Modern Russia is far better at political subversion than it is at outright conquest. Every country in Europe has captive politicians and far-right parties being funded and enabled by Moscow.
Like Germany's AfD which - as a matter of record - has been cultivated, promoted, and steered in a pro-Russian direction.
Scholz is clearly playing the same game, obstructing aid to Ukraine in every possible way.
Geert Wilders in NL makes anti-Russian noises in public while threatening to cut support to Ukraine.
Portugal has Chega, France has National Rally and Le Pen, the UK had Brexit and Boris Johnson - who installed the son of a top KGB operative to the House of Lords.
The US has Trump and Maga.
And so on.
Every single one of these has proven Russian links.
Ukraine is just a distraction. The real war has been happening elsewhere. Many leaders - and most voters - still haven't realised what's happening.
And should Le Pen win in France and Trump in the US, that would leave the UK's one active nuclear submarine as Europe's sole protection against Russian nuclear threats.
1) Germany ultra weak militarily, you really can't let intellectuals drive whole nations since they have 0 clue about realpolitik, warfare and all those ugly aspects of it, and currently bundeswehr is a pathetic underfunded joke with rotting helmets that even current russian army would roll over without breaking a sweat.
2) a massive push for critical fuel dependency on russia
3) never standing up to that murderer in any way, even as he was killing and invading Georgia and Ukraine
He played her and similar to her very efficiently. Of course its nothing compared to masterclass he pulled/will yet pull on Trump.
As somebody coming from cca eastern Europe, being enslaved by russian troops after their bloody invasion, western Europe is... to keep things ultra polite - ultra pussies. You simply don't grok how depraved and hardened to cruelty russian mind is, things like fair game are an insult. Also their incredible durability to withstand absolutely horrible treatment, just buckle up and continue. Western sanctions my ass, just make sure any good chips don't work for them somehow because they don't care for the rest.
This is the case when you are dealing with mobsters who kill and know only rule of stronger, and you come with your polite smile and handshakes and expect things like keeping their word or contracts. I don't even have such a problem with EU dumb naivety in the past, but what is shocking that they didn't wake up right after invasion and starting putting 10% of GDP into army, to see some effects in 5 years just in time when real stuff starts happening. Every single post-soviet country keeps issuing very strong warnings due to previous horrible expereiences with russian terror, but these are completely ignored on EU level. This is a major long term weakness that will not get unpunished.
Yeah, when SHTF its very easy to be ashamed to be from Europe, for quite a few generations.
It's pretty sad that the EU now has to look to Lithuania for their moral compass because they seem to have lost their own.
I can’t speak as much to the situation in Europe aside from the obvious conflicts of interest for former chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. Aside from him, I don’t know where to attribute Germany’s fecklessness: it could just as easily be the same weak-kneed pacifism that led Germany to disarm themselves. (Also, I’d point out that, contra your narrative, both Scholtz and Schroeder are members of the center-left SPD and not any far right party.)
I suppose there is some narrow definition of links for which that is true.
> What’s more, Trump maintained sanctions against Russia
He signalled plans to weaken them, and then Congress, by massively veto-proof majorities in both Houses (419-3 House, 98-2 Senate), passed a bill limiting his ability to lift existing sanctions while also adding new sanctions on top.
> and provided military aid to Ukraine.
He held up Congressionally-mandated aid to try to force a quid pro quo from the Ukrainian government for propaganda to support Trump’s personal political efforts, releasing it only after he became aware that someone had blown the whistle on it.
That’s certainly one possible interpretation of events.
Nationalism is having a renaissance since Trump won in 2020, but it turns out overall to be a terrible way to run a country.
* Undermining our Supreme Court by trying to force through a migrant deportation scheme which the court has ruled unlawful
* Eroding the Police Force's independence by claiming they are biased in their approach to protests
* Trying to defund and delegitimise the BBC
It might be because I'm fairly left wing myself, but I think you have go pretty far into authoritarian-left territory (think Stalinism) before you start becoming seriously anti-democratic. Before that point most leftists are pretty keen on giving power and choice to ordinary people and communities.
The fact that LePen has done as well as she has twice now is in and of itself horrifying.
And into the chaos, strongmen came in, and promised and gave some stability.
That's naive. Russia allowed Germany to unify, but not Romania. It was very clear to eastern Europeans that they needed to join NATO before Russia can attack them again.
Ever since the 1500s Russia has always sought to expand under the excuse of being encircled. Listen to any Russian propagandist now and they sound no different to ones from hundreds of years ago. They say Russia needs natural bothers. Well, there are no borders until the Carpathian mountains.
If they do conquer the Carpathians, they'll just move the goal posts, just like they didn't stop at the Ural mountains.
It's naive to not see Russia as the enemy because it has always been so.
Edit: I'm being throttled so I'll respond to similar comments here. TheOtherHobbes similarly notes:
> The EU. France and Germany used to be deadly enemies. No one sane is expecting a war between them any time soon.
In particular, France and Germany weren't peacefully reconciled through economic integration. There was a war, and the victors of that war installed democratic governments in both France and West Germany and inducted both countries into a broader alliance.
> Same with US states. Texas etc keep muttering about secession, but the economic complications make it an insane idea.
It took about two decades after Texas was admitted to the union for the states to fight a civil war against each other.
genman says:
> Remember WW1? WW2?
Not personally (I'm not that old) but those were not instances of economic integration easing military tensions; they were instances of extremely bloody world wars. And the First World War in particular was already deemed impossible because of the degree to which European economies were already economically integrated. That theory did not pan out.
wolverine876:
> The EU (in its early forms) was formed by the countries that just fought each other in WWI and WWII, and for centuries before that. The EU was specifically intended to prevent another war.
Again reversing cause and effect. The Allies won the Second World War and installed friendly governments across western Europe (and also in Greece); following this, those friendly governments formed the EU.
The EU (in its early forms) was formed by the countries that just fought each other in WWI and WWII, and for centuries before that. The EU was specifically intended to prevent another war.
Not quite, the Western Union (predecessor to the EU by way of the was formed by the BeNeLux countries, the UK and France. Some of those were at war in preceding centuries but they were on the same side during WWI and WWII. It didn't have a lot of clout because very rapidly afterwards other more powerful institutions were formed and it was superceded. But it was more of a continuation of some of the collaboration that stemmed from being allies/liberators in the war than that they were on opposing sides. Later institutions included Germany and Italy as well.
As I recall, Churchill was a strong proponent of the EU's [edit: I can't believe I used the wrong word:] ancestor (the European Communities? Some oil and coal community?), as a way to prevent further wars. Churchill blamed nationalism specifically.
You're saying the EU wasn't required? That seems like a bold statement, but probably too much to sort out in HN comments.
I'm a bit confused by "but" in that sentence. I'm not sure if a 'not' or another word is missing there. Certainly many saw unification as beneficial - again, it was the key to many. Many still do.
Unification was underway prior to the EU, the EU is the eventual larger body but it took some steps to get to the point where it could be properly established, mostly on account of the various countries still reeling from WWII and being very busy with reconstruction efforts (and piss poor to boot, the first years after WWII were almost as bad as the last years of the war and in some places even worse besides the reduced immediate risk to life). Doubly so for those countries that ended up on the far side of the Iron Curtain, but then again, they weren't part of the EU for many years to come. But for many of them the only thing that changed is that German uniforms became Russian uniforms and usually that wasn't accompanied by a higher degree of civility by the occupiers.
How do you establish the arrow of causality (and of course, to some degree, it points both ways)? Objectively, we know that a major intent and design of the EU (and its earlier iterations) was to prevent another war.
Same with US states. Texas etc keep muttering about secession, but the economic complications make it an insane idea.
It's not inherently a bad strategy, but it tends to fail when you're dealing with huge would-be hegemons - which certainly applies to China and Russia.
Ukraine and Russia were same country like almost forever. No one sane was expecting a war between them.
Don't underestimate ability of polititians to screw things up.
Various types of Germans also did have a large number of wars agains one another.
Russian position is indeed that Ukrainian claims on the statehood in 1991 or even 2014 borders are absolutely bogus.
Personally, I also find it hard to respect the immutability of international borders that are younger than I am.
Compared to that, Russians have super great attitude towards southwestern Russian variety. They do recognize the existence of Ukrainian language (dialect continuum) and that some people might want to speak it unharmed, for starters.
Ukrainian state rewrites history like there was no yesterday, but you could definitely study Ukrainian in any UkrSSR school from 1960s to 1991. I wonder if you could find a school that will teach any Languedoc, anywhere in Languedoc.
I'm also pretty sure that Germans from different parts of Germany aren't big fans of each other as a group.
(Note: It was published before the war so the statistics of where what languages are commonly used have changed dramatically.)
Nobody really cares what these far western ukrainians are up to. Russians don't really want them. Maybe with the exception for one dude from Vinnitsa.
Valuev Circular [3] (1863), Ems Ukaz [4] (1876) banned the use of the Ukrainian language in print. Religious books on Ukrainian were banned century before [5].
Census [6] (1897) maps Ukrainian language majority far beyond Ukraine current borders. Annexed by RSFSR, Russified by force. Continuum of ethnocide by Moscow.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eneida
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Kotliarevsky
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valuev_Circular
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ems_Ukaz
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Ukrainian_langua...
Еней був парубок моторний
І хлопець хоть куди козак,
На лихо здався він проворний,
Завзятіший од всіх бурлак.
So you are saying this is not a dialect of Russian? Any Russian can understand 50% of this text right off bat, 80% after a day of effort and 95% after a week.Nationalists like to draw fantasy maps. Want to see mine?
Roma, Romania, do you claim Italian is "Romanian dialect"? Muscovy was Rus colony, grew under Golden Horde, renamed in 1721. Rus Grand Prince Володимѣръ Свѧтославичъ — Ukrainian name Володимир (Volodymyr) not Moscow Владимир (Vladimir). Language of Kyiv can't be dialect of its former colonies language.
Slav languages are mutually intelligible. I've checked spoken Slovak, Polish, Croatian, Bulgarian. Do you claim these are "dialects" of Moscow language?
Eneida translated to Polish:
Eneasz rzutkim był młodzianem,
Podobnym całkiem do Kozaków,
Radzącym z każdym złem spotkanym,
Zawziętszym nawet od burłaków.
"50% of this text right off bat"I don't understand a word of Polish text.
So it makes sense that everyone who is fluent in both Ukrainian and Russian will be consuming Russian content 90% of time. Hence people no longer use Surzhik anywhere east of Kharkov (or Khabarovsk), even if some of their ancestors actually spoke it. It just don't make sense to do that anymore.
It does not help that literature Ukrainian has a lot of borrowings from Polish, Romanian and Hungarian and is not really accessible to people who did not visit Ukrainian state schools. However, Russian is very accessible to basically everybody in Ukraine and the rest of ex-USSR.
Regarding folk songs, people actually did a lot of digging in this area starting with late Soviet times, and now there's huge revival of folk music in Russia. Many contemporary pop or rock bands use Russian (Slavic, maybe even Ukrainian) folk motives in their songs, which are usually in Russian. By doing so, they enrich Russian culture, which I've started this comment from.
Use of Russian language shrunk by 2x in last 30 years, while Ukrainian language increased by 2x in last 30 years. At some point, it will flip.
Regarding folk songs, just name one Russian folk song in Russian language, for which I will not be able to found author by 5 minutes of googling.
And it is also obviously in Russian: https://forum.d-seminar.ru/threads/zhuravel-xor-ukrainskaja-...
The rest of the offensive Ukrainian chauvinism I will skip.
For example, Ukraine holds word record by number of folk songs, while I was able to found none of folk songs in Russian (Russish) language after years of searching. Folk songs exists in Russia Federation, but they are not in Russian (Russish) language. Cuban Cossack Choir - folk songs are in Ukrainian language, Ural Cossack Choir - Ukrainian, for example.
That has nothing to do with Russia vs Russian conquered territories, besides, France has Occitan, there is the German based dialects, Catalan, some Basque and a whole raft of others.
> Since they held absolute political powers nobody was even there to question it.
Except that that didn't quite happen in the way you suggest. You could make a similar statement about Fries in NL or maybe Limburgs or Diets. And it would be just as much wrong.
> Compared to that, Russians have super great attitude towards southwestern Russian variety. They do recognize the existence of Ukrainian language (dialect continuum) and that some people might want to speak it unharmed, for starters.
Sorry, are we on different planets or something? You mean: those very same Russians that are currently bombing the shit out of anything Ukrainian and who wish to eradicate the Ukrainian nation and culture?
> I'm also pretty sure that Germans from different parts of Germany aren't big fans of each other as a group.
They are as alike as the Dutch and the Belgians, we joke about each other but at the end of the day there is no hate and zero chance of a war.
No assimilation and cultural genocide policy in any form. It has just dwindled to these numbers on its own. Also has no relation to the topic that we discuss. Don't forget to call whataboutism.
I gather that reflection is not a strong side of Western Europeans.
> those very same Russians that are currently bombing the shit out of anything Ukrainian
That's called "a civil war", and that's how it viewed by many Russians and some Ukrainians. Indeed that's not a great condition to be in.
> who wish to eradicate the Ukrainian nation and culture
Again, this accusation is coming from a proud member of a nation who eradicated a couple of cultures very recently. "While I had already been born" recently.
People of Donbass were fed up with Ukrainization to the extent that these two Republics do not have Ukrainian as co-official. But Crimea, and the "new territories" of Kherson oblast and Zaparozh'ye (whatever left of them, arguably) have Ukrainian as co-official. Crimea also has Crimean Tatar as co-official. If anybody wants they can study their language and their culture, including in schools. That's what was not permitted to Russians in many, many ex-USSR countries.
12.04.2014 Moscow occupied Slovyansk, "referendum" a month later.
February 2022 Moscow occupied Kherson, "referendum" half a year later.
Do you claim "people of Kherson was fed up, started civil war"?
It is un-civil-ized genocidal war, by calling it civil war you are denying the existence of Ukraine as a state it's the same as saying you support this war and atrocities Ruzzian Federation commits and occupation of Ukrainian territories. Go and preach this on runet instead.
After Belarusian, Ukrainian is also closer to Slovak, Polish, and Czech than to Russian – 38% of Ukrainian vocabulary is different from Russian.
You may want to read some on that. Start with:
What does that have to do with hypothetical hatred of Ukrainians?
As far as I know, Russian peasantry was absolutely not spared in the collectivization, making for the bulk of immediate casualties. And why would Stalin care about them? Was he Russian?
No, there is no comparative study of the effects of repressive policies, because starving millions of people to death and not allowing outside help in (read "The Russian Job" by Douglas Smith) is not practiced on such scale anymore, even by Russia. The Wikipedia page on Holdomor quotes orders to subjugate Ukraine regardless of cost. That in itself negates any notion of Russians having a "super positive attitude" towards Ukraine. Do you know why "(...) you could definitely study Ukrainian in any UkrSSR school from 1960s to 1991."? Because it was not possible while Stalin was alive. It was not possible, because it was Stalin who gave orders to subjugate Ukraine at any cost.
[edit] more on the history of the freedom to use the Ukrainian language in Ukraine under Soviet rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainization
If you have any complaints about Stalin, you can mail them to Georgia, and indeed I'm the first one to do the same.
Stick and carrots. Both are required.
not to mention that china was on a reasonably good trajectory until a certain yellow bear ascended to the throne
It's the US won't stand for anymore wars like that. And for 50 years after WWII they could enforce that. You can note the general absence of large wars in North and South America as evidence of that.
EU leaders mistakenly thought that they can have the same success with Russia but they didn't take into account the fact that Russian new president had completely misaligned interests.
It mostly worked within in the EU because you needed meaningfully adopt certain standards to join the market.
Russia didn't have to do any of that and by the time more people started to understand the problem developing they already had leverage.
It’s like thinking the scooter kids are gonna be hanging with the skater kids. It’s not that they are inherently that different, but they have such different mindsets that it means they see their positions in the world differently.
Maybe you should look at the map before writing such nonsense.
1. Russia does have borders both with EU and NATO. Norway, Finland, Baltic states, Poland.
2. Russia is geographically in Europe too. Most of its population and the capital are in Europe.
Among European countries it does have the largest territory, population and nuclear arsenal, but it is not even the biggest economy. Ex-superpower is not a now-superpower. Mindset-wise it has a lot in common with other EU members.
But Russia isn’t Germany whose borders are completely dominated by Europe.
Putin obviously thinks Russia should still be a superpower. People get that mentality when they see the past and think they deserve it again. Holy shit people love the “glory days.”
There are conflicts that have been going on for millennia like in the Middle East and they fight today because their ancestors fought.
People have a hard on for the past.
You’ll teach someone command line Git starting out and they love it and they will never bother with a GUI because they value their experience more than practicality.
Apart for these, which Bush considered a retaliation for 9/11, the USA is very careful not to start any conflicts and not to get involved - see Syria for example.
Now due to Russia's actions Germany has signed on with Qatar on a million dollar deal to get the pipeline done. I am sure this will result in more pressure on Syria.
I suppose you will say the U.S became the "good guys" only under the Trump administration ? I suppose all the targeting and intelligence advice and weapons given to the Saudi's for bombing Yemen weddings were for "freedom" and thus completely justified ?
My positions/opinions are not based from Putin - but from middle-east citizens who have faced the brunt of American warfare. But the general tendency of war-loving American neocons/neo-liberals who wish to deliver "freedom" by War is to always blame Putin Propaganda when a citizen not of the NATO sphere holds a position opposed to their own. The U.S. are the real masters of propaganda- the Russians are a laughable footnote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_civil_war_(2011)
In every country ruled by some dictator there are beneficiaries who will complain afterwards that the bloodshed was caused by some foreign intervention. They feed from his hands, receive generous giveaways while others suffer. Did you talk to those people to get your opinion?
The some beneficiaries is a joke. You check your own sources - under Gaddafi, per capita income in the country rose to more than US$11,000 - the 5th highest in Africa. Universal free healthcare did exist and was not limited to "some beneficiaries" as you claim. Now, most Libyans suffer extreme poverty and deprivation. A nation that was utterly decimated - all thanks to NATO under the Obama administration.
The funny thing is that Gadaffi was willing to step down from power and hold elections under international observers. The U.S. rejected that. That would mean not having a war and hawks like Victoria Nuland wanted the Libyan government destroyed - not merely brought under democratic leadership. They were aware that if real elections were held and monitored with observers - Gadaffi would likely win and NATO legitimacy for the War would be lost.
Economic integration wasn't what kept the peace, it was probably the military integration.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied-occupied_Germany
[1] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-mili...
I believe the problem is that the premise is false. It works OK for a part of the population that feels comfortable with it. When you look closer at the root causes they are not immaterial and often boil down to people not wanting immigrants around them. If you are progressive you can just dismiss their outdated attitude - and this is what center- and left-wing politicians were doing for decades. Ignoring and ridiculing these folks caused the radical right to grow stronger in several European countries. Putin knows that and that's why he is sending more and more of them to Belarussian borders.
I think the democratic and developed countries need to change their game plan pretty soon. The countries that are willing to join the club should be offered actual help to develop. By actual help I mean trade treaties that are designed to benefit those countries, not developed countries. Includes IP vaiwers, duties that protect local industries etc.
The countries that do not want to join, (including China and Orban's Hungary) then again, should be punished in all ways possible. Massive duties to commodities and other products imported from those countries, as a starter.
Open democracies do not need to be nice guys if they are threatened. Must not be, to be more precise. See Popper and paradox of tolerance.
Do you mean the war between Argentina and England? Argentina was not only under a military dictatorship then, but the war was definitely triggered by the military junta.
1. karabakh war (at least the first one)
2. six day war
3. turkey's invasion of cyprus
4. some yugoslav wars
Off the top of my head -- a war of 1812 between Great Britain and United States. Both countries were democracies at that time.
By what definition the British Empire, a constitutional monarchy, had been a democracy in 1812 if all (and not just the fourty-shilling freeholders) men aged 21+ with some women aged 30+ only became allowed to vote in 1918, 106 years later, and all women aged 21+ were finally allowed to vote in 1928?
But, historically, democracy was not considered to require universal suffrage. Athens is often cited as one of the world’s first democracies - and it is from Ancient Greece that we get the word - yet in ancient Athens, most adults couldn’t vote (either due to being female, due to being slaves, or due to being non-citizen resident aliens)
Members of Parliament (MP's) were often elected in rotten and pocket boroughs where a single patron could (and unashamedly did) buy up the votes in one or multiple boroughs and essentially dictate the outcome of elections. Charles Howard, 11th Duke of Norfolk controlled 11 boroughs, as an example.
The rotten boroughs were only disenfranchised by Reform Act 1832 which granted seats in the House of Commons to large cities instead.
In the pocket boroughs, the landowner could evict electors who did not vote for the two men he wanted, the practice that did not cease to exist until secret ballots were introduced in 1872.
There were also «open boroughs» where the vote was more competitive but still limited to male property owners only.
Since «demos» in «democracy» stand for «people», calling Britain a democracy in 1812 is not even a stretch.
And in 2024, it still is a constitutional monarchy - how is that relevant to the question of whether it is or was a democracy?
> Since «demos» in «democracy» stand for «people»,
The meaning of words isn’t determined by sum of parts like that. The people who coined the word “democracy” used it to refer to systems in which only a small percentage of “the people” counted. Herodotus used the word in the 5th century BCE, whereas universal adult suffrage didn’t exist in most places until the 20th century, well over 2000 years later. If you want to argue that everyone was using a word incorrectly for over 2000 years, well, you can define words however you like, but other people aren’t obliged to accept your novel definition
> In 1812, Britain was a constitutional monarchy […]
[…] a parliamentary system dominated by landed aristocracy and gentry – 3% circa of the population […]
That was the key point that was conveniently or otherwise omitted. 3% of the entire population being landed aristocracy and gentry is not the rule of people by any measurable account, and, no, it does not constitute the British Empire a democracy in 1812. There was also a reason why I originally emphasied «Empire» – empires do not place a focal point on the power of people as there are no people in an empire, there is only the empire.
> The meaning of words isn’t determined by sum of parts like that.
Yes, the modern defintion of «democracy» is multifaceted and elastic, it has evolved to mean much more since its inception, including universal suffrage as a fundamental property of a functional democracy today. Yet, democracy in Ancient Greece is not what most would call a democracy today. I am accutely aware of that.
> […] other people aren’t obliged to accept your novel definition
That is an opinion, and it is not that of mine.
This is a hard one since the guy managed to do his trick once Hungary already joined all clubs. On the other hand, there's little hope anybody can manage to overthrow him anytime soon, and in any case restoring democracy in Hungary will take decades.
It's also IMHO the most productive and ethical way to reduce/prevent war. Maybe they shouldn't have allowed something so fundamental as energy to become a dependence, but generally speaking the principles are sound.
It's a saying whose truth has been greatly exaggerated, and the people who foolishly believe it have a tendency to make themselves vulnerable.
> That doesn't necessarily mean that it stops all war, but it definitely raises the cost of war and costs matter.
Costs apparently matter less than you think.
Costs obviously do matter, but no-one is saying it's a fool-proof means of control.
Also I think part of the problem in this case is that Europe failed to make Russia sufficiently financially dependent on Europe. Instead Europe made itself dependent on Russia for energy, which means that the pacifying forces of trade are leveraged more towards Europe than towards Russia.
Geopolitics are complicated and messy. The more I think about them the more my head hurts.
Is that because of economic integration, or other reasons? Since WWII, Germany and France sat on the same side of a military alliance for more than a generation against a formidable foe (which would obviously change some attitudes), and there have been other ideological developments in those countries at well (e.g. the degree that Germans are pacifists as a reaction to Naziism).
Probably both. In any case, in spite of political tensions there haven't been any armed conflicts between EU members so far, and the attitudes of people are very friendly.
After WWII, the allies learned from their mistakes and instead of saddling the German people with mountains of debt and economic punishment, they sought to rebuild, quickly established trade and economic integration. It went substantially better the second time, and to this day seems to be working.
They did unlearn that lesson by the time Cold War ended...
I agree I think the main problem here is that Russia isn't nearly as dependent on Europe as Europe is on Russia.
But that said, it's also very early to conclude that Russia has plans on Europe. Especially given how Ukraine went, even if the Russian leadership fully wants to invade Europe, they surely know how that would go the moment they touch NATO. Their military will be crushed and they'll be assassinated or executed if they don't end up in prison. Europe has time to correct this imbalance. Awareness of the issue seems to be one of the hardest steps however, and coming up with solutions after that is of course quite a challenge as well. It's messy and I'm glad I don't have to be responsible for it :-)
Yes, this was the widely believed theory prior to 1914 for why another large, Europe-wide war wouldn't break out.
But look at how WWI ended with Germany getting heaps of crippling debt placed upon them and economic devastation. That totally paved the way for Hitler and WWII. Contrast with the end of WWII where Germany was rebuilt and economically integrated, and today it would be ludicrous to consider Germany invading Europe with designs on the world! The genetics of the people didn't magically change in a couple generations. Their economic situation did, and economic-related needs are at the base of everybody's hierarchy of needs.
Economic lifting isn't a surefire win either. What works in Germany/Japan didn't work elsewhere.
It probably also helped that both countries were so thoroughly devastated that their own “might makes right” ideologies had been clearly discredited by events. You can’t really claim to have racial or spiritual supremacy over your enemies when your enemies have reduced your cities to rubble, driven your people before their armies in vast refugee columns, and occupied your cities with soldiers. Obviously if you take this too far you run the risk of revanchism, so there’s another balance to be struck between domination and mercy.
Another big difference is that both Germany and Japan were accustomed to authoritarianism. Germans and Japanese were very governable peoples, and still are to some extent. The people of rural Afghanistan were ungovernable to begin with, more ungovernable than the people of any developed country. For example, I’m going to guess that your way of life does not involve grabbing your rifle and joining in this year’s season of warfare without any consistent ideological commitment to which side you want to fight for. But this is how many tribal Afghans have lived for centuries. There’s a core of devoted fanatics within the Taliban, but most of the actual fighters literally showed up and treated the war like a pickup basketball game. That’s why we seemed to win so quickly and easily in the beginning—nobody wants to be on the losing side. But as time went on and American commitment diminished, the dynamic shifted before ultimately and dramatically reversing.
Yes, it's a pain to read through essays and all the details of various circumstances. But the nuance is helpful sometimes... And seems to be important to elaborate in this case.
People don't need to agree or disagree with previous posts. Simply stating more facts and going into details (especially on complex matters of history and culture) is good and helpful.
One of the many failures of nation-building has to do with property disputes. In a WEIRD society like our own (or Germany, or Japan) there’s an office in the city that has survey records and the question of who owns a piece of land is decided by paperwork. If there’s a dispute or a transaction or an agreement that changes someone’s property rights in some way—perhaps you have an easement or you agreed to move the property line-those changes are also duly recorded in the paperwork in the office in the city.
This is not how human cultures work by default. In fact, the process of writing down everyone’s property deeds for the first time is a massive undertaking that is hard to do well and easy to fuck up. The Ottoman Empire made a hash of this when they did it in Palestine and recorded property rights at such a high level of granularity that a single land deed with a single owner might cover a massive expanse of land that spanned multiple villages. Which made no difference to any of the people in Palestine until those “owners” ended up selling that land to Zionists.
Afghanistan, likewise, had lots of land records, many of which dated back to before the Soviet war. Of course, in the intervening decades, a lot of the tribal peoples had property disputes and settled them in a perfectly normal pre-modern way, involving verbal agreements and codes of honor between extended kin groups. And as long as nobody tried anything like governing them from Kabul based on those written land records, it worked for them. Everyone remembered and respected the traditional agreements. Of course, when the US installed a government in Kabul and backed it up with American troops, eventually everyone who had been on the losing side of a property dispute and realized they could get more or better land based on some dusty old paperwork decided to sic the US-backed Kabul government on their neighbors, completely upsetting the balance of life.
Simply put, a human culture that has been urbanized, governable, and legible to a paperwork-based central authority for centuries is an extremely sophisticated thing that takes a ton of effort to invent. If you grow up in that kind of society centuries after the initial work was done, those institutions are almost invisible to you. How else would society function?
That's an odd idea. The people in Afghanistan aren't magically different -- instead, they're being oppressed by a comparatively small group of violent uneducated men (the Talibans).
This is how it used to be:
https://www.google.com/search?q=afghanistan+before+1978&tbm=...
That's more like in southern Europe.
But the Cold War and the US helping the Talibans take the power destroyed all that.
I wonder how life was in the countryside -- maybe I can find something about that.
> They’re closer to normal baseline human. We’re the WEIRD ones
Yeah, it seems to me that tribal violence is much more natural and common than ... than what I could ever have believed 10 years ago
Why past tense? Still walking...
It is quite problematic as it appears the US and China are slow crawling to a direct confrontation.
So defense spending as prevention of war isn't really a thing either. Nor is winning them (forget Afghanistan?)
If we wanted to 'win', it would require taking over afghan which no one wanted to do.
Do you think those stereotypes are really helpful in understanding geopolitics? Traditionally what russia has always done(after it conquered its east), was being invaded, loosing lots of land, let the invader bleed out in the winter and then push back and win new territories.
Then russia as a monarchy was quite different to the sowjet union, the result of a marxist revolution with marxist agenda. And russia after the sowjet union was first weak and now they try to find strength in the traditional empire values again, religion and tsar. But it is not a given, that they will keep that, only if it works out for them. I hope it doesn't.
In some kind of way, yes. Cultures differ, sometimes drastically so. It is important to evaluate stereotypes based on history and their merits.
You said it yourself. Historically, Russia has faced many cyclic periods of expansion and reduction. They are currently being reigned by a patriotic figure with a record of dwelling on Russia‘s great past. Given enough time or an effective military response, chances are high that their next leader will be more favorable of peace.
"Russia is doing what they've always done and always will do."
What part of history implies, that russia (unlike e.g. Germany, France, UK, US,..) always started wars and always will be?
It seems quite clear that the German elite class had been wholly corrupted by Russia who offered them enrichment at the cost of Ukrainians and ultimately long term German security.
It makes a lot more sense when you look at how America's own elites sold out America to China.
All of this (charitably assuming good faith) was founded on the idea of inevitability. People thought peace was an inevitable result of trade, liberalization was an inevitable result of prosperity, and democratization an inevitable result of capitalism.
He was only against the war in Ukraine when it became obvious it was not going to be a three day one and done operation.
He did recant any notion of Ukrainians being Russian. He also asserted ukrainians Right to independent self-governing.
(Majority of) Russians are 'different'. They don't care to change. They don't understand the "modern" way of life. They don't understand the new/modern approaches of 'diversity'. (Understand = it conflicts with their ideology, traditions, mindset - of course they understand and simply disagree).
In Russia, historically, the easiest way to solve a problem is to eliminate the person behind the problem, and the problem will solve itself. I has been done like that for centuries, and I don't feel that this will change anytime soon.
> He did recant any notion of Ukrainians being Russian. He also asserted ukrainians Right to independent self-governing.
I never followed Navalny very closely, but my understanding was he opposed Putin but he was also a Russian nationalist, so (at least pre-2022) there wasn't tons of distance between them on the topic of Ukraine.
Since Trump and especially since the more recent invasion of Ukraine, I think there's been a tendency for Western liberals to concentrate on Putin, oppose him, and therefore idealize his opponents as being and thinking just like themselves. So the liberals would tend to avoid thinking about certain uncomfortable facts, and Navalny may have been incentivized to conform to their views (given he was in prison and his main protection was the attention and sympathy of foreign liberals)
Has happened over and over again that the Western political class prioritizes alignment with some entity on some short term goal over checking that the entity shares any other sentiments. And then being all surprised-pikachu when they dont.
US funding mujahideen against the Soviets.
Israel funding Hamas to keep the PA weak.
Europe lauding Aung Sang Suu Kyi in Myanmar
etc.
Any time you see a puff piece in mainstream Western media about some leader abroad that "we find we can work with" or has similar cheese, beware.
Seems to depend on whether someone believes Russia's security interests have some level of legitimacy. If the war is unfounded then it is an act of madness and the motivation is probably attributable to a single charismatic individual (and Putin must be that person). The view is part of the "Russia's unprovoked attack on Ukraine!" narrative.
If Russian has legitimate security interests in the region then it doesn't matter so much who the president is and Putin's role in events is important but it is likely others would have made the same choice.
In 2007, in a Russian "Gun Rights" video, Navalny compared the Chechen muslims to "cockroaches and flies" and said he wanted to exterminate them. A picture of a Chechen muslim appears on the screen and he shoots it with a pistol. In another [2] video it featured Navalny dressed as a dentist, presenting a slightly confusing parable that likened interethnic conflict in Russia to cavities and argued that fascism can be prevented only by deporting migrants from Russia. Navalny closed his monologue with “We have a right to be [ethnic] Russians in Russia. And we will defend this right.” This is an allegory to killing all non-ethnic Russians.
In 2008 when Russia invaded the country of Georgia. He said[3]:
Of course, there is a big desire to fire a cruise missile at the General Staff of the [derogative name for Georgians], but they are just waiting for this.
Years later, he apologized for the ethnic slur denoting Georgian people, but never for his support of the Russian war on Georgia.In an interview with Echo of Moscow radio station in October 2014, Navalny admitted that the peninsula had been seized through “outrageous violations of all international norms”, and yet asserted that it would “remain part of Russia” and would “never become part of Ukraine in the foreseeable future”.
His statement was not simply an assessment of the developments around Crimea. When pressed on whether he would return Crimea to Ukraine were he to become Russia’s president, Navalny wrapped his “No” in an odd question: “What? Is Crimea a sandwich or something that you can take and give back?” His position on Crimea was basically, "finders keepers."
Also in 2014, here[4] he is using one of the worst ethnic slurs for Ukrainians making fun of them.
In 2016, Navalny said that he intended to hold a "normal" referendum in Russian-occupied Crimea if he won the Russian presidential election. Note that Russia has forcibly killed or deported many/most ethnic Tatar peoples and native Ukrainians from Crimea. They've allowed Russian people to come occupy it and settle the lands, so by definition, any referendum would be with invaders on invaded territory. It would be a sham.
In 2023, he offered a 15 point "manifesto"[5] where he changed tac quite a bit, but this was after some prominent navalnyists were pissing off western journalists with their staunch anti-ukraine message, all in line with Russkiy Mir.
I can go on and on and on, but his support of violence and cleansing the world of non-russians goes back a long time. I just spent a few minutes to find these but if you dig in you can find the same and more.
[1] https://dgap.org/en/events/russkiy-mir-russian-world
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICoc2VmGdfw
[3] https://navalny.livejournal.com/274456.html
Also in the USA congress makes the budget but the president always gets blame or credit for the economy(it's more complicated sure, but it all falls on the POTUS).
It should in theory be able to export much more than just energy products to the west. America has a virtually infinite appetite for consumption and labor costs in Russia are quite low due to different standards of living.
The problem of course is infrastructure rot and corruption have gutted much of the non Muskovy areas of the Russian federation. It’s a pipe dream that will never happen, but it would be a wonderful world where Russia is actually friendly with the west and loses their imperial ambitions.
Export infrastructure is in a very good shape (e.g. railroads, which are used for export of coal, grain etc, pipelines and container terminals) and there’s plenty of new manufacturing capacity there across the country. Russia does have industrial policy for import substitution since 2000s and managed to localize some production, so this is not really a problem.
The real problem is the shortage of labor, the unemployment is already very low there. Just like in USA and Europe it is partially solved by the immigration from Global South, in this case from Central Asia. But this also means that skilled labor is not super-cheap. Russia can be a strong partner on some markets (energy, aerospace, IT) and can bring a lot of value in entrepreneurial culture and customer service (unknown to the West, but superior to anywhere else in Europe).
Although I would add that I personally think Russia has not really developed much in the last 10 years under him. He really needs to invest into changes.
Because he is dead.
"Nobody cares about Che Guevara personality or political views, when they wear a t-shirt with his portrait."
But I have never seen anyone wearing it, without them thinking it is somehow connected to good socialism and revolution. Mostly in ignorance of the actual person and events, sure, but not ignoring the political views.
I don't see how Russia is culturally part of "the West" in any meaningful way. We can debate whether, say, Poland or Hungary is, but Russia is, to me, surely not part of any meaningful definition of the West (in a cultural sense)
Why not? The roots are probably in norse/viking people mixing with the locals and it later became a christian country by force, like the rest of europe, though orthodox (like greece is for example). It always was more off, sure, but for example Alexander II greatly invested in connections into the rest of europe. Russian thinkers and writers were greatly influential in europe, like Tolstoi and Dostojewski, or more to my liking: Bakunin and Kropotkin.
The whole east and sibiria always was and is different, but west of Ural traditionally had strong connections with the rest of europe.
Russian (Rossian) Federation doesn't contain a region named "Russia". Russians (Russish, русские) are believers of Russian Orthodox church and not a nation at all, like Catholics are not a nation. Rossians (россияне) is.
Many nations, such as Tatars, Mordva, etc., were turned into Russians (Russish) by a process called "Russification", when stolen Russians Orthodox Church was used as tool to enslave peoples and erase their identity by giving them Russian names and forbidding to use their native language in favor of Russian Church Slavonic language. Scratch a Russian and you find a Tatar[1].
[1]: https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/978019...
Agreed with most of your points on Navalny though.
It's because you are Russian.
See it there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tat...
Just read the article you quoted. Are you referring to 1944? We can go all the way down to Crimean war if you want. Your original statement made an impression that you were referring to recent events?
1. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/crimea-tatar-persecutio...
The article refers to human rights violations documented by Crimean Tatar Resource Centre. I had a quick look at this organisation and here is the list of its “partners” - all openly stated: https://ctrcenter.org/en/o-nas/nashi-partnery - NATO Information and Documentation Centre, USAIDS, PACT Ukraine, etc. - all huge friends of Russia, obviously seeking unbiased views on the situation. Can you trust that source? Maybe. I remember those “human rights organisations” from my teenage years when they suddenly started to pop up all over the peninsular after the USSR collapse, telling me about my rights that were apparently violated. I had not invited any of them and never appreciated any of their business, all targeted to destroy the state rather than protect human rights. Personal opinion of course.
As for those cases mentioned in the article 1. Roman Osmanov is currently facing an administrative charge of online petty hooliganism. Sorry, this is neither killing nor deportation. Not even a criminal offence. 2. Leniye Umerova – from what I understand from the article, she didn’t accept the choice of the majority of Crimean people on the referendum and fled to Kyiv in 2015. Her parents are still in Crimea. Again, nobody deported or killed. In the same article the author says that she freely crossed the border to visit her parent in Evpatoria (eastern Crimea) and had been doing so since 2015 until she was eventually detained in December 2022. So she crossed the border freely every year until that detention when FSB accused her of having sensitive information about Russian forces locations in Kyiv region on her phone. True? False? Who knows.. It’s a wartime and so entirely possible. No killing or deporting still. https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/05/5/7400834/ https://www.interfax.ru/russia/901646
3. Appaz Kurtamet - According to the investigation, he transferred 500 hryvnias (US$13.67) to a member of the Krym Battalion. Krym Battalion is an interesting one, it was created by Ukraine to perform terrorist attacks in Crimea and is declared a terrorist organisation in Russia. Did the Russians have rights to arrest him? Sounds like it. Was it too much for a young boy? Probably. No killing or deporting.
To your second article 2. https://spectator.org/the-unseeing-years-russias-ethnic-clea... Ervin Ibragimov was probably exactly what it says in the article. What can I say? Appalling and disgraceful behaviour of Russian DPS. Bless this guy. Situation in Crimea in 2014 was very very dangerous. It was a miracle that the war didn’t break back then. It does appear that this was a violation.
3. times.co.uk - apologies the page won’t open without registration, and I am not prepared to subscribe to Tories’ propaganda.
Crimea is a complicated case. Ukraine has always tried to play on the tension between us and the Russians. Especially so after 1992 when Crimea declared independence and tried to adopt its own constitution. Among other things Ukraine allowed organisations like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizb_ut-Tahrir (recently declared a terrorist organisation by UK btw) to operate on the peninsula.
Since 2014 Crimea has three official languages - Tatar, Ukrainian and Russian. Before that it only had one – Ukrainian. We were granted amnesty for “unlawfully seized” lands and were allowed to privatise those territories. I am not trying to say it’s black or white, but I do believe those Tatars who chose to remain on the peninsula are a lot better off now compared to pre-referendum time.
United Nations monitors (who had been in Crimea from 2 April to 6 May 2014) said they were concerned about treatment of journalists, sexual, religious and ethnic minorities and AIDS patients.[115] The monitors had found that journalists and activists who had opposed the 2014 Crimean referendum had been harassed and abducted.[116] They also reported that Crimeans who had not applied for Russian citizenship faced harassment and intimidation.[115]
According to Human Rights Watch "Russia has violated multiple obligations it has as an occupying power under international humanitarian law – in particular in relation to the protection of civilians' rights."[117][55]
In its November 2014 report on Crimea, Human Rights Watch stated that "The de facto authorities in Crimea have limited free expression, restricted peaceful assembly, and intimidated and harassed those who have opposed Russia's actions in Crimea".[118] According to the report, 15 persons went missing since March 2014; according to Ukrainian authorities 21 people disappeared.[67]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Crimea#Human_right...The writing is on the wall for a while now, the only problem is that people talking about it are promptly labeled as not worthy of being listened to
For example, while the catastrophic ineptitude of the Russian forces at the start of their invasion has caused me to believe 80% of their nukes don't work any more, even just one nuke detonated as a HAEMP would destroy a continental-sized power grid — and the same visible signs of corruption that gave me the previous 80%, that also means there's a substantial chance at least one of the warheads ended up on the black market.
Exactly, did people forget Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014? Let's not be naive here.
Could more have been done? Probably, but effort was definitely put in.
I had a friend who kept saying that we needed to do something back then, and kinda ignored him, and now looking back, it's depressing how right he was.
https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-war-eu-aid-funding...
Also are we just ignoring Vladimir Kara-Murza in terms of opposition figures fighting for regime change?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/14/putin-ukr...
and how is he still relevant?
Russia is not gaining noteworthy traction. Avdiivka is a tiny pointless place aside from the fact that Russia is willing to impale itself at horrible odds to achieve any victory it can for optics.
If the U.S. were still supplying Ukraine they'd be in a much better place.
“Sustain” is a really funky term that’s hard to define. Like, they can keep refurbing tanks. They can keep funneling out meat. But they can’t replace the ships. They can’t replace the sovereign wealth fund.
Not to say the US shouldn’t be sending every last bomb it can find
That is something I heard ... since the beginning of the war, yet I see no signs of it. Russias economy is in full war mode, producing way more tanks and shells than the west. Ukraine has serious ammunition and manpower problems and the front can collapse. Also Ukraine prepared for a succesful offensive, and neglected the defense.
"It’s a really small place with minor strategic value"
And that small place was one of the best fortified places and succesfully defended since 2014. The fallback positions are not nearly as good prepared. And the chances are low, that they can even fallback with no more roads under their control. It is really not looking good at the moment.
The rest of the post is fiction
That is effectivly the same. They can bring more tanks (100+ every month according to british intelligence) in, than they loose. Not the case for Ukraine.
And if you mind telling me, what of my post was fiction in your perception, I might consider giving you sources.
Now they try to fall back through the mud.
Some dark highlights:
"The second line of defense, a few kilometers behind the front, is still being built, according to nearly a dozen interviewed soldiers."
"To reinforce infantry units after heavy losses, Ukraine has transferred soldiers from units specialized in artillery or logistics to infantry positions, according to the soldiers interviewed by the Kyiv Independent. This means soldiers deployed on the first defensive line may not even know the basic survival skills of an infantryman"
The withdrawal is already complete. It went pretty well.
https://kyivindependent.com/avdiivka-defense-uncertain-as-uk...
Because I did not made up anything, you can claim that the Kyivindependent did, but they are probably closer to the events than you.
"The withdrawal is already complete. It went pretty well. "
Information is still chaotic, but apparently they left the injured and many men and equipment behind. Not my definition of "pretty well".
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/17/world/europe/ukraine-avdi...
The institute of war daily updates is the only source I care to trust. News media is often hyperbolic in both directions.
"Ukrainian forces will likely be able to establish new defensive lines not far beyond Avdiivka, which will likely prompt the culmination of the Russian offensive in this area. "
If there would have been a second line truly ready and prepared, there would be no need to write it this way.
And all they wrote about the retreat, is that they have not seen pictures of large groups of ukrainians surrender. They do not deny, that the order came to leave the wounded behind. Or that lots of equipment had to be left behind. They just do not mention it. But they do not wrote the retreat went pretty well, like you did.
"Russian forces have not yet demonstrated an ability to secure operationally significant gains or conduct rapid mechanized maneuver across large swaths of territory"
And this is correct - but they are aware and state the possibility, that the front can collapse.
the question is who will starve faster: Ukraine or Russia.
I don't see much signs of starving from Russian side at the same time.
"Both sides regard Avdiivka as key to Russia's aim of securing full control of the two eastern "Donbas" provinces - Donetsk and Luhansk. These are among the four Ukrainian regions Russia says it has annexed but does not have full control of. Avdiivka is seen as a gateway to Donetsk city, whose residential areas Russian officials say have been shelled by Ukrainian forces, sometimes from Avdiivka."
-- Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/why-does-russia-want-ca...
I don't understand your point about optics. Why does Russia care about optics in this case? Ukraine has to care about optics because they are completely dependent on NATO aid for their survival at this point.
Russia cares immensely about optics because Putin has demanded a military victory in time for the march elections. This has been publicly reported on since at least October.
Funny, the world had the same thought in 1936.
Russia got bogged down because Russia doesn’t want this fight. Russia’s Kremlin does.
It's not a good idea to broadly think "nazis are stupid, they won't get anything done". Sometimes they get things done and then we're fucked.
Letters like these are written today as well:
"027 – Letter by guard Hugo Behncke to his wife, 28 January 1945
Today I’m on duty from 10 to 12, though without anyone relieving me and without the NCO [non-commissioned officer], so I’ll be able to cut a few corners. I can sit down and that makes the work fairly easy, so two hours are bearable. In the SS, everything apart from breathing is forbidden, but if you don’t break a few rules you’re not a soldier. But I always take care that nothing happens. Anyway, in the winter time the prisoners are disinclined to “travel” [escape]. I haven’t heard of a single case all the time I’ve been here. But in spring and summer we have to keep a really close eye on things.
All they were good for was to be burned
There’s no table to write on and so my writing looks funny. Last night I slept in the next room. It was really cold in there. There has never been any heating in there. I have the space to myself because the others prefer to stay in the warm fug, but I moved out in particular because my neighbour in the bed above me has lice! Yes, lice! I’m not keen on those. I had enough of them in the First World War. He probably got them from being on the recent transport of prisoners to Neuengamme. The prisoners were all sick, dirty and thin as skeletons. All they were good for was to be burned in the Neuengamme crematorium. And a lot of them thought they were being brought to Neuengamme to be burned. Of course, many of them are stupid, primitive people. […]The war situation is still gloomy, of course, but I’m putting my trust all the same in our counter attack after our enemies’ latest offensive. As I see it, everything is ready. […] So we’re hoping we’ll have victory soon, first over the Russians and then over the western powers. After we’ve won my comrades want to carry on […] as soldiers but not me! I want to get home to you and my children. "
Not even close. US had many times Germany’s industrial output in the 1930’s.
That proves nothing about the present.
That's the purpose of NATO. In exchange for giving up some autonomy to the US (letting the USA build military bases in your territory, not acting overtly against our interests), and paying us for our fancy weapons, NATO members get the immeasurably valuable power of a nuclear red line border, and protection by the most powerful military the world has ever seen. It's a very, very good deal, and the most stabilizing force in history.
Given the NATO membership of most of Europe, the only wars possible in Europe are small, regional conflicts between non-member states.
You are right on the former, incorrect on the latter. Invasion looks different now that warfare has changed. You might have been invaded and not even know it. When was the last time you looked at your ssh logs?
- You don't get it. An alliance of china, russia, iran and north korea will be enabled to do whatever they want. Including invading or, more likely, hitting with missiles critical infrastructure in any Nato country with the exception of US and UK
As much as it is incomprehensible for America, there are societies that do not value freedom from the very bottom to the very top - and Russia is one of them
The last thing they need now is a fight for supremacy, similar to what we have in Ukraine, that would cripple their war effort and benefit only their enemies. The death or one of the opposition leaders may be considered as a small price to pay to avoid the 1917 like catastrophe. Today, with the abundance of nuclear weapons, the stakes for the whole world are much higher than then.
They have been following the same playbook since 2014. I'll tell you how it will go; Salami tactics.
Invasion of crimea, Annexation of parts of georgia, Annex Belarus, Annex Kiev, expand military and mining presence in the artic, Incite war in serbia with other baltic states, annex a modern yugoslavia.
At this point they will be the only major power who has been on a war footing for 10+ years. (US Skirmishes do not really count). They will have the inhouse manufacturing capabilities and knowledge to execute a ground war with the EU and will start by taking Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. I believe once they accomplish the above, they will be happy... for a generation or so.
Personally I have great hopes that an outsider like Kasparov could become President of Russia once Russia is defeated. He did attempt to run for presidency in 2007.
You do read the news? Ukraine is sinking the Russian Black Sea fleet ship by ship with cheap sea-drones. Ukraine is destroying Russian oil refineries and Russia has to reduce it's crude oil production now that India seems to saturated with cheap Russian oil.
On Ukraine ceding territory, I assume that's in case of a peace deal? Putin will sell that as a victory to the Russian people and prepare the next attack a few years later. This simply isn't an option for Europe to allow. Russia will crumble.
* Lukashenko is president since the post was created, his position is quite solid and will be useful when Putin's time is over.
* just two years into his presidency he signed a Union treaty with Russia, then still ruled by Yeltsin. Russia always understood that treaty as Belarus becoming part of Russia, something Putin is very keen on, extending Russia by force has happened more than once since 2000 but Belarus joining peacefully would push Putin's popularity. Lukashenko again and again promised things like introducing a common currency by 2004, 2005, 2006 and "maybe" 2007. Didn't happen. For Lukashenko it's a carrot he dangles in front of Putin.
* Belarus didn't join the war against Ukraine, and Lukashenko profited a lot when he got Wagner to stop their rebellion.On what are you basing this assertion? I'm going to assume it's a flawed understanding of the oft-cited "3:1 rule", which a) isn't a rule, but a planning guideline b) never referred to casualty ratios, but to force ratios suggested for a successful attack.
>> Personally I have great hopes that an outsider like Kasparov could become President of Russia once Russia is defeated.
What influence does Kasparov have with Russia's security establishment? In other words, why would any of the men who actually wield power in the country support him?
The question to me was more what happens after? Terrorism inside Russia for years? Low bip for decades?
Nato setting a clear border
¥ modulo international recognition, which Russia does not care that much about.
Trump winning would be bad news for Ukraine, but in practical terms they've already been thrown under the bus by Republicans in Congress.
He was just a useful figurehead to attract sympathies from the west, but he never posed any threat to Putin and even if he somehow got into power he would do nothing to change Russia for the better.
He died (was killed) because he no longer served a purpose for Putin.
Also slowly folding. It is not happening only in little countries like Slovakia. US has relevant party that is now openly pro-Putin.
I assume you don't know much about Slovakia besides the few headlines that pop here and there, right ?
I have mentioned Slovakia because I constantly hear about 'US bad Russia Good' there.
I mentioned Slovakia because that is my home country.
So tell me why would you assume my lack of knowledge?
Unless you evolve in very weird circles you probably know that it's infinitely more complex than 'US bad Russia Good'
> So tell me why would you assume my lack of knowledge?
Hard to tell if you're part of the "Slovakia should be kicked out of EU because they voted bad" crowd that popped up out of nowhere (and disappeared as quickly apparently). It's much less black and white than people make it look like, for example: https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/27331.jpeg
Not sure why you went that far with your assumptions. I just stated that situation in Slovakia changed. It is not black and white - I agree with you. I mentioned Slovakia where it happened and US where it is starting to happen. It is not going to be black and white there either but that should not be excuse to stay passive.
The pro-Western people are over-represented in Bratislava and among the university-educated people. So if you are a smart person living in the capital city, it is easy to forget how the rest of the country thinks... and then you always get surprised when they elect an anti-Western alpha male: previously Mečiar, now Fico.
For reasons I do not understand, Russian propaganda (Slobodný vysielač, etc.) is extremely popular here. I have never actually listened to it, but I don't even need to, because people quote them on internet all the time; it is the source of all popular conspiracy theories.
Luckily for us, Fico lies to everyone, including his own voters. He promises them to side with Russia against the Ukraine... but most of that are just empty words. The actual policy probably will not change a lot, because his main concerns are somewhere else: staying out of prison, remaining popular, stealing more money. Otherwise he will give up under the slightest economical threat from EU. His voters only care about rhetoric, and at home he is going to give them exactly that.
What relevant party in the US is openly pro-Putin?
It's not full pro-Russia yet, but he's certainly moving in that direction. Unfortunately, Trump is currently the republican party.
Please help us by selecting Trump.
Trump thinks that the US pays too much into NATO and others not enough. This his tactic for getting other countries to pay more for the security we all enjoy which isn't free.
I'm not a Trump fan but I see through his words to his tactics.
[0] https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/04/politics/cnn-poll-ukraine/ind...
I am not sure I can be charitable enough to think you really don't understand this. The reaching is extreme.
I must admit I also don't have the charity in me to believe you made any attempt at being charitable before responding to only the first of my three sentences and calling me deliberately obtuse. 'You sound so stupid that I am convinced it is because you are a bad person' is a lot ruder than I think people realize. I'm not the smartest person in the world, but I'm above average; is it really so inconceivable that a random stranger is as dumb as half the people on the planet that you must immediately accuse them of malfeasance?
I believe that you are smart enough to understand the power dynamics in the House, and you understand that I don't think you're stupid. Quite the contrary.
Although... maybe you're a political "centrist"? That would explain a lot about your comments. Then I am sadly compelled to agree with you about what I think about you! I mean that means I'm an idiot myself for engaging with you. Sorry! Look around on the intertubes for what people who study this stuff think about US political "centrists".
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
Tucker Carlson is on there too, he's now a full time Russia shill.
https://visitukraine.today/blog/3375/navalny-is-dead-what-wa...
>After it becomes clear that "3 day" invasion of Ukraine is unsuccessful As far as I am aware of, Navalny always consistently opposed agression against Ukraine, from the very start, including the annexation of Crimea
They aren’t the majority but are influential.
Xi Xinpeng should take a lesson here. Apparently all you have to do is dunk on gay people and pay lip service to right wing culture war stuff and they’ll roll over. You don’t even have to mean it. (Every core statistic the right claims to care about is worse in Russia like birth rate, divorce, abortion, etc.)
I've yet to meet a single one who "actively supports Russia and praises Putin as savior of the West". Like, literally not one. The only time I've _ever_ heard this viewpoint uttered in North America is when people online are sketching it out online as a bogeyman. Even on the trashier, more marginal sides of Twitter it's still America First - I just don't know who these people are that you and others in this thread are so concerned about.
Have you personally met someone who believes that crap? Who, given the option, would prefer a world of Russian hegemony over American? I think we're getting mad at a population that in North America doesn't really exist in any meaningful way.
He's not even a fringe case either, just your standard old dude who parrots whatever crap Fox News is spewing.
I’m talking about ideologues and movement people. I have run into a few of these people in the wild, mostly neoreactionaries, trads, and neo-racists who use terms like “race realism.” I haven’t personally run into really hard core neo-Nazi types in my circles but those exist too.
A lot of the above either admire Putin directly or at least see him as an example of the kind of strong man ruler they think we should have.
It’s not clear to me whether the ideological affinity is mutual though. Putin’s Carlson interview seemed dismissive but Putin has dog whistled to these crowds. Maybe he’s just doing it for propaganda reasons and could personally care less.
There’s also a big claim about Putin being heavily influenced by Alexandr Dugin but I’ve heard others claim this is hugely overblown.
I’ll hold hope that the Princes will be less homicidal maniacs. I think there is something extra psychotic about Putin that you don’t find in normal people.
In 2008 the Pentagon authored a study that claimed that Putin had Asperger’s disease.
In 2010 there were more rumors about his bad health after being photographed with a black eye.
In 2012, more rumors after he postponed a visit to Japan.
In 2014 "sources" reported that he had cancer of the spinal cord. Other "sources" denied that report, and instead said it was pancreatic cancer.
In 2018, more health rumors, more "sources" saying that Putin was about to resign for health reasons.
In 2020, he still reportedly had cancer, along with Parkinson's disease. And also, leprosy.
Clearly a very, very sick man.
I hope I never get cancer. But if I ever do, I hope I have access to the very obviously incredible Russian medical facilities.
More seriously, you do realize this is the same propaganda that is rolled out every time there is a leader the US does not like? Putin may actually be ill, but you can't determine that from reading US news reports. They tell lies over and over and over.
The Ukraine war is a tragedy and I hope it ends soon.
But they have no economical & military power to really do any harm the Europe & the US. Putin makes a lot of noise but really can't even win a few km's in Ukraine.
But the real threat is further east. China is slowly building it's empire, and it's a scary one. Taking over parts of Africa. Migrating it's people. Integrating it's tech worldwide. Making the world dependent while building it's own full independence.
Let's see how the situation in Avdiivka develops in the next few weeks. Ukraine is reinforcing the area, but it doesn't look good.
We've seen plenty of blunders by the russian army. But you should not underestimate your enemy.
Putin (and the Russian (leaderhsip) culture in general, see Stalin) is this:
What are a 100M (of our) people dead if we own Ukraine/Baltics/East Poland/Georgia/... for the next hundreds of years?
Stalin had the same blunders, thats priced in, the Red Army had meat wave attacks in WW2 and lost millions, but achived all it's war goals (Poland, Baltics, Eastern Europe including half of Germany - only the US achieved all it's war goals too, everyone else lost, sadly Poland had the biggest loss).
The fertility rate more than halved since then, they're not playing with the same cards anymore
Poor people had plenty of kids because they had no standards nor accessible birth control or they come from a conservative religious culture where having kids is the norm.
But once people taste the good life, like westerners had it so good a while a ago, they don't want to bring kids in economic conditions worse than before, so the poorer you make them, the less kids they'll have.
So to compensate, you don't focus on improving the conditions for the locals to convince them to procreate, but you open the immigration gates to people from poor places with no standards, happy to bring kids in conditions that are way better than what they have in their own country, even though they're worse than the locals had a few decades ago.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-urges-russians-ha...
Any success?
And I must remind that Russia is having an electoral event this March, so the repressions were temporarily put on a back burner - but unpopular changes will come shortly afterwards. Check back in May or June.
Or are the Baltics and her people immune to propaganda?
For a nice Baltic example, Lithuania: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-baltic-elves-taking-on-pro...
> Facebook is where the light skirmishes take place; the mortal combat is reserved for the comment sections of Lithuanian news articles, where the trolls loose a constant drizzle of falsehoods and complaints, each comment helping to construct an alternate reality version of life in this Baltic country of 3 million. Rather than a thriving and patriotic post-Soviet success story, which it is, the image the trolls cultivate is that of a demoralized and angry society whose people are ready for regime change, be it through internal democratic mechanisms or through “liberation” by a friendly neighboring army.
Russia will support and radicalize those.
If the Baltics dont react it will lead to unrest and Russia is forced to intervene and "protect" their fellow Russians.
If the states react this will be seen as suppressing the Russian minorities and Russia will be forced to intervene and "protect" their fellow Russians.
Realistically there's no (strategic) benefit to even defending Kaliningrad in case of a war (and the thing is surrounded by NATO so it would be taken immediately if not heavily defended), so stationing lots of troops there is just a pointless drain on resources. If the Kaliningrad secession movement picks up steam, then they might just let them leave.
And for all the time Putin has to lay out his master plan..what did it buy him? A river of Russian blood in Ukraine?
And the US couldn't win against a few thousand goat farmers with Ak47s, or maybe there this is a bit more complex...
I don't think it's a convincing narrative that that's what Putin wants, and also that that's something he could reasonably accomplish. But I do hear it often as a powerful narrative to help Ukraine more, and I understand why, but from my point of view it's not very convincing.
At the same time I agree with the sentiment that heavier the losses in Ukraine, the more he will have difficulties in starting similar drama in other countries with large Russian communities.
Have you ever thought about what Russia's influence in the AI sector would be by now if they would have focused on developing it instead of starting a war? Developing it while pretending a peaceful cooperation with the West?
It might well be that China supports Russia's war effort so much because it knows that this way Russians will have zero time and resouces to focus on being an AI leader, and through it, a threat to China.
The biggest win for the US and China is that Russia will now never be at the cutting edge in AI development. The longer this war goes on, the better it will be for both the US and for China.
Even Europe will be more advanced than Russia during the next couple of decades.