate conditions that they need to consider #3 anytime soon. It's russia, the aggressor, who is asking for peace terms. Ukraine can probably continue to trade tiny slices of land while bleeding out the russian war machine longer than Russia can continue to support their invasion. Hence Russians talking about peace at all, and on basis of economic terms so they don't have to confront the enormity of their military failure.
Nobody who is serious minded expects the Russian Federation's current form to honor a long term peace agreeement. From Ukraine's perspective, the ONLY way to permanently guarantee their own security might be to keep fighting. Keep destroying everything you can, until there is significant change to the composition of the political system in Russia.
Great and accurate insights, thank you
did japan "require" two atomic bombs? or did the usa demonstrate their power on defenseless civilians? afaik the japanese wanted to surrender before, with the condition that the emperor is not harmed. after the atomic bombings vaporizing tens of thousands of civilians, they surrendered without conditions. and then the usa spared the emperor
They didn't surrender after the first one, so
Japan was indeed willing to surrender, but on the conditions that Hirohito would stay emperor, Japan wouldn't be demilitarized or occupied.
After the US dropped the bombs they allowed Hirohito to stay emperor.
Well, we're crossing discussion streams significantly as this point, but I'll have a go.
Depends what you mean by "afaik the japanese wanted to surrender...". The fanatical military leadership certainly didn't, and wasn't going to. After Okinawa, it seemed pretty clear what an invasion of any of the home islands would look like. And the allies were VERY concerned about countering the USSR's advance in Europe, hence didn't want to get bogged down in a years long bloody ground campaign in Japan. It was a higher priority to stop the russians than to do things 'the old fashioned way' in Japan. It's more complex than that, of course, there wasn't just one single reason why the U.S. used the atomic bomb.
If you want to have a moral argument about 'demonstrating their power on defenseless civilians', well, I'm sorry I'm not likely to move you on that.
using the a-bomb is one thing, blowing up two random cities, mostly civilians is another
okay, demonstrating the power of the bomb is necessary: why not bomb a military base? why not bomb an un- or at least less inhabited area? if they did it near a city, over the ocean, it would have made a similar impression
i'm just frustrated that this idea is widely accepted and repeated
also kinda reminds me of israelis saying "well it's sad but we have to kill them all"
No they did not, it was a horrible war crime.