Francis Fukuyama: Preparing for Defeat(americanpurpose.com)
americanpurpose.com
Francis Fukuyama: Preparing for Defeat
https://www.americanpurpose.com/articles/preparing-for-defeat/
224 comments
Even supporting the Ukrainian side, it’s clear that they’re taking heavy losses and doubly so on the civilian side. What I think people are correctly surprised by is how well the Ukrainians are utilizing NATO training an arms, and how badly the Russians are performing.
> Even supporting the Ukrainian side, it’s clear that they’re taking heavy losses and doubly so on the civilian side.
While that is truly horrible, it does not affect victory. Insurgencies fighting for their homes can absorb enormous losses, invaders cannot. (Anyone fighting or their homes can - look at the damage taken by Japan, Russia, Germany, etc. in WWII - Japan suffered two nuclear bombs and still didn't surrender until they thought Russia might invade.) Look at US wars against insurgencies in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq: The attrition was enormously one-sided, and it didn't make a difference. You can't win a war of attrition against an insurgency, afaik, unless you essentially kill everyone (and even Putin won't do that).
It was expected that Ukraine would be reduced to an insurgency within a few days. The fact that they are still fighting military-to-military and with significant success is an enormous bonus. In the end, they may have to fight as an insurgency but the cost to Russia is expected to be much too high.
While that is truly horrible, it does not affect victory. Insurgencies fighting for their homes can absorb enormous losses, invaders cannot. (Anyone fighting or their homes can - look at the damage taken by Japan, Russia, Germany, etc. in WWII - Japan suffered two nuclear bombs and still didn't surrender until they thought Russia might invade.) Look at US wars against insurgencies in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq: The attrition was enormously one-sided, and it didn't make a difference. You can't win a war of attrition against an insurgency, afaik, unless you essentially kill everyone (and even Putin won't do that).
It was expected that Ukraine would be reduced to an insurgency within a few days. The fact that they are still fighting military-to-military and with significant success is an enormous bonus. In the end, they may have to fight as an insurgency but the cost to Russia is expected to be much too high.
> Insurgencies fighting for their homes can absorb enormous losses, invaders cannot.
That’s more or less what I’m saying here.
That’s more or less what I’m saying here.
We don’t have a cryptographic proof on each statistics both sides news give us.
I know this is going to be a violation of the rules, but this is truly one of the most divorced-from-reality, stunningly dumb things I've ever read.
How would that even work? Do you expect dying soldiers to bravely sign "I am dead" blockchain transactions with their private keys?
Sadly, there’s no money in speculating on proof of life, real-time blockchains.
I remember in the 90s when we were thinking about notification schemes to prove we were still alive and would post daily keepalive posts to show we were still alive. That wasn’t much fun so we didn’t keep doing it for long.
I remember in the 90s when we were thinking about notification schemes to prove we were still alive and would post daily keepalive posts to show we were still alive. That wasn’t much fun so we didn’t keep doing it for long.
Electrocardiography (ECG or EKG).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate_monitor
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate_monitor
And how do you verify the data?
I know you were probably joking, but this is such a common pattern in proposed crypto use cases:
I know you were probably joking, but this is such a common pattern in proposed crypto use cases:
1) Collect some data
2) ??
3) The blockchain has magically ensured the data is true!
Public national crypto identity ledger. Soldiers cannot fake signatures between the ECG or a body implant and the government chain. For most of the casualties, it can provide truth more trustful than government news. How could government or soldiers lie here?
frozencell, just stop it already man.
You are making terribly outlandish & insensitive suggestions. Period.
This is a real war. People are getting bombed. No one has the time for monitoring EKG bands. Evacuation is looking bad already. This is not a video game where you monitor player's health stats. Instead of apologizing you are simply doubling down on your crazy remarks.
This is a real war. People are getting bombed. No one has the time for monitoring EKG bands. Evacuation is looking bad already. This is not a video game where you monitor player's health stats. Instead of apologizing you are simply doubling down on your crazy remarks.
Let unzoom and think of wars in general, how could 3D vision helmets synchronise with ECG to have physical-first proofs of damage?
By the way, this thread is not developed for emotional or entertainment but technology purpose, they are NGOs to refer to fortunately for the first; and only NGO online security is not really off-topic here.
[0] https://www.peopleinneed.net/what-we-do/humanitarian-aid-and...
By the way, this thread is not developed for emotional or entertainment but technology purpose, they are NGOs to refer to fortunately for the first; and only NGO online security is not really off-topic here.
[0] https://www.peopleinneed.net/what-we-do/humanitarian-aid-and...
I have never cussed reading views on HN. That is a more Reddit phenomena & this parent comment belongs there.
Makes me wonder how insensitive one has to be to make a terribly casual dismissal of the current calamity & dangers to thousands of Ukrainians. Some people have a reserved section in hell for belittling or condescending human suffering.
Makes me wonder how insensitive one has to be to make a terribly casual dismissal of the current calamity & dangers to thousands of Ukrainians. Some people have a reserved section in hell for belittling or condescending human suffering.
Everything I’m hearing about Mariupol is the opposite of what I want to hear. It’s an absolute disaster that’s ratcheting up day-by-day. The Russian army is using modern artillery to conduct medieval siege warfare. They’re deliberately starving the whole population to death and the city (like most cities today) had zero preparations to deal with a siege.
We’ve got to find some way to get these people supplies!
We’ve got to find some way to get these people supplies!
I don't understand why people are calling these tactics "medieval". The same tactics were also widely used in XX century, e.g. in siege of Leningrad, during the pacification of Warsaw Uprising or in Jugoslavia war in 1990s. They're part of the "total war" package that is and always was on the table for leaders determined to win at all costs (or are just seeking revenge - let's not forget that the Alies burned hundreds of thousands of civilians to death during bombings near the end of WWII).
Because apparently modern US warfare doctrine and smarter guided weapons causes less civilian casualties.
In the end so many targeted munitions are fired that the final result is the same as conventional bombardment.
Note the second word 'apparently'
Editing to add below here as I can't seem to reply to your reply.
I agree my wording wasn't clear, apologies. I meant apparently in the sense of that is what western media writes. I don't know enough about it personally to have an informed opinion of what the truth is.
Editing to add below here as I can't seem to reply to your reply.
I agree my wording wasn't clear, apologies. I meant apparently in the sense of that is what western media writes. I don't know enough about it personally to have an informed opinion of what the truth is.
My point is that I don’t believe it is at all apparent from the evidence of use over the past 25 years.
I'm pretty certain that isn't close to true. Do you have any numbers? Look at the state of Afghan and Iraqi cities - do they look like Dresden?
Mosul and Raqqa sure did.
IIRC that was infantry and supporting fire, not a bombing campaign of precision-guided weapons. Still, an important point.
Even so, they should use term "XX century tactics" and not "medieval tactics" for describing what Russians do (which also acknowledges that XX century wasn't really any less barbaric than the rest of history). I understand the want to smear the opponent, but it doesn't do any good long-term to respond with falsehoods.
CyanBird(2)
Yes this exactly. I think just looking at a map of ukraine is enough to see that while we are showered by ukrainian success stories to the point where you'd think russia is completely stalled in their invasion... the reality is quite different. Here's a good updated live map with a frontline overlay:
https://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/The-War-in-Ukraine/09...
Keep in mind the war started 3 weeks ago. The americans didn't even reach Baghdad 3 weeks into their invasion of Iraq in 2003. It's just all reminiscent of the Armenia-Azerbaïdjan war in 2020 in terms of "false social media driven hopes". If we want to help the ukrainians, downplaying the russian threat is like the total opposite of what we need.
https://www.scribblemaps.com/maps/view/The-War-in-Ukraine/09...
Keep in mind the war started 3 weeks ago. The americans didn't even reach Baghdad 3 weeks into their invasion of Iraq in 2003. It's just all reminiscent of the Armenia-Azerbaïdjan war in 2020 in terms of "false social media driven hopes". If we want to help the ukrainians, downplaying the russian threat is like the total opposite of what we need.
Russia itself and military experts around the world expected a Russian victory within a few days. Ukraine of course isn't doing well in absolute terms - they'd be much better off if like the rest of the world they weren't being attacked!
But in relative and military terms, they are doing extraordinarily well and have a very good chance to win, maybe without even having to fight a long insurgency. That's incredible given the odds.
Not every war is the same; the comparison with Iraq is meaningless.
> The americans didn't even reach Baghdad 3 weeks into their invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Is that really true?
But in relative and military terms, they are doing extraordinarily well and have a very good chance to win, maybe without even having to fight a long insurgency. That's incredible given the odds.
Not every war is the same; the comparison with Iraq is meaningless.
> The americans didn't even reach Baghdad 3 weeks into their invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Is that really true?
The Battle for Baghdad started when they reached the city 3 weeks in, so my original wasn't 100% correct, but it was only off by a day or two.
Obviously, not every war is the same but the ukrainian army is much stronger than the iraqi army in 2003 (it was in shambles after the 1991 defeat). The American also were much more liberal on their use of airstrikes in urban areas and in general were a lot more competent, so that really makes the comparison fair imo. Obviously I don't know if the russians reached their goals, but they are very far from being exhausted too
The ukrainian army has been doing probably as good of a job as it could have, but what is really surprising me is that Russia did not get another chechen moment either. They are after all a mid tier, barely reorganized army fighting a NATO trained military.
I think there are 2 mildly contradicting conclusions imo: how good nato training and support has been considering how much better the ukrainian army has become compared to 6 years ago... but also that the russian army has improved a lot.
Now for some, this war might really have shattered their impression of the Russian army... but I think that's just because they haven't been paying attention to their abysmal performances in the post-soviet Era. Just compare the rag tag group of completely disorganized soldiers barely able to capture Georgia to what is now an actual fighting force.
That's not saying much, but again I think it's important to highlight how weak and unfit the russian army has been before, though they sure knew how to project an image of supposed soviet-like strength.
Obviously, not every war is the same but the ukrainian army is much stronger than the iraqi army in 2003 (it was in shambles after the 1991 defeat). The American also were much more liberal on their use of airstrikes in urban areas and in general were a lot more competent, so that really makes the comparison fair imo. Obviously I don't know if the russians reached their goals, but they are very far from being exhausted too
The ukrainian army has been doing probably as good of a job as it could have, but what is really surprising me is that Russia did not get another chechen moment either. They are after all a mid tier, barely reorganized army fighting a NATO trained military.
I think there are 2 mildly contradicting conclusions imo: how good nato training and support has been considering how much better the ukrainian army has become compared to 6 years ago... but also that the russian army has improved a lot.
Now for some, this war might really have shattered their impression of the Russian army... but I think that's just because they haven't been paying attention to their abysmal performances in the post-soviet Era. Just compare the rag tag group of completely disorganized soldiers barely able to capture Georgia to what is now an actual fighting force.
That's not saying much, but again I think it's important to highlight how weak and unfit the russian army has been before, though they sure knew how to project an image of supposed soviet-like strength.
> The Battle for Baghdad started when they reached the city 3 weeks in, so my original wasn't 100% correct, but it was only off by a day or two.
That's accurate enough for what I meant.
> The American also were much more liberal on their use of airstrikes in urban areas
That's only true because Russia is shooting missiles (including from planes) and artillery, and keeping their planes away from Ukrainian anti-air defenses. Russia has been attacking civilian areas indiscriminately, by all reports, and I remember nothing like that from the US invasion of Iraq (there was hardly time - the US swept in relatively easily). Also, the US used precision guided weapons, which do far less 'unintended' damage.
> Just compare the rag tag group of completely disorganized soldiers barely able to capture Georgia to what is now an actual fighting force.
In reaction to the Georgia invasion, Russia invested in a major reform of their military. It hasn't worked well. Corruption, in particular, is hard to overcome, and non-democracies have a much more difficult time with it.
That's accurate enough for what I meant.
> The American also were much more liberal on their use of airstrikes in urban areas
That's only true because Russia is shooting missiles (including from planes) and artillery, and keeping their planes away from Ukrainian anti-air defenses. Russia has been attacking civilian areas indiscriminately, by all reports, and I remember nothing like that from the US invasion of Iraq (there was hardly time - the US swept in relatively easily). Also, the US used precision guided weapons, which do far less 'unintended' damage.
> Just compare the rag tag group of completely disorganized soldiers barely able to capture Georgia to what is now an actual fighting force.
In reaction to the Georgia invasion, Russia invested in a major reform of their military. It hasn't worked well. Corruption, in particular, is hard to overcome, and non-democracies have a much more difficult time with it.
I think this goes along with the prevailing view - that Ukraine would take heavy losses as a given. I think no one expected Russia to do the same. But now, it seems headed towards old school Red Army style meatgrinder warfare, sadly...to the vast detriment of everyone involved.
I find that unsurprising. I don't think anyone is imagining that the Ukrainians are going to repulse the Russians. The Russians will make inexorable progress of taking territory and destroying or expelling Ukrainian battlefield units. But it seems pretty unlikely to me that they'll be able to fully pacify even the Eastern half of the country. And the question is how long can they keep their warfare up as the sanctions cripple the Russian economy and ability to supply their military.
I don't think Ukraine is going to settle for anything that leaves them unprotected. Maybe they'll exchange eastern and coastal land for the ability to join NATO and the EU.
I don't think Ukraine is going to settle for anything that leaves them unprotected. Maybe they'll exchange eastern and coastal land for the ability to join NATO and the EU.
All this talk about encircling Ukrainian forces and taking ground would have made sense if the Russians had additional echelons to continue the rapid advance while the first one sieges. Without a second and third echelon the first one will simply have larger and more vulnerable flanks if they encircle cities.
But they have only one echelon which didn't get any objectives. Given the bad logistics and attrition it needs to take the cities or the war is lost. And even if they take the cities the subsequent insurgency can still kick them out of the country.
Putin simply did not bring enough troops, hoping that either Ukraine would collapse or that the expensive weaponry (cruise missiles, jets, attack helicopters, modernized tanks) would be much more effective than it is. Soviet doctrine talks about requiring 3:1 or even 5:1 advantage against entrenched adversaries, but they have brought about parity, with Ukraine rapidly getting more volunteers and Western gear in the defensible cities.
But they have only one echelon which didn't get any objectives. Given the bad logistics and attrition it needs to take the cities or the war is lost. And even if they take the cities the subsequent insurgency can still kick them out of the country.
Putin simply did not bring enough troops, hoping that either Ukraine would collapse or that the expensive weaponry (cruise missiles, jets, attack helicopters, modernized tanks) would be much more effective than it is. Soviet doctrine talks about requiring 3:1 or even 5:1 advantage against entrenched adversaries, but they have brought about parity, with Ukraine rapidly getting more volunteers and Western gear in the defensible cities.
> Soviet doctrine talks about requiring 3:1 or even 5:1 advantage against entrenched adversaries
I've read 5:1 or 10:1 as general military theory.
I've read 5:1 or 10:1 as general military theory.
[deleted]
Upvote. Outstanding piece, unique collection of observations of an extremely complicated landscape.
The Great Delusion (2020) by prof. John Mearsheimer: https://youtu.be/nZVIaXFN2lU
That if someone really wants to understand where we are with all those Libya, Syria, Iraq, ... Ukraine.
And how and when this one really started: https://youtu.be/ppD_bhWODDc
As of Francis Fukuyama predictions...
I am Ukrainian by myself. With family spread over West Ukraine and Russia East. Note: Russia is the second country after Ukraine where Ukrainians leave.
There is a concept of "for the Motherland" and there are many as Russians as Ukrainians who still consider joined Russia and Ukraine as a common motherland and those predictions are completely out of touch in this respect.
That if someone really wants to understand where we are with all those Libya, Syria, Iraq, ... Ukraine.
And how and when this one really started: https://youtu.be/ppD_bhWODDc
As of Francis Fukuyama predictions...
I am Ukrainian by myself. With family spread over West Ukraine and Russia East. Note: Russia is the second country after Ukraine where Ukrainians leave.
There is a concept of "for the Motherland" and there are many as Russians as Ukrainians who still consider joined Russia and Ukraine as a common motherland and those predictions are completely out of touch in this respect.
A counterpoint to Mearsheimer from historian Stephen Kotkin in conversation with David Remnick:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/stephen-kotkin-putin-...
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/stephen-kotkin-putin-...
Interesting article overall, but the counter-point is not that strong IMO. I don’t think that those which are arguing that NATO over-extended and that they’re not innocent bystanders harbour the illusion that failing such expansion Russia would be a more democratic country.
The argument is that they wouldn’t be so aggressive because they wouldn’t feel threatened. There was a great argument that I read on HN explaining why Ukraine being NATO-friendly was causing massive problems for Russia - the gist of it was that they could project significant more power right at their doorstep.
In a recent interview Mearsheimer said that even if Ukraine wants to join NATO and NATO wants them to join, in reality Russia has a kind of veto power, no matter if that may seem immoral and unfair.
The argument is that they wouldn’t be so aggressive because they wouldn’t feel threatened. There was a great argument that I read on HN explaining why Ukraine being NATO-friendly was causing massive problems for Russia - the gist of it was that they could project significant more power right at their doorstep.
In a recent interview Mearsheimer said that even if Ukraine wants to join NATO and NATO wants them to join, in reality Russia has a kind of veto power, no matter if that may seem immoral and unfair.
Mearsheimer's getting a lot of airplay right now, but his analysis is straight out of the 19th century "great game" -- Ukraine is hardly even mentioned. His reasoning is all about the territorial conflicts of the "great powers".
In reality Russia is a small, poor, and mostly irrelevant state, mainly getting airtime because it has nukes. Without the nukes it would be taken as seriously as other countries of its economic clout, like Australia. Which is to say, not taken seriously at all.
In reality Russia is a small, poor, and mostly irrelevant state, mainly getting airtime because it has nukes. Without the nukes it would be taken as seriously as other countries of its economic clout, like Australia. Which is to say, not taken seriously at all.
Russia provides something like 20% of global wheat supply, something like 15% of global agricultural supplement input, and something like 12.5% of global oil/gas. They also have an enormous intellectual human capital history — the soviet era physicists and mathematicians were definitely peers to their western counterparts, which is to say nothing of their literature. And finally, they have top-tier homegrown armaments in nuclear, submarines, ICBMs, fighter aircraft, and so on.
I think any metric (e.g. GDP) that reduces this multidimensional situation to "mostly irrelevant" is probably saying more about the metric than about the reality on the ground.
I think any metric (e.g. GDP) that reduces this multidimensional situation to "mostly irrelevant" is probably saying more about the metric than about the reality on the ground.
By that metric greece should be a superpower. They have the world's 1st navy too.
It doesnt work that way. Russia is not irrelevant, but almost-irrelevant. It can be cut off from the global economy without disastrous results
It doesnt work that way. Russia is not irrelevant, but almost-irrelevant. It can be cut off from the global economy without disastrous results
They are far far from an imperial power though, and haven’t really been one since the mid sixties, perhaps earlier. They should just face the music as onetime apex predator Britain has. Italians are proud of their Roman forebears but have no pretensions of contemporary imperial greatness. Likewise Turkey.
it s basically the points that Putin made in his speech before the invasion. He s pretty clear about what he wants and people should read that speech
jonahbenton(4)
> That if someone really wants to understand where we are with all those Libya, Syria, Iraq, ... Ukraine.
I appreciate Mearsheimer's perspective, but for a self professed "realist", I find it strange that he talks a lot about "ideology" and very little about "oil".
At the end of the day all of those conflicts are conflicts over the control of fossil fuels. I have a hard time taking any analysis seriously that doesn't focus on this primary issue.
I appreciate Mearsheimer's perspective, but for a self professed "realist", I find it strange that he talks a lot about "ideology" and very little about "oil".
At the end of the day all of those conflicts are conflicts over the control of fossil fuels. I have a hard time taking any analysis seriously that doesn't focus on this primary issue.
People love to lampoon Fukuyama, but he merely put into words and placed on a pedestal an entire mindset (which continues to persist) that has proven to be highly flawed. I am grateful he exists as at least a small focal point people can bring up. Even now the world just continues with this hazy 'everything's gonna be better eventually' talk that is well loved and perpetuated even in the face of an opposing reality.
Agreed... Even "thought leaders" think about things simplistically, but people love simplicity so it sells.
If he was flawed then liberalism itself was flawed. Current events show once more how terrible and backwards non-liberalism is. His claim wasn't that everything will be perpetually better
Have you actually read "The end of History"?
>Have you actually read "The end of History"?
The Hacker News guidelines page[0] is a pretty incredible document. One of the smallest but most central insights in it is "Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. 'Did you even read the article? It mentions that' can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
Unlike most sites, HN is very intentional about optimizing everything in the site for quality of discussion, not for outrage and conflict and dismissal. Everything about how the Karma system works here and the way audiences react to posts differently here than on Reddit ties back to that goal (HN isn't interested in page views or ad revenues, it wants to be interesting to smart people so they stick around and participate).
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The Hacker News guidelines page[0] is a pretty incredible document. One of the smallest but most central insights in it is "Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. 'Did you even read the article? It mentions that' can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
Unlike most sites, HN is very intentional about optimizing everything in the site for quality of discussion, not for outrage and conflict and dismissal. Everything about how the Karma system works here and the way audiences react to posts differently here than on Reddit ties back to that goal (HN isn't interested in page views or ad revenues, it wants to be interesting to smart people so they stick around and participate).
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Except “the end of history” isn’t the article linked. Maybe you’d know that if you read it.
>Except “the end of history” isn’t the article linked. Maybe you’d know that if you read it.
Again, following the advice in the HN guidelines I will "assume the best interpretation" of your comment and say yes, I and others are quite comfortable generalizing from a specific quote that happens to mention how to respond to comments about a post to understand how that recommendation would apply to comments about other articles and topics without needing that to be explicitly spelled out, and yes I've read quite a number of works by Fukuyama though in my opinion "The end of history" is far from his best work. I've personally found "The origins of political order" to be much more thought provoking.
Again, following the advice in the HN guidelines I will "assume the best interpretation" of your comment and say yes, I and others are quite comfortable generalizing from a specific quote that happens to mention how to respond to comments about a post to understand how that recommendation would apply to comments about other articles and topics without needing that to be explicitly spelled out, and yes I've read quite a number of works by Fukuyama though in my opinion "The end of history" is far from his best work. I've personally found "The origins of political order" to be much more thought provoking.
Yes, although about 15 years ago so my memory of it is admittedly hazy.
So can you explain what exactly has proven to be highly flawed?
In a thread about Russian expansion and the resumption in full flower of the cold war, you're asking which part of The End of History has proven to be flawed?
That's exactly my point. Fukuyama is extremely misunderstood in popular media, he never said that the fall of the soviet union implied continued existence of liberal democracy. If you had actually read the book (and specifically the last chapter) you would know that he wrote that the threat of authoritarianism will always be present and (some) democracies will (at times) fall back into autocratic states from time to time.
Honestly, I think you were just waiting for an opportunity to tell someone they hadn't read the book, or had read it incorrectly. It's a service I am happy to provide any time this subject comes up.
Nonetheless, the book's thesis is hard to reckon with:
> What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such … That is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.
And it is always possible that Putin himself has not read (or, like so many of us, merely misunderstood) Fukuyama's work as well.
Nonetheless, the book's thesis is hard to reckon with:
> What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such … That is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.
And it is always possible that Putin himself has not read (or, like so many of us, merely misunderstood) Fukuyama's work as well.
I read the title and assumed Fukuyama would be humbly accepting the "defeat" of his "end of history" vision for a unipolar world...
> 1. Russia is heading for an outright defeat in Ukraine.
LOL
> 1. Russia is heading for an outright defeat in Ukraine.
LOL
How do we know that this is not another Afghanistan/Chechen-1 for Russia? They lost both of those, and I don't think those got off to the same troubled start (for Russia) as this one did.
Think flight from the country, brain drain, economic meltdown, loss of 3 generals in one fortnight, Ukraine being flooded with weapons, equipment loss, major logistical failures, the loss of the information war...
An outright defeat is now a possibility.
> unipolar world
What does that mean in the context of Fukuyama's thesis?
Think flight from the country, brain drain, economic meltdown, loss of 3 generals in one fortnight, Ukraine being flooded with weapons, equipment loss, major logistical failures, the loss of the information war...
An outright defeat is now a possibility.
> unipolar world
What does that mean in the context of Fukuyama's thesis?
The USSR spent less time (wall clock) in Afghanistan than the USA and left Afghanistan on way, way better terms.
It managed to build a secular Afghanistan state which was able to survive past the fall of USSR and will only collapse around 1993. The USA has left with people falling off its airplanes and the state has collapsed in two weeks I believe.
It managed to build a secular Afghanistan state which was able to survive past the fall of USSR and will only collapse around 1993. The USA has left with people falling off its airplanes and the state has collapsed in two weeks I believe.
Afghanistan was about Soviet/American imperial conquest & controlling Asia.
Chechnya was about suppressing separatism / national security.
Ukraine is also about national security, but a rung up from Chechnya because Moscow is concerned about a hostile military empire putting hypersonics there. Cuban Missile Crisis but even more extreme (imagine if Cuban extremists were shelling and killing Cuban Americans in Florida and ethnically cleansing the minor islands of "Americanism").
Chechnya was about suppressing separatism / national security.
Ukraine is also about national security, but a rung up from Chechnya because Moscow is concerned about a hostile military empire putting hypersonics there. Cuban Missile Crisis but even more extreme (imagine if Cuban extremists were shelling and killing Cuban Americans in Florida and ethnically cleansing the minor islands of "Americanism").
1. Why is Russia afraid of a defensive alliance with no compulsion to join (unlike the hilariously named Warsaw Pact)? The most enthusiastic members of the alliance are the closest to them... I wonder why...
2. NATO doesn't have hypersonic missiles. Russia has hypersonic missiles.
3. Why does Russia get to bolster their security by ravaging their democratic neighbours? Seems like zero-sum type behaviour. Maybe Russia should try making friends and stop using violence and threats.
[edit] Here I thought the invasion happened because Ukraine was a neo-Nazi state, in spite of their president being Jewish and having defeated his rival who was the incumbent in the last election. I also thought that it was because Ukraine isn't a real country, and Russia should have the same borders as it had in 1916 (which would include Poland and Lithuania). Hmmm. Seems the war was intended to wipe Ukraine (a democratic country) off the map and restore the Russian empire. You seem like an apologist for imperialism. And people are dying for no reason because of Putin and his war of conquest.
2. NATO doesn't have hypersonic missiles. Russia has hypersonic missiles.
3. Why does Russia get to bolster their security by ravaging their democratic neighbours? Seems like zero-sum type behaviour. Maybe Russia should try making friends and stop using violence and threats.
[edit] Here I thought the invasion happened because Ukraine was a neo-Nazi state, in spite of their president being Jewish and having defeated his rival who was the incumbent in the last election. I also thought that it was because Ukraine isn't a real country, and Russia should have the same borders as it had in 1916 (which would include Poland and Lithuania). Hmmm. Seems the war was intended to wipe Ukraine (a democratic country) off the map and restore the Russian empire. You seem like an apologist for imperialism. And people are dying for no reason because of Putin and his war of conquest.
To define NATO as a defensive alliance you need to stretch the definition of the word defensive so much that probably Putin invasion of Ukraine could be considered defensive as well.
> 2. NATO doesn't have hypersonic missiles. Russia has hypersonic missiles.
I don't know much about this one but wouldn't any NATO member having hypersonic missiles mean that NATO has them?
> 2. NATO doesn't have hypersonic missiles. Russia has hypersonic missiles.
I don't know much about this one but wouldn't any NATO member having hypersonic missiles mean that NATO has them?
Who did NATO attack and when?
You can find this information with a 2 minute Google search.
1. If we look at history NATO, it is not a defensive alliance. It is a mostly defensive alliance. Many people here don't even know how the NATO was formed and the promises given to Russia? Russia thinks NATO has expanded beyond control. They don't want to be fully covered by it? Also, there are other strategic interests like Crimea, etc...
2. With this logic NATO doesn't have anything. The power of NATO comes from its member. And, it is a conglomerate of powerful nations?
3. Because it considers itself as a bear. Why does the US invade other countries in name of democracy and freedom? It is all strategic interest. Why does China care about the small island? Why does China get anxious when the US tries to shrug off its hegemony by making new nato like groups, supply arms, and ammunition.
Geopolitics is a very complex topic. Again, I am not trying to justify any war crimes. I am just giving my opinion. I hope peace will prevail soon.
2. With this logic NATO doesn't have anything. The power of NATO comes from its member. And, it is a conglomerate of powerful nations?
3. Because it considers itself as a bear. Why does the US invade other countries in name of democracy and freedom? It is all strategic interest. Why does China care about the small island? Why does China get anxious when the US tries to shrug off its hegemony by making new nato like groups, supply arms, and ammunition.
Geopolitics is a very complex topic. Again, I am not trying to justify any war crimes. I am just giving my opinion. I hope peace will prevail soon.
> Why does the US invade other countries in name of democracy and freedom?
It doesn't.
It invades countries for other purposes (that is, both the overt and any covert purposes of the invasions are not “democracy and freedom” except occasionally in the sense of addressing a foreign threat to American democracy and freedom or that of an American ally threatened by the country invaded), but sometimes does something notionally aimed at democracy and/or freedom for the people once there, which may notionally be either justified as a moral act given that some governance must be established or as an instrumental means of achieving the invasions overt purpose (often it's sold both ways.)
It doesn't.
It invades countries for other purposes (that is, both the overt and any covert purposes of the invasions are not “democracy and freedom” except occasionally in the sense of addressing a foreign threat to American democracy and freedom or that of an American ally threatened by the country invaded), but sometimes does something notionally aimed at democracy and/or freedom for the people once there, which may notionally be either justified as a moral act given that some governance must be established or as an instrumental means of achieving the invasions overt purpose (often it's sold both ways.)
Russia could sign a massive peace and disarmarment treaty with NATO today, and the European countries would be very happy to reduce their defense budgets and buy oil and gas from Russia.
China could do something similar. Nobody has any interest in invading China or Russia. They don't because they have ambitions for power.
> If we look at history NATO, it is not a defensive alliance. It is a mostly defensive alliance.
When has it attacked anyone?
> Why does China get anxious when the US tries to shrug off its hegemony by making new nato like groups, supply arms, and ammunition.
Those countries join willingly, and in fact there is a line to get in the door (e.g., in NATO, Georgia and Ukraine). That's different than hegemony.
China could do something similar. Nobody has any interest in invading China or Russia. They don't because they have ambitions for power.
> If we look at history NATO, it is not a defensive alliance. It is a mostly defensive alliance.
When has it attacked anyone?
> Why does China get anxious when the US tries to shrug off its hegemony by making new nato like groups, supply arms, and ammunition.
Those countries join willingly, and in fact there is a line to get in the door (e.g., in NATO, Georgia and Ukraine). That's different than hegemony.
> Russia could sign a massive peace and disarmarment treaty with NATO today
LOL, are you serious?
LOL, are you serious?
From looking at the captured territories on the map, it seems to be able grabbing valuable pieces of land and resources.
Russia is capturing a lot of the Ukrainian coastline/ocean access, including the access to the natural gas deposits discovered in the black sea.
Russia is capturing a lot of the Ukrainian coastline/ocean access, including the access to the natural gas deposits discovered in the black sea.
Hold on. You've gone from saying "LOL" to the claim that Russia might lose, to providing justification for Russia's war. Not staying on topic. +15 RUB.
>Ukraine is also about national security
I don't buy that. Russia is already bordered by three NATO countries. One more wouldn't make a difference. And no one is planning on invading Russia due to the world's largest nuke stockpile.
This seems more about Putin's ambitions to restore the Russian empire and be Tsar of all the Russias. He's not the most straightforward fellow in saying what he's really up to. I think this is as much about national security as it is about a special operation to counter neo nazis.
I don't buy that. Russia is already bordered by three NATO countries. One more wouldn't make a difference. And no one is planning on invading Russia due to the world's largest nuke stockpile.
This seems more about Putin's ambitions to restore the Russian empire and be Tsar of all the Russias. He's not the most straightforward fellow in saying what he's really up to. I think this is as much about national security as it is about a special operation to counter neo nazis.
> One more wouldn't make a difference.
Characterizing Ukraine as "practically Estonia" does not reflect any understanding of geopolitics. I don't even know where to begin in addressing that knowledge gap.
Characterizing Ukraine as "practically Estonia" does not reflect any understanding of geopolitics. I don't even know where to begin in addressing that knowledge gap.
The difference is that afghans and Chechnyans won’t surrender even if you turn their country into rubble around their feet. They’re accustomed to a brutally hard existence. I’m not sure Ukrainians are in the same situation.
I agree. Many people press guerilla warfare which I don't think is applicable in Ukraine.
Afghanistan and Ukraine are different countries. I don't think people in Ukraine can tolerate the life of Afghani people. They are not used to luxury and were indoctrinated with radical religious views. They were following terrorism, although I don't think they were terrorists as portrayed by the media. Ukraine people are modern and they understand the value of life. And, even if they resist Russian and start to act like a terrorist, the EU won't support them in long run. There is no place in the EU for terrorism or radical beliefs.
Afghanistan and Ukraine are different countries. I don't think people in Ukraine can tolerate the life of Afghani people. They are not used to luxury and were indoctrinated with radical religious views. They were following terrorism, although I don't think they were terrorists as portrayed by the media. Ukraine people are modern and they understand the value of life. And, even if they resist Russian and start to act like a terrorist, the EU won't support them in long run. There is no place in the EU for terrorism or radical beliefs.
I'm not sure either, but so far they have proven to be incredibly resilient.
Alexander Nevzorov on invading Ukraine back in April 2021
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/taood7/uncanny_pre...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Nevzorov
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/taood7/uncanny_pre...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Nevzorov
this guy is a fortune teller. the nerve he has is incredible. still predicting the future from a future he predicted would never exist in his book "the end of history"
His point was correct: The most advanced people in the world live under ever-more-liberal democracies. There are vicious dictators in the world, and putin is one, along with Kim, Aliyev, Lukashenko etc, but they are not offering a better alternative to liberal democracy. Where he gets it wrong is that liberal democracy is final, while in reality it is one more extra step in this process towards individual rights set forward by enlightenment.
He pretty much says the opposite of what everyone claims he said in that book. People who've never read the book read the title and assume they know what his argument is.
oh, that's interesting. I read the book. although I was young and I did not finish it because it was dreadfully propagandist. i remember I got the feeling the book was written by a committee under the pseudonymous fukuyama. so maybe the conclusion of the book is reasonable and that's what you are referring to. i'm going to reread it. thank you
Sounds like this pop view of Fukuyama is inaccurate https://www.thepullrequest.com/p/history-restarts?s=r
Most people have a meme-level understanding of him and no idea what he has really said. This is relevant today as the pile-on of negative comments on his credibility are based on this meme-level understanding.
Most people have a meme-level understanding of him and no idea what he has really said. This is relevant today as the pile-on of negative comments on his credibility are based on this meme-level understanding.
Yea, that was my first thought too.
Now I'm expecting him to write: "The End of the End of the End of History".
Now I'm expecting him to write: "The End of the End of the End of History".
"The End of the End of History"[0] is a thing, so it's only a matter of time now for his response /s
[0]: https://bungacast.com/book/
[0]: https://bungacast.com/book/
Yea, I this is what I was referencing - thanks!
I'm not sure I believe any of this beyond the fact that the west's "reserve" has at least kept the conflict from extending beyond Ukraine's borders. If the war ended with Russia pulling out of Ukraine tomorrow, it's my opinion that the sanctions should last until there's a complete overhaul of the Russian government - we don't want this happening every five years!
Is that not precisely the logic the resulted in the rise of the Nazis? Let’s not forget too that sanctions are themselves an means of conducting warfare. Additionally if Russian withdrawal isn’t met by a relaxation of sanctions, what incentive is there for them to withdraw?
Edit - to the downvoters: after the central powers were defeated in WW1 some hefty penalties were levied on Germany in the treaty of Versailles. The idea was that they needed to be punished heavily otherwise they'd be tempted to rebuild and enter into another conflict that would consume Europe. Obviously that did not work.
Edit - to the downvoters: after the central powers were defeated in WW1 some hefty penalties were levied on Germany in the treaty of Versailles. The idea was that they needed to be punished heavily otherwise they'd be tempted to rebuild and enter into another conflict that would consume Europe. Obviously that did not work.
After WWI Germany's government was overhauled and yet the allies still forced them to pay punitive reparations, so it's not exactly the same. But presumably Russia would negotiate some easing of sanctions before they withdraw; they're certainly not just going to admit defeat and withdraw unconditionally.
It would be easy to do a partial rollback if the Russians withdraw. I agree though that removing the sanctions completely might be difficult.
It's been 2 weeks. It's premature to be talking about victory or defeat
> The only helpful thing was the General Assembly vote, which helps to identify the world’s bad or prevaricating actors.
While a majority of states voted to condemn the invasion, the countries that voted to let it happen represent a majority of the world's population (it wasn't just India and China; there was widespread support in Africa, for example).
While a majority of states voted to condemn the invasion, the countries that voted to let it happen represent a majority of the world's population (it wasn't just India and China; there was widespread support in Africa, for example).
>The United Nations Security Council has proven once again to be useless.
Useless in a practical sense, in this particular case, yes. It's not at all surprising.
Specifically the problem is due to simultaneous issues (a) only the Security Council can commit armed forces to enforce resolutions (b) Security Council resolutions need concurrence of its permanent members (U.S., U.K., France, China, Russia), i.e. this what is often referred to as a veto (c) one of the permanent members is violating the charter in a fundamental manner, and certainly will not vote to enforce the charter on itself.
Should there no longer be permanent members of the Security Council? Perhaps. It is likely to change? Nope.
Useless in a practical sense, in this particular case, yes. It's not at all surprising.
Specifically the problem is due to simultaneous issues (a) only the Security Council can commit armed forces to enforce resolutions (b) Security Council resolutions need concurrence of its permanent members (U.S., U.K., France, China, Russia), i.e. this what is often referred to as a veto (c) one of the permanent members is violating the charter in a fundamental manner, and certainly will not vote to enforce the charter on itself.
Should there no longer be permanent members of the Security Council? Perhaps. It is likely to change? Nope.
The question I don’t have an answer for here is how does Russia control Ukraine if they do win militarily? It seems incredibly unlikely that they have enough troops and doesn’t seem remotely sustainable.
They can't. An unbiasedly simple answer. Strategically this war is a lost cause for Russia, even if they win militarily in the short term.
Capture is one thing. Holding on is another. According to latest estimates, RU has already invested the lion share of its military assets (not army men) in the Ukraine invasion. And they're doing badly. There will be attrition & guerrila warfare if boots stay on Ukrainian soil. They dont have an economy like US/UK to back this up well. They're bleeding under sanctions. Economy is falling as fast as when USSR collapsed. No major foreign trade possible (except the Southern hemisphere countries, China & India) & companies are pulling out. Mass unemployment & currency devaluation will likely follow. The world opinion is not sympathetic to Russia. It is a lose-lose.
As of now the Russians are fighting for the sake of one man's inflated ego of building the 'Historic Russia'. The Ukrainians may or may not win this offensive, but they have showed remarkable heroism & solidarity to keep the country fighting.
Capture is one thing. Holding on is another. According to latest estimates, RU has already invested the lion share of its military assets (not army men) in the Ukraine invasion. And they're doing badly. There will be attrition & guerrila warfare if boots stay on Ukrainian soil. They dont have an economy like US/UK to back this up well. They're bleeding under sanctions. Economy is falling as fast as when USSR collapsed. No major foreign trade possible (except the Southern hemisphere countries, China & India) & companies are pulling out. Mass unemployment & currency devaluation will likely follow. The world opinion is not sympathetic to Russia. It is a lose-lose.
As of now the Russians are fighting for the sake of one man's inflated ego of building the 'Historic Russia'. The Ukrainians may or may not win this offensive, but they have showed remarkable heroism & solidarity to keep the country fighting.
Indeed and this all seems to support the hypothesis that Putin expected a quick capitulation and to install a compliant regime.
Actually it’s fairly easy, they can conduct Balkanization[0]
They will find appropriate politicians or in some cases warlords for each region, in most cases they will fight among each other to gain power.
This is not WW2 where you need a soldier to stand around every other corner, we’re much more sophisticated now.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkanization
They will find appropriate politicians or in some cases warlords for each region, in most cases they will fight among each other to gain power.
This is not WW2 where you need a soldier to stand around every other corner, we’re much more sophisticated now.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkanization
Balkanization worked because former Jugoslavia actually consisted of multiple very different ethnic and religious groups.
this was already happening in ukraine however , cant push it any further
I can't imagine that Russia has planned to take over such a large country.
It only makes sense if they only planned to bomb Ukraine into handing over Donetsk, Lukhansk, recognising the loss of Crimea, and agreeing not to join NATO.
From this perspective, it's hard for Russia to loose. A destroyed Ukraine won't fight for their lost territories and won't be accepted into the EU or NATO.
It only makes sense if they only planned to bomb Ukraine into handing over Donetsk, Lukhansk, recognising the loss of Crimea, and agreeing not to join NATO.
From this perspective, it's hard for Russia to loose. A destroyed Ukraine won't fight for their lost territories and won't be accepted into the EU or NATO.
Don’t believe that for a moment. Crimea and parts of Donetsk etc already under their control and a limited incursion could have gained more territory at low risk.
Instead Russia faces huge economic penalties and stronger Ukraine-EU links are much more likely even if full membership doesn’t happen.
Instead Russia faces huge economic penalties and stronger Ukraine-EU links are much more likely even if full membership doesn’t happen.
it seems that pootin doesnt want to keep it, hence why the slow approach to kiev etc, he wants to press hard on final negotiations. But OTOH , that is a bluff that the west can call. If he really stays in kiev, with zelenski exiled in poland and active resistance in ukraine, and sanctions having now become permanent, that's a slow disaster for him. Russians were not asked for this invasion nor are they prepared for global isolation, despite their nationalist exuberance
Through a campaign of mass terror and genocide.
The motivation for the war is that Ukrainians are really Russians who happened to be trapped in a separate country under a Nazi government.
Killing all the people you came to liberate is a tough PR sell.
Killing all the people you came to liberate is a tough PR sell.
You're right, but so far it's unclear if Putin is at all concerned with PR.
> The Polish MiGs in particular would not add much to Ukrainian capabilities. Much more important is a continuing supply of Javelins, Stingers, TB2s, medical supplies, comms equipment, and intel sharing.
Yes, MiGs, like all manned fighters, are as relevant today in the age of the drone as battleships were during WWII (and arguably the Japanese did us a favor at Pearl Harbor by definitively discrediting the battleship die-hard dead wood in the Navy).
Yes, MiGs, like all manned fighters, are as relevant today in the age of the drone as battleships were during WWII (and arguably the Japanese did us a favor at Pearl Harbor by definitively discrediting the battleship die-hard dead wood in the Navy).
"Medieval" is well put. Sucks to be besieged by the Russian army. What else might they try ? Maybe catapult some dead cows into cities ? Throw dead bodies down wells ? Drop anthrax from drones ? In any case they seem obv keen to avoid urban warfare. Russian mothers are already on alert to the slaughter.
All this discussion of the "endgame" (not just Fukuyama of course, and he at least is worth listening to).
But what's the endgame after the endgame? A "Marshall Plan" for Ukraine is a likely possibility. But a Marshall Plan for Russia, who will need it almost as much? Unlikely.
But what's the endgame after the endgame? A "Marshall Plan" for Ukraine is a likely possibility. But a Marshall Plan for Russia, who will need it almost as much? Unlikely.
An interesting development in the past few days is that both sides have been testing how far they can take escalation. For example Russia has stated that arming the Ukrainians would be seen as an act of war, but numerous NATO countries have done so anyway and nothing more than strong words has followed. It is also widely accepted that NATO has been supplying the Ukrainians with satellite imagery and the like. OTOH, straight up delivering extra fighter jets or enforcing a no-fly zone is seen as "too much" at the moment. I think the West have several escalation steps more they can get away with if they are careful. After all, what is Russia going to do about it other than starting a nuclear exchange with NATO? The cost to NATO will be extremely high but Putin can be sure he won't survive either and that is what the whole thing was about from the start.
It all looks very much like one of the "proxy wars" of the cold war era, only Russia forgot to do it by proxy this time.
It all looks very much like one of the "proxy wars" of the cold war era, only Russia forgot to do it by proxy this time.
> I think the West have several escalation steps more they can get away with if they are careful.
If so, these escalation steps should be kept in reserve as much as possible, and not deployed carelessly. The Russians have not exactly been restraining themselves thus far, but they could nonetheless be doing a lot worse and being able to deter them without triggering WWIII in the process is kinda important.
If so, these escalation steps should be kept in reserve as much as possible, and not deployed carelessly. The Russians have not exactly been restraining themselves thus far, but they could nonetheless be doing a lot worse and being able to deter them without triggering WWIII in the process is kinda important.
>"Like Russia, China has built up seemingly high-tech military forces in the past decade, but they have no combat experience. The miserable performance of the Russian air force would likely be replicated by the People’s Liberation Army Air Force, which similarly has no experience managing complex air operations."
General attitude of in Russian army except maybe some strategic stuff is fuck everything coupled with rampant corruption, theft and all encompassing decay. I am not sure China has the same problem and would not count on them being incompetent.
>"Putin will not survive the defeat of his army. He gets support because he is perceived to be a strongman; what does he have to offer once he demonstrates incompetence and is stripped of his coercive power"
I think he knows this well and am I afraid that if he sees the end this abomination of human would engineer something that would lead to a WWIII with all the consequences. I hope he gets eliminated before reaching this stage.
General attitude of in Russian army except maybe some strategic stuff is fuck everything coupled with rampant corruption, theft and all encompassing decay. I am not sure China has the same problem and would not count on them being incompetent.
>"Putin will not survive the defeat of his army. He gets support because he is perceived to be a strongman; what does he have to offer once he demonstrates incompetence and is stripped of his coercive power"
I think he knows this well and am I afraid that if he sees the end this abomination of human would engineer something that would lead to a WWIII with all the consequences. I hope he gets eliminated before reaching this stage.
> The Biden administration’s decisions not to declare a no-fly zone or help transfer Polish MiGs were both good ones; they've kept their heads during a very emotional time.
Thankful for this, cooler heads prevailed. Despite relentless pressure coming from the news media and twitter demanding that we escalate.
Thankful for this, cooler heads prevailed. Despite relentless pressure coming from the news media and twitter demanding that we escalate.
God, what a simplistic model he's got. Putin is probably on his way to defeat, but it's a long way and IMO we might get a few nuked out cities before that happens. If Europe chickens out then he could be the winner, holding everyone hostage with his finger on the red button in a "Pax Russianus".
> 7. Putin will not survive the defeat of his army. He gets support because he is perceived to be a strongman; what does he have to offer once he demonstrates incompetence and is stripped of his coercive power?
The way I see it, he's a mafia boss with everyone under him (the military, the police) under his control. It feels like everyone under him is dedicated to the "Make Russia Great Again" cause. If someone takes him out, the new guy will still be a strongman with a big army and nukes, so what's the point? If someone takes him out and offers peace, US/EU/NATO will want a huge armistice (a bit like Germany after WW2) before they'd restore the economic relationship, and if the new guy accepts that sort of conquering, there'll be plenty of people from the "Long Live Russia" side ready to take him out.
A better analysis: https://www.ft.com/content/503fb110-f91e-4bed-b6dc-0d09582dd...
> 7. Putin will not survive the defeat of his army. He gets support because he is perceived to be a strongman; what does he have to offer once he demonstrates incompetence and is stripped of his coercive power?
The way I see it, he's a mafia boss with everyone under him (the military, the police) under his control. It feels like everyone under him is dedicated to the "Make Russia Great Again" cause. If someone takes him out, the new guy will still be a strongman with a big army and nukes, so what's the point? If someone takes him out and offers peace, US/EU/NATO will want a huge armistice (a bit like Germany after WW2) before they'd restore the economic relationship, and if the new guy accepts that sort of conquering, there'll be plenty of people from the "Long Live Russia" side ready to take him out.
A better analysis: https://www.ft.com/content/503fb110-f91e-4bed-b6dc-0d09582dd...
Regretfully too optimistic.
1) I can see the Russians being bogged down indefinitely, but outright defeat in the manner Fukuyama suggests requires either a counteroffensive or mass mutiny.
Ukrainian forces have proven they could defend and execute ambushes, but there haven't been many successful counterattacks, and no large scale counterattacks - and I guess they are right not to try. If the Ukrainians get the timing wrong and Russians aren't entirely out of ammo, they get cut down by Russian artillery, which is one thing the Russians seem to have an endless supply of.
2) Strategic counterattack requires heavy weapons, the weapons Fukuyama suggests not giving Ukraine with a very silly reason ('narratives' are less important than giving weapons the Ukrainians need). I suspect he lets his feelings towards the current US administration get in the way - Ukrainian generals are better suited to know what they need and we should listen.
3) There will be no effect on the fortunes of populists all over the world. The reasons that led to their original success are local and still exist. Also frankly the record of non-populist politicians regarding Putin is less than stellar. For example, if history went a bit differently and the US did not pressure France, Putin would be attacking using Mistral ships sold by France.
1) I can see the Russians being bogged down indefinitely, but outright defeat in the manner Fukuyama suggests requires either a counteroffensive or mass mutiny.
Ukrainian forces have proven they could defend and execute ambushes, but there haven't been many successful counterattacks, and no large scale counterattacks - and I guess they are right not to try. If the Ukrainians get the timing wrong and Russians aren't entirely out of ammo, they get cut down by Russian artillery, which is one thing the Russians seem to have an endless supply of.
2) Strategic counterattack requires heavy weapons, the weapons Fukuyama suggests not giving Ukraine with a very silly reason ('narratives' are less important than giving weapons the Ukrainians need). I suspect he lets his feelings towards the current US administration get in the way - Ukrainian generals are better suited to know what they need and we should listen.
3) There will be no effect on the fortunes of populists all over the world. The reasons that led to their original success are local and still exist. Also frankly the record of non-populist politicians regarding Putin is less than stellar. For example, if history went a bit differently and the US did not pressure France, Putin would be attacking using Mistral ships sold by France.
Since we can just make fuzzy predictions and not face any consequence, let's go !
1. The Russian military (aided if needed by mercenaries) is bringing entire cities to the ground in the south of Ukraine, and just buying times before leveling substantial parts of Kyiv. Source : the news. Painting that as a "military defeat in the making for Russia" is just insane propaganda.
2. There is a perfectly "acceptable" diplomatic compromise, where Ukraine is split into roughly east/west of the river, buffer puppet states protect Russian border, and Ukraine is free to join EU - except Ukraine does not have all the eastern mines anymore, and is basically another poor country that northern Europe is going to refuse people from. The compromise is "acceptable" by everyone except Ukrainian gouvernement, of course - but it's astonishing what having the rest of the world urge you to bail (before the winter gets cold) can do.
3. Putin will stay in power as long as his health and / or close guard of oligarchs permits. As long as gas and oil remains sold to EU, he only has to fear about the former - which we know nothing about, and I'm tired of hearing people speculate about.
4. Eric Zemmour and Marine Le Pen dropped a couple points in the poll - thankfully for them, the elections are in an eternity of four weeks, so this will not prevent one of them to be on the 2nd round. None of them is planning on winning anyway (baring a last minute scandal for the president), financially getting their 15% each will ensure the success of their campaigns - so business is going fairly according to plan.
5. I think I vaguely remember this author of the post saying things about the end of history after the wall fell - so as assume we could both be wrong in the end, right ?
1. The Russian military (aided if needed by mercenaries) is bringing entire cities to the ground in the south of Ukraine, and just buying times before leveling substantial parts of Kyiv. Source : the news. Painting that as a "military defeat in the making for Russia" is just insane propaganda.
2. There is a perfectly "acceptable" diplomatic compromise, where Ukraine is split into roughly east/west of the river, buffer puppet states protect Russian border, and Ukraine is free to join EU - except Ukraine does not have all the eastern mines anymore, and is basically another poor country that northern Europe is going to refuse people from. The compromise is "acceptable" by everyone except Ukrainian gouvernement, of course - but it's astonishing what having the rest of the world urge you to bail (before the winter gets cold) can do.
3. Putin will stay in power as long as his health and / or close guard of oligarchs permits. As long as gas and oil remains sold to EU, he only has to fear about the former - which we know nothing about, and I'm tired of hearing people speculate about.
4. Eric Zemmour and Marine Le Pen dropped a couple points in the poll - thankfully for them, the elections are in an eternity of four weeks, so this will not prevent one of them to be on the 2nd round. None of them is planning on winning anyway (baring a last minute scandal for the president), financially getting their 15% each will ensure the success of their campaigns - so business is going fairly according to plan.
5. I think I vaguely remember this author of the post saying things about the end of history after the wall fell - so as assume we could both be wrong in the end, right ?
To point 1, the rubbling of cities will make for much more dangerous block to block urban combat. Experts seem to think you need good supply lines and a 6 to 1 numerical advantage to win in urban guerrilla combat as the attacker. The 2nd Chechen war was ~15 years ago, the Russians have no real experience doing this. That’s why they’re recruiting Syrians. The Ukrainian defenders were trained by NATO based on urban combat doctrine developed in Fallujah and Syria. The Ukrainians could feasibly bleed the Russians until they’re out of combat ready units.
Ultimately it’s going to be a slow rolling atrocity, and there’s no way to know what next week will look like.
Ultimately it’s going to be a slow rolling atrocity, and there’s no way to know what next week will look like.
#5
Fukuyama is almost certainly wrong or at best he is too early with his prediction
"What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Fukuyama#The_End_of_Hi...
"What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Fukuyama#The_End_of_Hi...
[deleted]
> The compromise is "acceptable" by everyone except Ukrainian government, of course
It's acceptable to everyone except the people actually hurt by it. A common problem.
It's acceptable to everyone except the people actually hurt by it. A common problem.
On 2, the diplomatic option has been on the table since the civil war started in 2014 (Minsk agreements). However, it is critical to understand that it is not merely "the Ukrainians" (i.e. the current Zelensky-Klitschko-Pinchuk oligarchy) that are opposed to it, it is also Washington.
After all, the latter spent billions of dollars and decades of effort tearing down the Budapest Memo, and they weren't going to easily return to that status quo.
This is also blindingly obvious in the fact that the Overton window here in USA ranges from "no fly zone! WW3! Hoo-rah!" to "we will merely arm the Ukrainian civilians with Javelins" -- surrender and life-saving compromise isn't even on the table. What would the Kagans get out of that?!
After all, the latter spent billions of dollars and decades of effort tearing down the Budapest Memo, and they weren't going to easily return to that status quo.
This is also blindingly obvious in the fact that the Overton window here in USA ranges from "no fly zone! WW3! Hoo-rah!" to "we will merely arm the Ukrainian civilians with Javelins" -- surrender and life-saving compromise isn't even on the table. What would the Kagans get out of that?!
"surrendering" is really not aanywhere in the spectrum in USA, historically.
And, even though the "splitting and surviving" compromise seems almost inevitable to me, I have no idea how long it will take.
And I can't blame all parties (Russia / Ukraine / EU / NATO) for trying to "buy time" and reach the négociation table in the best possible situation.
I can imagine Putin would have preferred rolling over Kyiv, then negociate. But now all he has to do is bomb, turn kyev into "Alep on Dniepr", and wait it out.
Europe has six months of warmer weather to wait it out, before gas reserves become a problem again.
I don't if Biden will prefer entering midterms with or without a war abroad ? Can't say it will really bother him more than whatever domestic "October suprise" comes up.
Again, i don't know. But I would not book an Airbnb for a barbecue in eastern Europe this summer, If I were you.
(On the other hand, if you're into Nordics or Baltics, visit finland and Estonia NOW, they're next in line.)
And, even though the "splitting and surviving" compromise seems almost inevitable to me, I have no idea how long it will take.
And I can't blame all parties (Russia / Ukraine / EU / NATO) for trying to "buy time" and reach the négociation table in the best possible situation.
I can imagine Putin would have preferred rolling over Kyiv, then negociate. But now all he has to do is bomb, turn kyev into "Alep on Dniepr", and wait it out.
Europe has six months of warmer weather to wait it out, before gas reserves become a problem again.
I don't if Biden will prefer entering midterms with or without a war abroad ? Can't say it will really bother him more than whatever domestic "October suprise" comes up.
Again, i don't know. But I would not book an Airbnb for a barbecue in eastern Europe this summer, If I were you.
(On the other hand, if you're into Nordics or Baltics, visit finland and Estonia NOW, they're next in line.)
Total nonsense. Putin is not going to bomb Lviv, much less Estonia or Finland.
Can you read the man's mind? Because the rest of us are struggling to, and are preparing for the worst.
No, I just hear to what Moscow has been saying for the last 15yrs and relate it to facts on the ground. No need for armchair psychology.
I agree that Lviv seems western enough to be spared bombing (since I assume Putin just want the east, and the attention over Kyiv.)
Yeah, sure, Finland is fine, as soon as Putin would laid a hand on it, there would be a strong response from... Oh, wait no one.
But Estonia, yeah, sure, NATO would jump to trigger WWWIII over Tallin. I can already picture Joe Biden explaining to US voters why they'll have to deal with a nuclear war because of the Baltics. Also, that the Baltics exist.
Yeah, sure, Finland is fine, as soon as Putin would laid a hand on it, there would be a strong response from... Oh, wait no one.
But Estonia, yeah, sure, NATO would jump to trigger WWWIII over Tallin. I can already picture Joe Biden explaining to US voters why they'll have to deal with a nuclear war because of the Baltics. Also, that the Baltics exist.
If NATO won't, then it's worthless. Also, even if USA gets cold feet, there's at least one nuclear armed country in Europe that can potentially get conquered by Russia down the line, and so would be more willing to act.
Do you believe Putin will be detered by French or British nukes ? That's not who they're designed to deter.
And yes, in this situation I fear NATO membership would prove worthless to Baltics.
Turns out there is a "winning move" : being the only one to play.
And yes, in this situation I fear NATO membership would prove worthless to Baltics.
Turns out there is a "winning move" : being the only one to play.
Why wouldn't he be deterred by British/French nukes ? It doesn't take many of them to wipe out the biggest cities of any country...
> Putin is not going to bomb Lviv,
Russia just conducted strikes in the area of Lviv.
Russia just conducted strikes in the area of Lviv.
Sorry...
There never was a civil war in Ukraine. In 2014 - that was still Russian forces both in Crimea and in eastern part of Ukraine.
Russia got sanctioned since 2014 exactly for that.
Russia got sanctioned since 2014 exactly for that.
Wow. 14,000 Ukrainians have been killed by Ukrainians since 2014 in the Donbass region. Heavy weaponry involved. If that is not a civil war, what is it?
> If that is not a civil war, what is it?
Russian invasion of Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine.
Ironically, since most people living there are Russians, it's Russians killing Russians in Ukraine in the name of Putin's delusions.
Russian invasion of Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine.
Ironically, since most people living there are Russians, it's Russians killing Russians in Ukraine in the name of Putin's delusions.
So the current war started in 2014, not 2022?
Careful now, you might not get paid if you use the w-word.
that is correct, the war started in 2014 by occupation of Crimea and eastern parts of Ukraine.
By Putin’s own words, he considered Minsk agreement as a capitulation for Ukraine. But Ukraine did’t want to capitulate, and instead took the time to rebuilt its army. For any Ukrainian it was obvious that Russia will invade soon to try to finish what it started.
By Putin’s own words, he considered Minsk agreement as a capitulation for Ukraine. But Ukraine did’t want to capitulate, and instead took the time to rebuilt its army. For any Ukrainian it was obvious that Russia will invade soon to try to finish what it started.
[deleted]
Leveling cities into rubble does not necessarily help the attacker, see Stalingrad. It hurts civilians of course, but not necessarily military defense. The thing is that modern urban warfare is so favorable to defense that the attacker has little other choice - it's rolling the dice and nothing more.
West Ukraine is not even all that poor, they have a legacy of good institutions as part of the European West and their human capital has a lot of potential. Like many middle-income countries (including Russia itself) they're hobbled by bad policy, but joining the EU would encourage them to fix this.
West Ukraine is not even all that poor, they have a legacy of good institutions as part of the European West and their human capital has a lot of potential. Like many middle-income countries (including Russia itself) they're hobbled by bad policy, but joining the EU would encourage them to fix this.
> Leveling cities into rubble does not necessarily help the attacker, see Stalingrad.
Yes. It wasn't a city, but when the Allies bombed the Italian hillside monastery of Monte Cassino [0] in 1944, it left a pile of rubble that the Germans managed to hold for another three months.
If you don't rubbleise a city, they are horrendous to assault. Most battle tanks (western and Russian) can't elevate their main guns high enough to take out attackers in a nearby multi-story towerblock (the 'urban canyon'), some military comms systems and GPS lose signals, defenders can use subways to transit, etc etc.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino
Yes. It wasn't a city, but when the Allies bombed the Italian hillside monastery of Monte Cassino [0] in 1944, it left a pile of rubble that the Germans managed to hold for another three months.
If you don't rubbleise a city, they are horrendous to assault. Most battle tanks (western and Russian) can't elevate their main guns high enough to take out attackers in a nearby multi-story towerblock (the 'urban canyon'), some military comms systems and GPS lose signals, defenders can use subways to transit, etc etc.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino
The populists win the French election no matter who wins. The left has collapsed completely, and Macron is sounding pretty right wing attacking wokeness and defending western values versus Islam.
Macron is definitely more right-wing than might have been expected five years ago.
That being said, even with the largest possible definition of "populist", he hardly qualifies.
The most likely outcome of this election round (president + assembly) is a macron presidency with an "official" right-wing coalition of macron's party with the most "centrist" part of the right wing. Very run of the mill stuff. And populists keeping their job as "yelling from the side".
Then again, "eternity of one month".
That being said, even with the largest possible definition of "populist", he hardly qualifies.
The most likely outcome of this election round (president + assembly) is a macron presidency with an "official" right-wing coalition of macron's party with the most "centrist" part of the right wing. Very run of the mill stuff. And populists keeping their job as "yelling from the side".
Then again, "eternity of one month".
I’m not saying he’s a populist, I’m saying that the populists have scored a significant victory by pushing him to the right on cultural issues even if he ultimately wins reelection.
Ok, my bad. I would argue that the populists pushed the "classic right" to the right, more than they did macron ; but that's fair to say they pushed everyone. (Thanks cnews..)
Militant secularism is not a right wing position in France. It's very much part of the shared zeitgeist. This is the country that once had a "Cult of the Reason Goddess" as their state religion, and their modern über-secular laïcité is not very different.
Not to mention that if anyone pushed for the distrust of Islam, it was Daesh's actions... (which itself didn't just spontaneously materialize out of thin air, but we're really getting out of topic here)
The secularism isn’t right wing, but he’s also had strong words against American progressive ideology: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/world/europe/france-threa...
It hurts to read the prevailing opinion in the western sphere these days, Fukuyama and comments here included. HN was mostly logical and rational in the past, but lately (Cov-19 and Russia) it is outright one sided.
Are you aware that the USA and its "allies" have orchestrated a Coup d'etat in Ukraine? Are you aware of the "F*ck EU" phone call in which Nuland moves people in Ukrainian politics like peons on the chessboard? Are you aware of real Nazis being part of government and security aparatus in Ukraine? Are you aware of Odessa, where dozens of pro-Russian people were burned alive by those same Nazis? Are you aware that Zelensky threatened to make atomic weapons at the Munich Security Conference mid February 2022? Are you aware of the complicity of Biden and his family in this (Hunter and his board seat at Burisma), not to speak of VP Biden blackmailing Ukrainians to fire their attorney general for probing Burisma or they'd get no money from (I think) MMF?
This is just a small selection of past events, not to mention new ones.
All this is not an isolated, Russia/Ukraine (both predominantly Orthodox Christian), issue. The collective West is causing death and destruction in the Muslim world for at least 30 years, as well. Furthermore, Snowden and Wikileaks documents have revealed a part of corruption in the US political and intelligence system. And there was no war waged by the West that wasn't supported by the Western media. Speaking of Fukuyama: He is a neocon, part of the cabal whose ideology has caused millions of dead and displaced people, their property destroyed. Their ideology has immensely weakened the US with meaningless and costly wars. And you still listen to him instead to shun him.
You look ridiculous to the World Outside of the West (~6 billion people) with your "we stand with Ukraine", with how you cancel and sanction everything Russian, how you moralize. Business model of the West for centuries is robbery and enslavement, who rises against it gets bombs on his head (hint: that are those in the World Outside the West). USA is literally built on the genocide of the Natives and the susequent landgrab! That West led by that USA is now condemning Russia for not wanting Nazis with nuclear weapons at her doorstep - imagine that!
Do you really don't get all this or do you act out of pure self interest (Russia is a too rich country to have all those riches/resources only for itself)?
Are you aware that the USA and its "allies" have orchestrated a Coup d'etat in Ukraine? Are you aware of the "F*ck EU" phone call in which Nuland moves people in Ukrainian politics like peons on the chessboard? Are you aware of real Nazis being part of government and security aparatus in Ukraine? Are you aware of Odessa, where dozens of pro-Russian people were burned alive by those same Nazis? Are you aware that Zelensky threatened to make atomic weapons at the Munich Security Conference mid February 2022? Are you aware of the complicity of Biden and his family in this (Hunter and his board seat at Burisma), not to speak of VP Biden blackmailing Ukrainians to fire their attorney general for probing Burisma or they'd get no money from (I think) MMF?
This is just a small selection of past events, not to mention new ones.
All this is not an isolated, Russia/Ukraine (both predominantly Orthodox Christian), issue. The collective West is causing death and destruction in the Muslim world for at least 30 years, as well. Furthermore, Snowden and Wikileaks documents have revealed a part of corruption in the US political and intelligence system. And there was no war waged by the West that wasn't supported by the Western media. Speaking of Fukuyama: He is a neocon, part of the cabal whose ideology has caused millions of dead and displaced people, their property destroyed. Their ideology has immensely weakened the US with meaningless and costly wars. And you still listen to him instead to shun him.
You look ridiculous to the World Outside of the West (~6 billion people) with your "we stand with Ukraine", with how you cancel and sanction everything Russian, how you moralize. Business model of the West for centuries is robbery and enslavement, who rises against it gets bombs on his head (hint: that are those in the World Outside the West). USA is literally built on the genocide of the Natives and the susequent landgrab! That West led by that USA is now condemning Russia for not wanting Nazis with nuclear weapons at her doorstep - imagine that!
Do you really don't get all this or do you act out of pure self interest (Russia is a too rich country to have all those riches/resources only for itself)?
> Are you aware that the USA and its "allies" have orchestrated a Coup d'etat in Ukraine?
You mean that thing in 2014 where a few Ukrainians protested a thing the president did that they didn't like, and in response the president of Ukraine promptly fled the country never to return?
Meanwhile the current president has the entire Russian Army bearing down on him and hasn't left.
Some "coup".
The truth is, all "Evil West" whataboutism aside, Russia is weak and corrupt and cannot bend Ukraine to its will. Too bad.
You mean that thing in 2014 where a few Ukrainians protested a thing the president did that they didn't like, and in response the president of Ukraine promptly fled the country never to return?
Meanwhile the current president has the entire Russian Army bearing down on him and hasn't left.
Some "coup".
The truth is, all "Evil West" whataboutism aside, Russia is weak and corrupt and cannot bend Ukraine to its will. Too bad.
Whenever one mentions misdeeds of the West, the other side answers with "whataboutism" and basically stops the discussion. How convenient to hide behind counter-accusation. It is easier to do that than to lose time and energy defending the undefendable. For example, how would one defend my sentence "USA is literally built on the genocide of the Natives and the susequent landgrab!"? You cannot, it is a fact. A fact that changes the perspective of the world in which an amoral entity preaches morality.
Yanukovych was no doubt corrupt, but Ukraine after 2014 is so squeaky clean? And, the "entire Russian Army" is after the Comedian Zelensky? Are you serious?
You obviously don't know a squat about Russia. Otherwise, you wouldn't write "Russia is weak and corrupt and cannot bend Ukraine to its will". Too bad.
Yanukovych was no doubt corrupt, but Ukraine after 2014 is so squeaky clean? And, the "entire Russian Army" is after the Comedian Zelensky? Are you serious?
You obviously don't know a squat about Russia. Otherwise, you wouldn't write "Russia is weak and corrupt and cannot bend Ukraine to its will". Too bad.
The Russian army can't even keep truck tires inflated.
You are trolling, I get that now.
[deleted]
For a while I was pushing the no-fly zone as well, until I read this article. I'm surprised Russia would be heading for an outright defeat, and if true they've marshaled the bulk of Russian forces in this conflict, I have to wonder what the rest of the defense position looks like for Russia?
For example, if China were to, say, start rolling across Siberia, besides moving the mother of all bowel movements, there's absolutely no way in my mind Russia could stop a complete Chinese defeat.
In fact, if China did invade Russia, they could do so to "stop a raving mad man" and I dare say be cheered on by many in the west. China could...almost redeem a piece of itself. That would start a nuclear war, however, because Putin would simply press the button..but it's fodder for thought how China could play a role.
For example, if China were to, say, start rolling across Siberia, besides moving the mother of all bowel movements, there's absolutely no way in my mind Russia could stop a complete Chinese defeat.
In fact, if China did invade Russia, they could do so to "stop a raving mad man" and I dare say be cheered on by many in the west. China could...almost redeem a piece of itself. That would start a nuclear war, however, because Putin would simply press the button..but it's fodder for thought how China could play a role.
China would do far more damage to Russia just by putting on trade sanctions, rather than marching around Russian Far East territories where literally nobody lives.
> For a while I was pushing the no-fly zone as well
Enforcing a "no fly zone" means that NATO would have to get involved in order to gain air supremacy, potentially supported by boots on the ground . It would be the Libyan playbook, which hasn't worked all that well for NATO.
Enforcing a "no fly zone" means that NATO would have to get involved in order to gain air supremacy, potentially supported by boots on the ground . It would be the Libyan playbook, which hasn't worked all that well for NATO.
Putin is doing everything he can to avoid conscription, which would put Russia's view of the war in more precarious situation
He's even trying to recruit African mercenaries:
https://twitter.com/_IntelMA_/status/1502262997099724802
He's even trying to recruit African mercenaries:
https://twitter.com/_IntelMA_/status/1502262997099724802
Why would China ever do that when they can have Russia as a client state at zero military cost? China can merely incorporate a weakened Russia into its belt-and-road neo-colonial strategy.
1 China can buy what it wants from Russia.
2 Russia still has nukes.
2 Russia still has nukes.
This is at least true in the north; the Russians are doing better in the south, but those positions would be hard to maintain if the north collapses.
I'm puzzled why more attention isn't focused on Russia's progress in the south and naval superiority. They clearly want Ukraine and the world to accept its annexation of Crimea and bolstering the zone around it is shaping up to be a point of negotiation, as they made clear in one of Putin's demands about a week ago (that was rejected).
Regarding Taiwan restoring conscription: They never got rid of it, but basically reduced it from 2 years to 4 months with lots of exceptions. It's amazing they don't follow the model of Israel and South Korea, considering the PRC menace, constant posturing, and aggressive territory grabs in the South China Sea.
I'm puzzled why more attention isn't focused on Russia's progress in the south and naval superiority. They clearly want Ukraine and the world to accept its annexation of Crimea and bolstering the zone around it is shaping up to be a point of negotiation, as they made clear in one of Putin's demands about a week ago (that was rejected).
Regarding Taiwan restoring conscription: They never got rid of it, but basically reduced it from 2 years to 4 months with lots of exceptions. It's amazing they don't follow the model of Israel and South Korea, considering the PRC menace, constant posturing, and aggressive territory grabs in the South China Sea.
Say Ukraine surrenders and Putin gets what he wants, and the shooting stops, new borders are drawn and soldiers from both sides retreat. I can't see how Putin gets out of the economic war, though. EU and US voters will never accept their governments cancelling sanctions, and they'll boycott businesses who announce they're returning to Russia (they won't anyway, if SWIFT doesn't work and money can't flow easily). What will Putin do? Be a North Korea? I guess he can try increasing trade with China.
> EU and US voters will never accept their governments cancelling sanctions
They will when they see their gas and food bills. Everyone is hawk in social networks and enjoys its moral justice, but for many workers in Europe these sanctions mean closing their businesses and increasing paychecks. Of course everyone can say that Ukraine has right to join NATO, but how much are you ready to pay for this right?
For most of people these events are only important when they are all over [social] media. Most of the people who call for immediate beginning of WW3 will forget about it when media will start the Next Big Story(China? US elections?).
How many of enraged US citizens can show Ukraine on the map? Who was in the context of Russo-Ukrainian relationships month ago? When the wartime propaganda is over, people will find a way to collaborate.
They will when they see their gas and food bills. Everyone is hawk in social networks and enjoys its moral justice, but for many workers in Europe these sanctions mean closing their businesses and increasing paychecks. Of course everyone can say that Ukraine has right to join NATO, but how much are you ready to pay for this right?
For most of people these events are only important when they are all over [social] media. Most of the people who call for immediate beginning of WW3 will forget about it when media will start the Next Big Story(China? US elections?).
How many of enraged US citizens can show Ukraine on the map? Who was in the context of Russo-Ukrainian relationships month ago? When the wartime propaganda is over, people will find a way to collaborate.
> EU and US voters will never accept their governments cancelling sanctions, and they'll boycott businesses who announce they're returning to Russia
I'm skeptical - if millions of minds can by synchronized upon an idea in the first place, I don't see why the same techniques necessarily can't be used to synchronize them upon a new idea. I mean, is this not fundamentally how "reality" works: mass synchronization of minds by training them with data (information)?
I'm skeptical - if millions of minds can by synchronized upon an idea in the first place, I don't see why the same techniques necessarily can't be used to synchronize them upon a new idea. I mean, is this not fundamentally how "reality" works: mass synchronization of minds by training them with data (information)?
Frankly as a consumer I'm going to make efforts to avoid Indian and Chinese goods where possible.
You should also avoid goods made in Indonesia and Turkey.
I can’t believe you’d discuss this situation without considering the nuclear angle. Putin holds a significant wild card in terms of tactical nuclear weapons.
I’m sure Russia believes that they could be deployed inside of Ukraine in order to force an end to the Ukrainian resistance and the west would continue to remain on the sidelines to avert escalation to the end of the world.
A total defeat/humiliation of Russia without nukes flying seems like a remote possibility. Putin realizes that defeat signals the end of his regime and likely the Russian Federation as constructed today, just like the Russo-Japanese war led to the end of the Russian Empire and Afghanistan war led to the end of the USSR.
Right now there lacks Sun Tzu’s “golden bridge” across which Russia could retreat in dignity.
I’m sure Russia believes that they could be deployed inside of Ukraine in order to force an end to the Ukrainian resistance and the west would continue to remain on the sidelines to avert escalation to the end of the world.
A total defeat/humiliation of Russia without nukes flying seems like a remote possibility. Putin realizes that defeat signals the end of his regime and likely the Russian Federation as constructed today, just like the Russo-Japanese war led to the end of the Russian Empire and Afghanistan war led to the end of the USSR.
Right now there lacks Sun Tzu’s “golden bridge” across which Russia could retreat in dignity.
He could, but considering the relations between Russian and Ukrainian peoples and the risk of WW3 this would most likely just result in mutiny and the subsequent removal of Putin, probably even just in reaction to that order.
If Russia’s willing to drop cluster munitions on Ukrainian cities, I don’t see why they wouldn’t send a tactical nuke to a air base or industrial area. The relations between Russians and Ukrainians seem well and truly fucked at this point as it is.
We can hope that a mutiny will happen but it’s by no means guaranteed.
We can hope that a mutiny will happen but it’s by no means guaranteed.
This is looking like wishful thinking or propaganda.
I love this story and I want it to be true.
But I am not sure we know that much.
From what we can gather, not everything is going perfectly for Putin, but it could take years or even decades before we can clearly see who are the winners.
I love this story and I want it to be true.
But I am not sure we know that much.
From what we can gather, not everything is going perfectly for Putin, but it could take years or even decades before we can clearly see who are the winners.
The title is deceptive- Fukuyama, writing from Northern Macedonia, has an extremely optimistic view that Russia will be "defeated" and Putin will fall- notwithstanding enormous, catastrophic losses for Ukraine- with significant downstream implications.
The two subpoints with which I agree are that the NATO decision on the MiGs was wise, and that neither Russia nor Ukraine can climb down from their positions.
My expectation is that of a long hot/cold standoff, eventual splitting of Ukraine, and gradual North Koreanification of Russia with Putin at the helm.
The two subpoints with which I agree are that the NATO decision on the MiGs was wise, and that neither Russia nor Ukraine can climb down from their positions.
My expectation is that of a long hot/cold standoff, eventual splitting of Ukraine, and gradual North Koreanification of Russia with Putin at the helm.
> gradual North Koreanification of Russia with Putin at the helm
Which would still be pretty effective in preserving the current international order. If it becomes exceedingly clear that threatening your neighbors militarily means turning your country into a new North Korea at best even if you have nukes, that will deter future leaders from trying the same.
(The nukes part is very important because the only thing keeping the current non-proliferation equilibrium in place, at least among developed countries, is an understanding that nukes are only useful to defend against other nukes. Russia's overt threats in the context of this "operation" would otherwise put that equilibrium at serious risk.)
Which would still be pretty effective in preserving the current international order. If it becomes exceedingly clear that threatening your neighbors militarily means turning your country into a new North Korea at best even if you have nukes, that will deter future leaders from trying the same.
(The nukes part is very important because the only thing keeping the current non-proliferation equilibrium in place, at least among developed countries, is an understanding that nukes are only useful to defend against other nukes. Russia's overt threats in the context of this "operation" would otherwise put that equilibrium at serious risk.)
A recent fear of mine has been a false-flag chemical attack followed up by a “justified” nuke to evaporate the evidence.
Putin is now screwed regardless. His own public opinion is not going to forgive him what he did to their friends and family members in Ukraine. The only question is how long that is going to take, and how bloody it will get.
Kinda absurd take from mister end of history writing out of the balkans.
Ha. Contrary to everyone in here i ll say he is right. Please show me a timeline in which the Russian regime comes out of this stronger, or in which the faith in liberalism (democratic or better) is not restored.
[deleted]
lol fukuyama
I don't begrudge someone for being wrong; anyone doing anything worthwhile is going to be wrong and make errors sometimes. But I get the impression that this guy just wants to act like his garbage "end of history" thing never happened.
I don't begrudge someone for being wrong; anyone doing anything worthwhile is going to be wrong and make errors sometimes. But I get the impression that this guy just wants to act like his garbage "end of history" thing never happened.
Surprisingly, I had managed to avoid any sort of layoff, firing for most of my career except that whole dotbomb era.
Then COVID came and I had my first RIF, ever. I was told weeks in advance so I could prepare my documentation and handoff. Even though I really liked that job promotions were limited and I was getting restless.
Then COVID came and I had my first RIF, ever. I was told weeks in advance so I could prepare my documentation and handoff. Even though I really liked that job promotions were limited and I was getting restless.
Wrong post.
I agree with every point he makes. Fantastic summary.
I think the Russian collapse will be like what scientists call a phase transition: a semblance of stability one day, a complete breakdown one (literal) day later. Ukraine will end up holding more than 100k POWs. The only negotiations will Russia will be about reparations. I hope they don’t settle for anything less than one trillion.
I think the Russian collapse will be like what scientists call a phase transition: a semblance of stability one day, a complete breakdown one (literal) day later. Ukraine will end up holding more than 100k POWs. The only negotiations will Russia will be about reparations. I hope they don’t settle for anything less than one trillion.
If it gets to that stage, the repatriations should be centered on Russian nuclear disarmament.
The "Single Point of Failure" is Putin.
If he's deposed or killed, we probably have a very different Russia the next day.
If he's deposed or killed, we probably have a very different Russia the next day.
One can dream but I highly doubt, Russian history is littered with autocrats and tyrants. Brief periods of even nominal democracy have also been highly unstable. The deep rooted ‘russian greatness’ is a very fertile ground for populists.
I wouldn't expect a Jeffersonian democracy from a coup.
But a new regime that makes peace and stays within Russian borders would be likely.
But a new regime that makes peace and stays within Russian borders would be likely.
Or he gets superceded by the Dimon "shoot the survivors" Medvedev.
Putin is obviously a point of failure.
But so are the hungry and scared soldiers in the field. Putin is not able to supply almost 200k soldiers, most of whom are already tens of kilometers away from the border. There will be some supply trucks coming, but if it's only 80% of what's needed rather than 100% (or better yet 120%), then soon, very soon, people on the front line will start running out of stuff that keeps them in fighting condition. And here you have so many points of failure: water, food, munitions, fuel come to mind. You run out of one of these, you stop fighting, simple as that.
But so are the hungry and scared soldiers in the field. Putin is not able to supply almost 200k soldiers, most of whom are already tens of kilometers away from the border. There will be some supply trucks coming, but if it's only 80% of what's needed rather than 100% (or better yet 120%), then soon, very soon, people on the front line will start running out of stuff that keeps them in fighting condition. And here you have so many points of failure: water, food, munitions, fuel come to mind. You run out of one of these, you stop fighting, simple as that.
>The United Nations Security Council has proven once again to be useless.
This line makes me significantly question the author's competence (as if knowing he was the author of The End of History before going into it didn't already negatively color my expectations). Russia has a permanent veto on the security council, of course it's going to be useless. Anything that goes against the interests of one of the veto members will always get vetoed and he's acting like this is some kind of surprising disappointment.
Also MiGs somehow wouldn't help stop artillery and rockets? Has the man never heard of bombs? Mind you I don't think NATO should get involved, but supplying more jets and missiles to bomb Russian artillery positions would absolutely help.
This line makes me significantly question the author's competence (as if knowing he was the author of The End of History before going into it didn't already negatively color my expectations). Russia has a permanent veto on the security council, of course it's going to be useless. Anything that goes against the interests of one of the veto members will always get vetoed and he's acting like this is some kind of surprising disappointment.
Also MiGs somehow wouldn't help stop artillery and rockets? Has the man never heard of bombs? Mind you I don't think NATO should get involved, but supplying more jets and missiles to bomb Russian artillery positions would absolutely help.
Forcing the Russians to use their veto power at the UNSC is not "useless" at all. It's a meaningful signal, and very much worth doing.
What is the value of this signal? Thank you! (I always thought that UN Security Council did not have any value because veto-yielding members would always block adverse resolutions. If there is any value in the UN Security Council I would really like to know. Thanks again!)
https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/03/12/has-russia-s-invasio...
Apparently, according to Meduza we are only seeing the bright side of things - the news we want to hear. The battlefront has several other shock surprises if you look at the Ukrainian losses. It seems bleeding heavily on both sides unfortunately.