President Putin has announced a partial mobilization in Russia(netnewsledger.com)
netnewsledger.com
President Putin has announced a partial mobilization in Russia
https://www.netnewsledger.com/2022/09/20/russian-president-putin-to-declare-mobilization/
371 comments
> In all, I don't think the mobilization is likely to matter
Oh it matters. More poorly trained and equipped cannon fodder means more dead and more prisoners. The influx of caskets into previously less impacted areas in Russia might start to impact the general population more - that's how the USSR had to pull out of Afghanistan.
Oh it matters. More poorly trained and equipped cannon fodder means more dead and more prisoners. The influx of caskets into previously less impacted areas in Russia might start to impact the general population more - that's how the USSR had to pull out of Afghanistan.
Not quite. Russia has already lost several multiples of the total losses it experienced in Afghanistan as the USSR (many of which were Ukranian btw). The USSR had a lot more troops vs. Russia's current situation which is really a smaller peacetime army (pre mobilization).
The reason they had to leave Afghanistan was it simply too expensive due to the cost and the sanctions and they couldn't afford to do it. Which IS what is happening in Ukraine too.
The reason they had to leave Afghanistan was it simply too expensive due to the cost and the sanctions and they couldn't afford to do it. Which IS what is happening in Ukraine too.
Afghanistan didn't work for them because they couldn't hold territory after initially capturing it. I think there was one valley they had to conquer 3 times. Each time ended in what looked like a decisive victory but the moment they tried to draw down troops the Mujahideen would come flooding back out of the mountains and the USSR was back to square one.
>> too expensive due to the cost and the sanctions and they couldn't afford to do it. Which IS what is happening in Ukraine too.
How so? Putin is swimming in money Europeans send him. Sanctions are a joke.
How so? Putin is swimming in money Europeans send him. Sanctions are a joke.
Russia enjoyed a brief surplus with high gas prices. It has collapsed and the government is now running a towards a hefty deficit. About 90% gone in just two months. Government spending is being cut down by 10% next year, while a greater share is allocated to the military, meaning actual useful domestic spending is going to go down even more. The sanctions are having a strong effect.
The military spending is cushioned by the fact that they had so much shit lying around to throw into the fire, but this will continue to grow worse over time.
Contrary to popular belief, Russia cannot simply switch selling gas from europe to china either. The pipeline infrastructure does not exist to turn it into LNG and ship it in comparable quantities.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/15/economy/russia-economy-budget...
The military spending is cushioned by the fact that they had so much shit lying around to throw into the fire, but this will continue to grow worse over time.
Contrary to popular belief, Russia cannot simply switch selling gas from europe to china either. The pipeline infrastructure does not exist to turn it into LNG and ship it in comparable quantities.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/15/economy/russia-economy-budget...
It's worse than that. They have limited storage and if they can't sell much of the oil, they have to turn the wells off. Problem there is that the oil will freeze in the winter, the pipes crack, and then it takes a lot of work and expense to turn it back on.
Or so I have heard -- not posing as an expert on oil fields.
Or so I have heard -- not posing as an expert on oil fields.
Yea, but sadly that means they just burn it off instead of letting it freeze.
Yay global carbon emissions.
https://amp.dw.com/en/what-is-the-environmental-cost-of-gas-...
Yay global carbon emissions.
https://amp.dw.com/en/what-is-the-environmental-cost-of-gas-...
They can't even build the infrastructure on their own.
Sanctions are shutting down production of some of their weapons system as the weapons systems have been shown to have been made with western parts. For example American made gyroscopes were found in their cruise missiles.
And more strain on the already failing logistics. More people to equip and feed. They are already failing to equip and feed those they have...
Using nukes would be unlikely to go well for Russia. The Ukrainian troops are pretty spread out so setting off a nuke would only take out a few and in response the west would probably do bad stuff to Russia, quite likely US non nuclear air strikes which could wipe out much of the Russian forces.
> The Ukrainian troops are pretty spread out
It would be probably civilian target.
It would be probably civilian target.
At that point, they would be risking nuclear reprisals.
Targeting a civilian target with a strategic weapon is a completely different thing than tactical nuclear weapons.
Kiev getting nuked means all out nuclear war. At the very least you know Putin loves himself too much to die like that.
Kiev getting nuked means all out nuclear war. At the very least you know Putin loves himself too much to die like that.
Why would Kyiv getting nuked spark all out nuclear war. Would you, as the head of NATO, press the 'Everyone Dies' button if kyiv got nuked?
Yes.
Ukraine is in Europe. Nuking Ukraine means the wind will likely carry the fallout radiation into Russia, Belarus and Poland at the least.
I doesn't matter if its 1 nuke or a 100 nukes, irradiating NATO citizens is THE red line.
If Russia can nuke Europe without fear of reprisal, then NATO is defunct and a new nuclear arms race will probably start in Europe, with unforeseeable consequences.
So I would say yes, if Russia nukes a European capital with a multi-million pop, then nuclear war with Russia is the only course of action.
Ukraine is in Europe. Nuking Ukraine means the wind will likely carry the fallout radiation into Russia, Belarus and Poland at the least.
I doesn't matter if its 1 nuke or a 100 nukes, irradiating NATO citizens is THE red line.
If Russia can nuke Europe without fear of reprisal, then NATO is defunct and a new nuclear arms race will probably start in Europe, with unforeseeable consequences.
So I would say yes, if Russia nukes a European capital with a multi-million pop, then nuclear war with Russia is the only course of action.
But... that's stupid. Why would you kill everybody in NATO just because some of them are irradiated by an attack on someone else? It only makes sense to commit to nuclear warfare if they're actively doing the same, and even then it's mostly just out of spite because you're about to be gone.
Letting Russia nuke europe and get away with it does have unforseeable consequences, but the consequences of all out nuclear war is 100% certain and maximally bad. You literally cannot do worse than this.
You could instead, for instance, deploy the troops and just do a straight up invasion with the intent to destroy Russia entirely. Which maybe they do a nuclear response to. But maybe they don't. Because it's still the worst possible option and perhaps they'd like to instead just kill putin, accept a russia fragmentation into tiny vassal states.
I'd also ask then, because you're saying "irradiating NATO citizens is the red line", whether you support killing everyone if there's a russian caused meltdown at the Zaporyzhzhia plant (sp).
Letting Russia nuke europe and get away with it does have unforseeable consequences, but the consequences of all out nuclear war is 100% certain and maximally bad. You literally cannot do worse than this.
You could instead, for instance, deploy the troops and just do a straight up invasion with the intent to destroy Russia entirely. Which maybe they do a nuclear response to. But maybe they don't. Because it's still the worst possible option and perhaps they'd like to instead just kill putin, accept a russia fragmentation into tiny vassal states.
I'd also ask then, because you're saying "irradiating NATO citizens is the red line", whether you support killing everyone if there's a russian caused meltdown at the Zaporyzhzhia plant (sp).
>> Why would Kyiv getting nuked spark all out nuclear war. Would you, as the head of NATO, press the 'Everyone Dies' button if kyiv got nuked?
> Yes.
> Ukraine is in Europe. Nuking Ukraine means the wind will likely carry the fallout radiation into Russia, Belarus and Poland at the least.
> I doesn't matter if its 1 nuke or a 100 nukes, irradiating NATO citizens is THE red line.
You're insane, and I'm glad you're nowhere near the button. An all out nuclear war will carry far, far more than "radiation" to Europe. And by "more" I mean actual warheads. It's like getting into a suicidal gun battle over a papercut.
MAD means you need to maintain an absolutely credible threat of an apocalyptic reprisal, but I think it's arguable that no one should ever actually carry out that threat (though that's information that absolutely must be kept secret). Do you really want to turn a holocaust into an extinction?
> Yes.
> Ukraine is in Europe. Nuking Ukraine means the wind will likely carry the fallout radiation into Russia, Belarus and Poland at the least.
> I doesn't matter if its 1 nuke or a 100 nukes, irradiating NATO citizens is THE red line.
You're insane, and I'm glad you're nowhere near the button. An all out nuclear war will carry far, far more than "radiation" to Europe. And by "more" I mean actual warheads. It's like getting into a suicidal gun battle over a papercut.
MAD means you need to maintain an absolutely credible threat of an apocalyptic reprisal, but I think it's arguable that no one should ever actually carry out that threat (though that's information that absolutely must be kept secret). Do you really want to turn a holocaust into an extinction?
I doubt US would do any strikes (conventional or not) on RU without being directly attacked first. Because that is the exact condition stated by RU to launch MAD.
Probably. But they're still enough to dramatically change the state of the war. I think it's a losing gamble as well and it will not be done.
It's so very a losing gamble. USA (and NATO by association) must have very good reasons to push the Russian dictator into a corner. I'd sure like to know what's the plan if Putin fires a nuclear missile into international waters, into Ukraine, or he decides to fire them all because he has nothing to lose anymore.
Fortunately, it seems like launching nuclear attacks is frowned upon by the armies of every member of the nuclear club, it's not as easy as pushing a red button.
Fortunately, it seems like launching nuclear attacks is frowned upon by the armies of every member of the nuclear club, it's not as easy as pushing a red button.
I would think just setting off a nuke in an uninhabited area / over the ocean / etc. would be enough to "change the calculus". A western nation providing direct support to Ukraine may be more cautious about future decisions and escalations.
Edit: Typos.
Edit: Typos.
Another thing that could change the war could be North Korean men and/or Chinese material.
Neither are likely, but both are possible and have been rumored.
Neither are likely, but both are possible and have been rumored.
Neither has any interest in getting involved in this. I'm not sure even Assad's fighters from Syria materialized in the end, and that regime is far more indebted to Russia than China, much less the DPRK, will ever be.
North Korean men are very green too. The main thing they know to do is march in very neat lines.
Most have never fired a live round in their lives, even for training.
Most have never fired a live round in their lives, even for training.
The possibility of DPRK munitions use is discussed here : https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1567227150926766081
TLDR: DPRK munitions are more likely to explode in transport and kill RF units than to ever be used against AFU.
As for DPRK soldiers, I'm not sure even Kim is stupid enough to follow Putin into this morass.
TLDR: DPRK munitions are more likely to explode in transport and kill RF units than to ever be used against AFU.
As for DPRK soldiers, I'm not sure even Kim is stupid enough to follow Putin into this morass.
I mostly agree with you, but Kharkiv collapse was not that big. While Russia abandoned a lot of equipment there, they managed to withdraw most of it and the vast majority of troops. It looks like after the initial Ukrainian breakthrough Russian generals managed to convince Putin to abandon most of Kharkiv and focus on Donbas instead.
At Bakhmut Russia did made small but meaningful progress with Ukrainian sources reporting the situation as difficult or even very difficult. And Bakhmut is the last Ukrainian line in Donbas that was heavily fortified during the last 8 years, after Bahmut any defensive positions will be much weaker.
And Lyman are far from being liberated. Ukrainians forces made a progress threatening to surround Russian forces there, but the situation is rather unclear there. As for Lysychansk there were sporadic reports about small Ukrainian units nearby, but nothing more.
What is clear is that without significantly increased heavy weapon support for Ukraine the war can drag for years. And it looks like West is not going to do it for various reasons. I mean I understand the fear to give ATACMS, but I just do not understand why not extended range GMLRS and heavy artillery.
At Bakhmut Russia did made small but meaningful progress with Ukrainian sources reporting the situation as difficult or even very difficult. And Bakhmut is the last Ukrainian line in Donbas that was heavily fortified during the last 8 years, after Bahmut any defensive positions will be much weaker.
And Lyman are far from being liberated. Ukrainians forces made a progress threatening to surround Russian forces there, but the situation is rather unclear there. As for Lysychansk there were sporadic reports about small Ukrainian units nearby, but nothing more.
What is clear is that without significantly increased heavy weapon support for Ukraine the war can drag for years. And it looks like West is not going to do it for various reasons. I mean I understand the fear to give ATACMS, but I just do not understand why not extended range GMLRS and heavy artillery.
> Kharkiv collapse was not that big.
That's nonsense. It was an entire front of the war. A huge land area. Russia spent months trying to conquer Izyum. There's basically no clear intel on what was left behind, or how many people were taken prisoner, but even if it's nothing, which it isn't, it's a major loss.
> At Bakhmut Russia did made small but meaningful progress with Ukrainian sources reporting the situation as difficult or even very difficult.
It has barely nudged in months. It is difficult. Fighting is hard. But it's not meaningful in the slightest and it's not strategically important.
> And Lyman are far from being liberated. Ukrainians forces made a progress threatening to surround Russian forces there, but the situation is rather unclear there. As for Lysychansk there were sporadic reports about small Ukrainian units nearby, but nothing more.
I give Lyman a week to hold out at most personally. It's surrounded on two sides, soon to be 3. If it falls you may see another yolo rush.
Lysyschansk is not currently an active fighting zone but they're pushing east from Bilohorivka, which is very close. It could take a while for that to develop.
That's nonsense. It was an entire front of the war. A huge land area. Russia spent months trying to conquer Izyum. There's basically no clear intel on what was left behind, or how many people were taken prisoner, but even if it's nothing, which it isn't, it's a major loss.
> At Bakhmut Russia did made small but meaningful progress with Ukrainian sources reporting the situation as difficult or even very difficult.
It has barely nudged in months. It is difficult. Fighting is hard. But it's not meaningful in the slightest and it's not strategically important.
> And Lyman are far from being liberated. Ukrainians forces made a progress threatening to surround Russian forces there, but the situation is rather unclear there. As for Lysychansk there were sporadic reports about small Ukrainian units nearby, but nothing more.
I give Lyman a week to hold out at most personally. It's surrounded on two sides, soon to be 3. If it falls you may see another yolo rush.
Lysyschansk is not currently an active fighting zone but they're pushing east from Bilohorivka, which is very close. It could take a while for that to develop.
> Bakhmut is the last Ukrainian line in Donbas
There are a lot of other lines, e.g. near Donetsk. And with the time it is taking for the Russians to advance there is plenty of time for the Ukrainians to set up other lines.
> Kharkiv collapse was not that big
It removed the last hope the Russian had to take the fortifications you mention from behind, descending from the north.
Now the Russians are just throwing everything they have at fortifications specifically built to defend against this kind of attack. No wonder they advance so slowly.
What worries me is that from an historical perspective it is reminiscent of the Spanish Civil War that preluded WW II. Such a direct involvement of foreign superpowers was not seen even in the Syrian Civil War.
There are a lot of other lines, e.g. near Donetsk. And with the time it is taking for the Russians to advance there is plenty of time for the Ukrainians to set up other lines.
> Kharkiv collapse was not that big
It removed the last hope the Russian had to take the fortifications you mention from behind, descending from the north.
Now the Russians are just throwing everything they have at fortifications specifically built to defend against this kind of attack. No wonder they advance so slowly.
What worries me is that from an historical perspective it is reminiscent of the Spanish Civil War that preluded WW II. Such a direct involvement of foreign superpowers was not seen even in the Syrian Civil War.
> Such a direct involvement of foreign superpowers was not seen even in the Syrian Civil War.
Russia and NATO Turkey have both been engaged in Syria. This led to a Russian incursion into Turkey being shot down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shoo...
I can see why the West was so reluctant to get involved in Syria given the failures of Iraq and Afghanistan, but I do wonder if more decisive action of some kind against Russia's involvement, or their shootdown of a passenger jet, or the Salisbury poisonings, might have discouraged the invasion of Ukraine in the first place.
Russia and NATO Turkey have both been engaged in Syria. This led to a Russian incursion into Turkey being shot down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shoo...
I can see why the West was so reluctant to get involved in Syria given the failures of Iraq and Afghanistan, but I do wonder if more decisive action of some kind against Russia's involvement, or their shootdown of a passenger jet, or the Salisbury poisonings, might have discouraged the invasion of Ukraine in the first place.
The was a heavy battle between US army and Russian mercenaries from Wagner in Syria. There are various estimates but at least 100 Russians were killed and probably up to 400,
https://www.coffeeordie.com/wagner-group-syria-khasham
https://www.coffeeordie.com/wagner-group-syria-khasham
> In all, I don't think the mobilization is likely to matter. The Russian problem is bad supplies, bad comms, and bad morale.
The Russians may be suffering from "bad supplies, bad comms, and bad morale," but I've read in several places that they're also suffering from a lack of manpower. Or, more specifically: too much equipment in proportion to their ground troops, and also too many combat troops in proportion to support personnel.
The Russians may be suffering from "bad supplies, bad comms, and bad morale," but I've read in several places that they're also suffering from a lack of manpower. Or, more specifically: too much equipment in proportion to their ground troops, and also too many combat troops in proportion to support personnel.
Those bad things you concluded are mostly sourced from Ukrainian MoD. Winter is coming. Mother of all recession is coming to EU and America within nezt 2-3mths. Putin is preparing for overwhelming offensive (read up WW2 Russians modus operandi and you'll understand what Putin is thinking). Chinese side has been pumping resources like manpower and factories to Putin (in return for the EU portion of energy redirected to China). Heck even financial flows as well. You are looking at extremely well play chess moves. Hard to say for that for Americans...really pathetic seeing after 20 years gotten humiliated by a bunch of goat herders. Gotten kicked out of Iraq. If you have relatives toured in those failed wars you will know the casualty count were grossly understated. The only things I'm worried is USA launching nukes (US is the only country in the world ever to use nuke against others). I'm less worried about Putin. He moved very rationally. Once those regions declared joining Russia, any offensive from Ukraine will be deemed as invading Russia. This easily can justify huge number of military response with huge Russian public backing (despite what you read in the west, I suggest you try Russian soirces or friends...you'll be very surprised how different reality over there to what you thought).
> You are looking at extremely well play chess moves.
Bongcloud opening maybe
Bongcloud opening maybe
spaceheater(2)
> In all, I don't think the mobilization is likely to matter.
Have you seen any zombie movies?
Have you seen any zombie movies?
I have.
This is really going to screw Russia for generations. Every young Russian I know has either already left, plans to leave, or has to stay but hates their leader. You don't get your country to turn into a superpower by losing the most educated and skilled of the young generations. I only hope as things get more desperate he doesn't feel trapped lash out with the nukes.
Russia was already always going to lose that "superpower" tag the moment the world shifted from hard industrial goods to consumer goods and technology. The first computer, the growth of the Japanese consumer goods industry, and Silicon Valley likely did as much to collapse the Soviet Union as anything else - they were simply out of the picture the moment we started creating software and portable stereos and personal computers.
Yeah, it's great how Javascript simply replaced industrial processes and our society no longer needs natural resources - only more stars on Github.
I never said Russia won't be relevant - it will always be massively relevant simply beacuse of its size, natural resources, and location.
But hard resources are highly commoditized, and there are few nations with any sort of monopoly over them. The world will be better off with Russian resources, but if it can't access them, there are plenty of other alternatives that can be brought online with some investment.
But hard resources are highly commoditized, and there are few nations with any sort of monopoly over them. The world will be better off with Russian resources, but if it can't access them, there are plenty of other alternatives that can be brought online with some investment.
African continent is rich in natural resources, meanwhile Taiwan is just a volcanic island that produces 90% of the world's CPUs. The same applies to Russia.
I am sure there is some javascript in there, but its mostly a mixture of c/c++ and similar languages and rust to control industrial robots.
For CNC and lathes its p-code.
There is a surprising amount of camera vision, etc used in automation as well.
Entire industrial processes were replaced with code and automation (read, more code) and robots.
And of course robots are produced by factories with robots.
Second, a lot more of what we are doing has been dematerialized. The entire factories that used to make film camera (as just one example) have essentially been replaced entirely with software, and the experience is better in every single way for customers.
For CNC and lathes its p-code.
There is a surprising amount of camera vision, etc used in automation as well.
Entire industrial processes were replaced with code and automation (read, more code) and robots.
And of course robots are produced by factories with robots.
Second, a lot more of what we are doing has been dematerialized. The entire factories that used to make film camera (as just one example) have essentially been replaced entirely with software, and the experience is better in every single way for customers.
Haven't you heard? We're essentially post-scarcity now. Everything is free except developer time. /s
Russia could have done well with good leadership. It's a shame they are stuck with the current scheming poisoner.
Russia has a long history of producing excellent programmers and software engineers, I'm not sure where you get the idea this is where they were outpaced by the rest of the world.
If I had to attribute one thing to Russia's downfall, it would be its geopolitical decision to align itself with China and Iran in global anti-Western sentiment, rather than moving towards joining the rest of the West and the EU as some countries hoped they would back in the 90s.
If I had to attribute one thing to Russia's downfall, it would be its geopolitical decision to align itself with China and Iran in global anti-Western sentiment, rather than moving towards joining the rest of the West and the EU as some countries hoped they would back in the 90s.
Russians make for great programmers and software engineers.
Russian economic systems and state/societal incentives unfortunately aren't conducive to helping these engineers build world-class companies and products at any appreciable scale.
Russian economic systems and state/societal incentives unfortunately aren't conducive to helping these engineers build world-class companies and products at any appreciable scale.
Russians are a highly educated population that produces excellent engineers. But Iranians too are in this position.
But they are sanctioned off from the technological advanced world and they can't even import modern chips. Add to that that the corruption and lack of freedom are impediments to building a thriving economy.
I think we will see a huge brain drain towards the West. Germany had top notch excellences too, before the Nazis took power.
But they are sanctioned off from the technological advanced world and they can't even import modern chips. Add to that that the corruption and lack of freedom are impediments to building a thriving economy.
I think we will see a huge brain drain towards the West. Germany had top notch excellences too, before the Nazis took power.
I was pretty impressed with Yandex when I was in Russia. The maps were far better and the image translations faster and more accurate than Google. Maybe its because they have access to better local data, but it definitely felt like a well-engineered product suite.
What the difference b/w industrial goods and consumer goods. Both are physical items
Think giant industrial equipment vs microwave ovens
That's beauty of being sociopathic dictator - you don't need to care about reality of those pesky humans that are under you, you can massage your massive ego with grand plans matching it. You have your billion dollar palaces and hundreds of billions stolen distributed throughout the world via thousands of cronies.
If skilled intelligent people leave? Good, more loyal and easy to manipulate remain. People are dying in wars? Who cares if something is reached, like protecting motherland from made up boogeymen.
Russian psyche relishes in suffering and misery and drinking into oblivion in vain attempt to forget about it. The worse it gets the more to blame that evil west for. This can be truly endless cycle that you can't break from outside.
Really, this clash of civilizations is coming at a seemingly good time, while Russia is obviously weak. Obviously better would be to have no conflict at all, but that's not what Russia can offer to rest of the world, only arrogance, suffering, and primitive disfunctionality of its system. Since nobody willingly wants it, clash is inevitable.
If skilled intelligent people leave? Good, more loyal and easy to manipulate remain. People are dying in wars? Who cares if something is reached, like protecting motherland from made up boogeymen.
Russian psyche relishes in suffering and misery and drinking into oblivion in vain attempt to forget about it. The worse it gets the more to blame that evil west for. This can be truly endless cycle that you can't break from outside.
Really, this clash of civilizations is coming at a seemingly good time, while Russia is obviously weak. Obviously better would be to have no conflict at all, but that's not what Russia can offer to rest of the world, only arrogance, suffering, and primitive disfunctionality of its system. Since nobody willingly wants it, clash is inevitable.
> If skilled intelligent people leave? Good, more loyal and easy to manipulate remain
That's true of most dictatorships but actually Putin always kept skilled professionals in his entourage (to the chagrin of the nationalistic bunch that despised this policy and those pesky liberals, often Jews). Now obviously this is changing but because of bigger issues.
If/when Putin falls, if Russia remains, the people who will govern Russia will probably be the hyper nationalists that are much less intelligent than Putin and will be much worse for the population. Unfortunately this is going to be bad for those living there.
That's true of most dictatorships but actually Putin always kept skilled professionals in his entourage (to the chagrin of the nationalistic bunch that despised this policy and those pesky liberals, often Jews). Now obviously this is changing but because of bigger issues.
If/when Putin falls, if Russia remains, the people who will govern Russia will probably be the hyper nationalists that are much less intelligent than Putin and will be much worse for the population. Unfortunately this is going to be bad for those living there.
In every country there are people who are nationalistic and think withint that framework and in every country there are people who want to be part of the global community of engineers/artists/scientists/professionals etc. and it is as if the nationalistic ones and their political fractions see the others as human resources that they want and have right to use in their ideological goals.
In Iran, in Turkey, in the USA, in Hungary, in France, in South Africa, in Russia, in the UK there are people who all they want is a decent life for the work they do and there are people who want to make America Great again, show Greeks that Turks are the boss or show Turks that Greeks are the superior culture that one day will rise and take back Istanbul, show EU that they are the man, revive the French greatness, preserve British ways against EU, screw the liberals, make the Vegans cry, keep the women in line, stop Netflix making the youth gay, preserve the Islam in a specific way, preserve christian values etc.
It's almost as if there are class wars everywhere but those in power fight their local class wars through external fights. That's why it almost feels like Brexiteers, MAGA, le Pen, Putin, the guy in Brazil or Philippines are all coordinated.
It's bizarre and I don't see anything special about Russia TBH. It's just that they seem to be ahead of the west in the direction the world is headed.
You know people who disapprove Putin and try to run away from Russia but unfortunately Putin continues to enjoy very high approval ratings[0].
[0] https://twitter.com/grkdirik/status/1572242924460556288/phot...
In Iran, in Turkey, in the USA, in Hungary, in France, in South Africa, in Russia, in the UK there are people who all they want is a decent life for the work they do and there are people who want to make America Great again, show Greeks that Turks are the boss or show Turks that Greeks are the superior culture that one day will rise and take back Istanbul, show EU that they are the man, revive the French greatness, preserve British ways against EU, screw the liberals, make the Vegans cry, keep the women in line, stop Netflix making the youth gay, preserve the Islam in a specific way, preserve christian values etc.
It's almost as if there are class wars everywhere but those in power fight their local class wars through external fights. That's why it almost feels like Brexiteers, MAGA, le Pen, Putin, the guy in Brazil or Philippines are all coordinated.
It's bizarre and I don't see anything special about Russia TBH. It's just that they seem to be ahead of the west in the direction the world is headed.
You know people who disapprove Putin and try to run away from Russia but unfortunately Putin continues to enjoy very high approval ratings[0].
[0] https://twitter.com/grkdirik/status/1572242924460556288/phot...
> It's bizarre and I don't see anything special about Russia TBH. It's just that they seem to be ahead of the west in the direction the world is headed.
On the contrary, they seem to be a century behind. Even China told them they should try to find a diplomatic solution. India told them this is not the time for war. The world has other problems than an old man's ambitions.
On the contrary, they seem to be a century behind. Even China told them they should try to find a diplomatic solution. India told them this is not the time for war. The world has other problems than an old man's ambitions.
Apparently not, lives have been shattered because old mens ambitions since ever.
Europeans and British can no longer live and work in their respective countries because of old mens ambitions.
Because of old mens ambitions large number of Americans no longer believe in democratic elections.
Because of old mens ambitions countless people have died in the middle east and other places.
What Russia is ahead of is that they are first in the game of attacking neighboring countries with regular armies for old mens ambitions.
Europeans and British can no longer live and work in their respective countries because of old mens ambitions.
Because of old mens ambitions large number of Americans no longer believe in democratic elections.
Because of old mens ambitions countless people have died in the middle east and other places.
What Russia is ahead of is that they are first in the game of attacking neighboring countries with regular armies for old mens ambitions.
"Europeans and British can no longer live and work in their respective countries because of old mens ambitions"
This is nonsense. There are millions of people from different European countries working in the UK, including new arrivals post-Brexit. Around half of women voted to leave the EU. One of the senior politicians who supported Vote Leave is a middle aged British Indian woman.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/567922/brexit-votes-by-g...
This is nonsense. There are millions of people from different European countries working in the UK, including new arrivals post-Brexit. Around half of women voted to leave the EU. One of the senior politicians who supported Vote Leave is a middle aged British Indian woman.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/567922/brexit-votes-by-g...
The caveat is, you need to ask for permission from the government first, pay money and get processed.
That’s the case for every country. Even North Koreans can work and live anywhere in the world if you choose to dismiss the difficulties.
That’s the case for every country. Even North Koreans can work and live anywhere in the world if you choose to dismiss the difficulties.
Yes, everyone knows that which is why it's so ridiculous that you claimed otherwise. You shouldn't lie about the actual situation because you personally dislike Brexit, old men or both (not sure which). It's dishonorable.
Actual situation is that Brits no longer can work in EU and vice versa. It's kind of obvious that once you acquire a work visa, you can.
It's like Windows games won't run on Mac unless you install specialised software that might run some Windows games in varying degrees of playability.
I guess you can't cater to everyones intelligence all the time, some people don't know about work visas and they can feel deceived when look at the statistics clearly showing that some people indeed can work in countries that someone declared not possible to work. My apologies.
It's like Windows games won't run on Mac unless you install specialised software that might run some Windows games in varying degrees of playability.
I guess you can't cater to everyones intelligence all the time, some people don't know about work visas and they can feel deceived when look at the statistics clearly showing that some people indeed can work in countries that someone declared not possible to work. My apologies.
This is not really true. I work for a European factory and I go to work in the UK all the time on a business visa.
Visa types and requirements and procedures change by country. It's kind of obvious isn't it? Is it really too complicated as a concept that we need to talk about it?
The gist is, EU/UK no longer can work freely as they and their employers sees fit and government permission which is usually called work visa but can have different names is required. Some people qualify and obtain those, others don't qualify or don't bother. Usually comes with complications at retirement and long term life options and travel complications.
I'm confused why this has become a problem of speech precision. Even if the language is prices and people don't melt down, the reality on the ground often doesn't match the paper trail. Lots of people work without visa(arrive illegally?) or they arrive on one kind of visa but do stuff that require another kind of visa. Although these people work in UK/EU, it doesn't mean that they can work in the UK/EU.
The gist is, EU/UK no longer can work freely as they and their employers sees fit and government permission which is usually called work visa but can have different names is required. Some people qualify and obtain those, others don't qualify or don't bother. Usually comes with complications at retirement and long term life options and travel complications.
I'm confused why this has become a problem of speech precision. Even if the language is prices and people don't melt down, the reality on the ground often doesn't match the paper trail. Lots of people work without visa(arrive illegally?) or they arrive on one kind of visa but do stuff that require another kind of visa. Although these people work in UK/EU, it doesn't mean that they can work in the UK/EU.
mistermann(1)
[deleted]
I really hope the russian/kreml/putin war against Ukraine will end in a epic failure for them. I also hope that frozen russian assets in west can be confiscated to build up Ukraine again, russia has to be accountable and pay for all madness and horrific things they have done.
Oh yeah, super good idea. We had fantastic experience with humiliated nations before. It worked so well for Germany after WW1 /s
FACT: the end of this war must be positive for the Russian people, no matter whether Russia loses or wins the military operation. Putin came to power because the West didnt help the former Soviet republics. If Russia is left alone humiliated again then we will have the next anti-western system in 10 years.
FACT: the end of this war must be positive for the Russian people, no matter whether Russia loses or wins the military operation. Putin came to power because the West didnt help the former Soviet republics. If Russia is left alone humiliated again then we will have the next anti-western system in 10 years.
The worst that will happen to Russia is that they get pushed all the way out of the country they invaded, and maybe lose various assets they have in other foreign countries. Nobody's foolish enough to try to make Russia flat-out surrender, like Germany in WWI.
Caution is certainly warranted but it doesn't seem productive to reward Russia for invading another country.
Caution is certainly warranted but it doesn't seem productive to reward Russia for invading another country.
Soviet Russia after its collapse had a chance to integrate itself to the west. Even if neoliberal policies were attrocious (and they weren't exclusive to Russia, but to the whole developing world) during the 90's, its integration to the global division of labor is what allowed them to re-emerge and have rising standards of living, much higher than during Soviet times.
But they still want revanchism and imperialism in the 21st c.?
But they still want revanchism and imperialism in the 21st c.?
> neoliberal policies were attrocious
They were not. The reality is that if you put all post-sovit countries on a graph and look at those that actually did neoliberal policies correctly, those are now the nations that are by far the most successful.
Its not the fault of the West that the Russian elites were totally an completely corrupt and had no interest in real reform. Russia actually resisted many reforms and the elites simply put themselves in a position to take advantage. To just blame all of that on the West is nonsense.
They were not. The reality is that if you put all post-sovit countries on a graph and look at those that actually did neoliberal policies correctly, those are now the nations that are by far the most successful.
Its not the fault of the West that the Russian elites were totally an completely corrupt and had no interest in real reform. Russia actually resisted many reforms and the elites simply put themselves in a position to take advantage. To just blame all of that on the West is nonsense.
So you say that WWII did not humiliate Germany? Can we do same to Russia then?
What is your proposal to how not humiliate Russia? Russia already humiliated themselves by not wining this conflict for so long. In their book anything less than total conquest of Ukraine is humiliation.
What is your proposal to how not humiliate Russia? Russia already humiliated themselves by not wining this conflict for so long. In their book anything less than total conquest of Ukraine is humiliation.
They said WWI. I assume they were referring to the Versaille Treaty
Yes but the point the parent made was that after WW1 they were not restricted and it lead to WW2 and after WW2 it lead to the EU. So its pretty clear what strategy was better.
In fact, the Republicans under Henry Cabot Lodge wanted exactly that, Germany had to be defeated and invaded. It was the only way to get lasting peace in Europe. And of course many in France like Foch wanted the same thing.
In fact, the Republicans under Henry Cabot Lodge wanted exactly that, Germany had to be defeated and invaded. It was the only way to get lasting peace in Europe. And of course many in France like Foch wanted the same thing.
i agree
So much the same old historical nonsense still being propagated by people.
> Oh yeah, super good idea. We had fantastic experience with humiliated nations before. It worked so well for Germany after WW1 /s
Germany was not humiliated. The terms imposed on Germany were not actually as bad, the idea that these were some horrible terms come from a few British intellectuals and German Foreign office.
Germany was treated with gloves of silk compared to how Germany treated France and Russia. But the fragile German ego couldn't handle it.
And of those terms imposed at Versailles Germany never even remotely payed any of it. I fact Germany took in more foreign loans then they ever paid back.
In the 20s Germany basically managed to negotiate all those debts away and before they even paid the little they had left, they stopped paying.
What was done to Germany after WW1 was NOT HARSH ENOUGH, and even what was agree on, was not enforced.
> Putin came to power because the West didnt help the former Soviet republics
Ask Estonia about how that.
> If Russia is left alone humiliated again then we will have the next anti-western system in 10 years.
They had an anti-western system for the waste majority of the last 300 years. If paying for their crimes with the London flats of of Russian oil millionaires then they will have to live with it.
> Oh yeah, super good idea. We had fantastic experience with humiliated nations before. It worked so well for Germany after WW1 /s
Germany was not humiliated. The terms imposed on Germany were not actually as bad, the idea that these were some horrible terms come from a few British intellectuals and German Foreign office.
Germany was treated with gloves of silk compared to how Germany treated France and Russia. But the fragile German ego couldn't handle it.
And of those terms imposed at Versailles Germany never even remotely payed any of it. I fact Germany took in more foreign loans then they ever paid back.
In the 20s Germany basically managed to negotiate all those debts away and before they even paid the little they had left, they stopped paying.
What was done to Germany after WW1 was NOT HARSH ENOUGH, and even what was agree on, was not enforced.
> Putin came to power because the West didnt help the former Soviet republics
Ask Estonia about how that.
> If Russia is left alone humiliated again then we will have the next anti-western system in 10 years.
They had an anti-western system for the waste majority of the last 300 years. If paying for their crimes with the London flats of of Russian oil millionaires then they will have to live with it.
> We had fantastic experience with humiliated nations before. It worked so well for Germany after WW1 /s
The mistake was corrected after WWII by splitting the country into occupation zones. That is the only way to deal with Russia too. Pushing out of Ukraine isn't enough. Russia has to be demilitarized, most importantly - denuclearized, it should lose its place in UN Security Council. It also should be denazified - the current fascist regime must be totally dismantled, and the country must be split to avoid such regime coming back again.
>Putin came to power because the West didnt help the former Soviet republics.
Putin came to power because the "system", ie. KGB in particular wasn't dismantled, and because the further splitting up of the country was prevented. Whole world, including US, was afraid of appearance of several new smaller states, instead of just one big Russia, possessing nukes. Now, one can expect everybody learnt from that mistake made 30 years ago - this time the nukes need to be taken away completely and the country split.
> the end of this war must be positive for the Russian people
No. Only crushing humiliating defeat with the split of the country can reach into Russian brain and cure it from the "Great Russia chauvinism". Without such a process of cure, the monster will soon be back.
The mistake was corrected after WWII by splitting the country into occupation zones. That is the only way to deal with Russia too. Pushing out of Ukraine isn't enough. Russia has to be demilitarized, most importantly - denuclearized, it should lose its place in UN Security Council. It also should be denazified - the current fascist regime must be totally dismantled, and the country must be split to avoid such regime coming back again.
>Putin came to power because the West didnt help the former Soviet republics.
Putin came to power because the "system", ie. KGB in particular wasn't dismantled, and because the further splitting up of the country was prevented. Whole world, including US, was afraid of appearance of several new smaller states, instead of just one big Russia, possessing nukes. Now, one can expect everybody learnt from that mistake made 30 years ago - this time the nukes need to be taken away completely and the country split.
> the end of this war must be positive for the Russian people
No. Only crushing humiliating defeat with the split of the country can reach into Russian brain and cure it from the "Great Russia chauvinism". Without such a process of cure, the monster will soon be back.
This is just silly wishful thinking. It will never happen with nuclear weapons on the table.
I hope, for the sake of the rest of humanity, all Euros (including Russians) aren’t a bunch of incredulously racist man-children as you are.
Reading this would have been funnier had it not been for the behaviour we’ve seen this year.
Reading this would have been funnier had it not been for the behaviour we’ve seen this year.
racist? Are you seriously implying that the Allies were racist for them doing the same to Germany to cure it from Nazism?
>Reading this would have been funnier had it not been for the behaviour we’ve seen this year.
until this year i've never wrote nor even thought this way. Until Feb 24 i still believed in my Old Country having a chance at playing great positive role in the world - i still thought that the harsh authoritarianism of Putin regime is a phase that will pass with minimal damage say once he dies. I hadn't noticed how instead it became Russian Nazism, "Rashizm" as its known, though all the signs have clearly been there at least during recent few years. It became clear on the Feb 24 though, and the 7 months since then have been showing it more and more, that the Russian society deeply poisoned by Rashizm has lost its ability to even minimally responsibly manage the great power stemming from such a large country and nukes in particular, and thus they lost any right to such a power, and became a menace to the world that must be taken care about.
>Reading this would have been funnier had it not been for the behaviour we’ve seen this year.
until this year i've never wrote nor even thought this way. Until Feb 24 i still believed in my Old Country having a chance at playing great positive role in the world - i still thought that the harsh authoritarianism of Putin regime is a phase that will pass with minimal damage say once he dies. I hadn't noticed how instead it became Russian Nazism, "Rashizm" as its known, though all the signs have clearly been there at least during recent few years. It became clear on the Feb 24 though, and the 7 months since then have been showing it more and more, that the Russian society deeply poisoned by Rashizm has lost its ability to even minimally responsibly manage the great power stemming from such a large country and nukes in particular, and thus they lost any right to such a power, and became a menace to the world that must be taken care about.
I see a lot of hate being thrown on Russian civilians in these forums. That’s clearly racist. And the allies (ie the US) never cared about fascists. They had business relations with each other for quite some time.
The denazification wasn’t a moral duty. But a smart thing to do, to defang your enemy when they were defeated. Americans thought they were de-baathifying Iraq. When that blew up in their face, they unanimously agreed that it was a mistake, even though the Baath party actions were quite evil.
Europeans have a cultural tendency to create moralistic almost religious justification for war and conquest. Whether it is the white man’s burden, or now denazification. It is used to squash internal dissent. And that’s fine. You need to whip up your peasants into joining your crusade, in one way or another. But the story crumbles when it’s exported across the world.
The rest of the world has no reason to sympathise with actions that might trigger a nuclear war in Europe. I used to think that European leaders understand that and it’s OK for Ukrainians to idly dream of wrecking great vengeance on Russia. But now, I’m not so sure.
The denazification wasn’t a moral duty. But a smart thing to do, to defang your enemy when they were defeated. Americans thought they were de-baathifying Iraq. When that blew up in their face, they unanimously agreed that it was a mistake, even though the Baath party actions were quite evil.
Europeans have a cultural tendency to create moralistic almost religious justification for war and conquest. Whether it is the white man’s burden, or now denazification. It is used to squash internal dissent. And that’s fine. You need to whip up your peasants into joining your crusade, in one way or another. But the story crumbles when it’s exported across the world.
The rest of the world has no reason to sympathise with actions that might trigger a nuclear war in Europe. I used to think that European leaders understand that and it’s OK for Ukrainians to idly dream of wrecking great vengeance on Russia. But now, I’m not so sure.
>I see a lot of hate being thrown on Russian civilians in these forums. That’s clearly racist.
The hate isn't on Russians as the carriers of Russian ethnicity. Such hate would be racist, i agree. The hate you see is on the carriers of Russian Nazism who openly espouses and propagandizes it. For example, many prominent targets of such a hate like those especially rabid Rashists propagandists on Russian TV are visibly not of Russian ethnicity. As another example - i'm a Russian and hasn't experienced any such hate even from Ukrainians i met here in teh last few months. I'm pretty sure though that if i were a Rashist and put the Russian Nazism Z-swastika on my car i'd become a target of such hate without people even bothering to check whether i'm of Russian, Jewish or Chinese ethnicity.
It is a trick that Russian propaganda actively using now - present legitimate hate against Russian Nazism as a racist hate against Russians. Don't fall for it :)
>Europeans have a cultural tendency to create moralistic almost religious justification for war and conquest. Whether it is the white man’s burden, or now denazification.
The main point of denazification isn't moralistic. It is a matter of survival. A nazism is "more" than just a fascism. The key foundation of nazist state is the "master-race/nation" ideology, and as a result one of the key characteristic of nazism is Lebensraum - "living space" for the "master-race/nation". While a plain fascist state, like Franco's Spain, can peacefully co-exist with its neighbors, it isn't an option in case of a nazist state like Germany back then or Russia today. Without denazification of Russia there is going to be no peace in the region, and with Russia being nuclear state it means that without denazification Russian presents a real nuclear threat to the world.
>The rest of the world has no reason to sympathise with actions that might trigger a nuclear war in Europe.
Of course nobody in the world is expected to sympathize with the Russian actions, and in particular with their intentional dragging of the world toward nuclear war. To avoid nuclear war Russia has to be stopped and the force is the only option for now.
> I used to think that European leaders understand that and it’s OK for Ukrainians to idly dream of wrecking great vengeance on Russia.
As far as i see, Ukrainians dream not about vengeance, they dream about Russia leaving them alone, something like having a kilometer high wall on the border with Russia. Unfortunately, without demilitarization, denuclearization and denazification of Russia the peace in the region isn't possible. In particular Russia wouldn't leave Ukrainians alone, and thus Ukrainians and the rest of the world have actually no choice wrt. what to do with Russia.
The hate isn't on Russians as the carriers of Russian ethnicity. Such hate would be racist, i agree. The hate you see is on the carriers of Russian Nazism who openly espouses and propagandizes it. For example, many prominent targets of such a hate like those especially rabid Rashists propagandists on Russian TV are visibly not of Russian ethnicity. As another example - i'm a Russian and hasn't experienced any such hate even from Ukrainians i met here in teh last few months. I'm pretty sure though that if i were a Rashist and put the Russian Nazism Z-swastika on my car i'd become a target of such hate without people even bothering to check whether i'm of Russian, Jewish or Chinese ethnicity.
It is a trick that Russian propaganda actively using now - present legitimate hate against Russian Nazism as a racist hate against Russians. Don't fall for it :)
>Europeans have a cultural tendency to create moralistic almost religious justification for war and conquest. Whether it is the white man’s burden, or now denazification.
The main point of denazification isn't moralistic. It is a matter of survival. A nazism is "more" than just a fascism. The key foundation of nazist state is the "master-race/nation" ideology, and as a result one of the key characteristic of nazism is Lebensraum - "living space" for the "master-race/nation". While a plain fascist state, like Franco's Spain, can peacefully co-exist with its neighbors, it isn't an option in case of a nazist state like Germany back then or Russia today. Without denazification of Russia there is going to be no peace in the region, and with Russia being nuclear state it means that without denazification Russian presents a real nuclear threat to the world.
>The rest of the world has no reason to sympathise with actions that might trigger a nuclear war in Europe.
Of course nobody in the world is expected to sympathize with the Russian actions, and in particular with their intentional dragging of the world toward nuclear war. To avoid nuclear war Russia has to be stopped and the force is the only option for now.
> I used to think that European leaders understand that and it’s OK for Ukrainians to idly dream of wrecking great vengeance on Russia.
As far as i see, Ukrainians dream not about vengeance, they dream about Russia leaving them alone, something like having a kilometer high wall on the border with Russia. Unfortunately, without demilitarization, denuclearization and denazification of Russia the peace in the region isn't possible. In particular Russia wouldn't leave Ukrainians alone, and thus Ukrainians and the rest of the world have actually no choice wrt. what to do with Russia.
Having this split happen through occupation would be a disaster. The west does not have anywhere near the manpower necessary to make this happen. The rule of thumb is that the occupying force needs to be 5% of the population, which means 9 million for Russia.
However, it could happen naturally. If the Putin regime collapses it is quite likely that a clear successor widely seen as legitimate doesn't materialize. If so, the many autonomous regions of Russia with regional identity could declare independence and make it stick.
However, it could happen naturally. If the Putin regime collapses it is quite likely that a clear successor widely seen as legitimate doesn't materialize. If so, the many autonomous regions of Russia with regional identity could declare independence and make it stick.
Of course it can't be done through sheer brute force. One has to use an opportunity of Russia [almost] falling apart on its own like the one 30 years ago or the one that seems to come about right now. This time it comes at a huge cost to Ukrainians, and whether/when another such opportunity would come about and at what cost we don't know, so better to not lose the opportunity this time.
>The west does not have anywhere near the manpower necessary to make this happen.
One of the biggest occupying/controlling power for the biggest piece of territory - Far East and East Siberia - is China. And there is no need to actually occupy whole Russia. Only in Moscow and a bit of force (more like credible threat of it), and that is work for the West and Turkey, to make sure that nobody would prevent those autonomous regions going their own independent way (which in many cases would be just naturally falling into orbit of a near by big country like Turkey, Kazakhstan, China, Ukraine or a block like EU)
>The west does not have anywhere near the manpower necessary to make this happen.
One of the biggest occupying/controlling power for the biggest piece of territory - Far East and East Siberia - is China. And there is no need to actually occupy whole Russia. Only in Moscow and a bit of force (more like credible threat of it), and that is work for the West and Turkey, to make sure that nobody would prevent those autonomous regions going their own independent way (which in many cases would be just naturally falling into orbit of a near by big country like Turkey, Kazakhstan, China, Ukraine or a block like EU)
It's kind of a moot question. If the US won't put boots on the ground in Ukraine, it will never do so in Moscow.
Unless they're invited there as peacekeepers by a new government. But even a pro-US government is unlikely to invite US peacekeepers. Maybe Canadian ones.
Unless they're invited there as peacekeepers by a new government. But even a pro-US government is unlikely to invite US peacekeepers. Maybe Canadian ones.
Yes, it's Ukraine must give up everything and pay reparations for russians - so they don't feel humiliated because of who they are. /s
> the end of this war must be positive for the Russian people, no matter whether Russia loses or wins the military operation.
I can see a plausible end that avoids ridicule on either side:
- West will maintain that Putin meant to destroy Ukraine. So, limiting him to the new status-quo for Luhansk and Donetsk (whatever that would be) is a success.
- Putin will claim that the target of the "military operation" was to make Luhansk and Donetsk safe for the Russian-speaking population there. The new status-quo provides for that. So the operation was a success.
I can see a plausible end that avoids ridicule on either side:
- West will maintain that Putin meant to destroy Ukraine. So, limiting him to the new status-quo for Luhansk and Donetsk (whatever that would be) is a success.
- Putin will claim that the target of the "military operation" was to make Luhansk and Donetsk safe for the Russian-speaking population there. The new status-quo provides for that. So the operation was a success.
People deserve the government they have.
Are you referring to the new overt dart vader look in the city of brotherly love? Bring out the capes!
(but this an international phenomena, so yeah, agreed.)
(but this an international phenomena, so yeah, agreed.)
That’s not a fact. It’s up to Russians and Russia what happens after this.
Their main propaganda news channel has already said (incorrectly) that they are already fighting NATO and US troops in the breakaway areas.
Is it time to make this a reality? I really don't see it ending without it happening. russia has shown that it has no regard for the suffering of any troops of any nationality. So purely from a population perspective, Ukraine will fail eventually unless they can effectively force-multiply like we've never seen in any other armed conflict.
Is it time to make this a reality? I really don't see it ending without it happening. russia has shown that it has no regard for the suffering of any troops of any nationality. So purely from a population perspective, Ukraine will fail eventually unless they can effectively force-multiply like we've never seen in any other armed conflict.
The Ukraine can do it, if it gets supplied with the weapons to do it. Even with the weapons they got so far, they managed to hurt the Russian military a lot - hence the mobilization. They got some very powerful weapons, but still limited in number and choice. Just delivering long-range ammunition for HIMARS in large numbers might be enough to break any Russian offensive as all supply and all fixed positions were easy targets.
The Ukraine needs a lot of that, more air defense (the German Gepards seem to work quite well) and of course some main battle tanks. There is no need for NATO troops to get directly involved as long as there is enough supply for the Ukraine (Poland still has a bunch of Mig 29 which could be immediately be used by the Ukraine).
The Ukraine needs a lot of that, more air defense (the German Gepards seem to work quite well) and of course some main battle tanks. There is no need for NATO troops to get directly involved as long as there is enough supply for the Ukraine (Poland still has a bunch of Mig 29 which could be immediately be used by the Ukraine).
Calling Ukraine "The Ukraine" is a Russian tactic to make Ukraine seem less like a country and more like a region. Quoting from wikipedia:
> However, since Ukraine's declaration of independence in 1991, [calling Ukraine "The Ukraine"] has become politicised and is now rarer, and style guides advise against its use. US ambassador William Taylor said that using "the Ukraine" implies disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty. The official Ukrainian position is that "the Ukraine" is incorrect, both grammatically and politically.
> However, since Ukraine's declaration of independence in 1991, [calling Ukraine "The Ukraine"] has become politicised and is now rarer, and style guides advise against its use. US ambassador William Taylor said that using "the Ukraine" implies disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty. The official Ukrainian position is that "the Ukraine" is incorrect, both grammatically and politically.
> Calling Ukraine "The Ukraine" is a Russian tactic...
This is just wrong. If you search for the word Ukraine on the Russian government site kremlin.ru (there is an English-language version), you will find that this word is used there without the article. I am sure you'll get the same results if you search RT's web site.
The article isn't the Russians' doing, especially given that there aren't any articles in most Slavic languages, including Russian. It is a historical happenstance of the English language, probably back from the time when the name Ukraine was perceived as meaning borderland. People using it probably do so because they learnt the word decades ago.
This is just wrong. If you search for the word Ukraine on the Russian government site kremlin.ru (there is an English-language version), you will find that this word is used there without the article. I am sure you'll get the same results if you search RT's web site.
The article isn't the Russians' doing, especially given that there aren't any articles in most Slavic languages, including Russian. It is a historical happenstance of the English language, probably back from the time when the name Ukraine was perceived as meaning borderland. People using it probably do so because they learnt the word decades ago.
Russians refer to Ukraine as a territory in their language by using preposition "на" instead of "в". They don't respect sovereignty of Ukraine in their language.
"Ukraine" doesn't mean borderland, it's another Russian attitude with the aim to humiliate Ukrainian nation. You can also look at the map and see who is really a borderland of the civilized world.
"Ukraine" doesn't mean borderland, it's another Russian attitude with the aim to humiliate Ukrainian nation. You can also look at the map and see who is really a borderland of the civilized world.
> Russians refer to Ukraine as a territory in their language by using preposition "на" instead of "в". They don't respect sovereignty of Ukraine in their language.
This is an old and complicated argument. The Russians have their language. In that language, for several centuries, probably as long as the word Ukraine existed in it, it was governed by the preposition "на". There are other Russian toponyms that are governed by the same preposition — Cuba, Caucasus, Manhattan, "the West", Middle East, "the East", etc. It really is a question of whether the language should change because of a new political status of Ukraine (and therefore all its speakers should change their linguistic habits); or whether this word should continue to be among the exceptions that take the preposition "на".
The whole situation, in which people get annoyed about a grammatical factoid of another people's language is just... bizarre.
This is an old and complicated argument. The Russians have their language. In that language, for several centuries, probably as long as the word Ukraine existed in it, it was governed by the preposition "на". There are other Russian toponyms that are governed by the same preposition — Cuba, Caucasus, Manhattan, "the West", Middle East, "the East", etc. It really is a question of whether the language should change because of a new political status of Ukraine (and therefore all its speakers should change their linguistic habits); or whether this word should continue to be among the exceptions that take the preposition "на".
The whole situation, in which people get annoyed about a grammatical factoid of another people's language is just... bizarre.
> It really is a question of whether the language should change because of a new political status of Ukraine (and therefore all its speakers should change their linguistic habits); or whether this word should continue to be among the exceptions that take the preposition "на".
No. There is no need to change language. If in any given phrase one means Ukraine as a region, like Caucasus, then it is "на", if one means Ukraine as country then it is "в". With Ukraine becoming independent country most semantic contexts though from the "region context" have naturally become "country context".
The issue here is that Russians to intentionally demonstrate their unrecognition and disrespect to Ukraine use "на" (as in the "region context") when they really speak about Ukraine as a country and thus, by Russian language rules, must have used "в".
>The whole situation, in which people get annoyed about a grammatical factoid of another people's language is just... bizarre.
It isn't annoyance. It is tens (actually looks more like early hundred) of thousands people dead for the reason that that factoid demonstrate - Russian refusal to recognize Ukrainian right to exist and to exist independent of Russia.
No. There is no need to change language. If in any given phrase one means Ukraine as a region, like Caucasus, then it is "на", if one means Ukraine as country then it is "в". With Ukraine becoming independent country most semantic contexts though from the "region context" have naturally become "country context".
The issue here is that Russians to intentionally demonstrate their unrecognition and disrespect to Ukraine use "на" (as in the "region context") when they really speak about Ukraine as a country and thus, by Russian language rules, must have used "в".
>The whole situation, in which people get annoyed about a grammatical factoid of another people's language is just... bizarre.
It isn't annoyance. It is tens (actually looks more like early hundred) of thousands people dead for the reason that that factoid demonstrate - Russian refusal to recognize Ukrainian right to exist and to exist independent of Russia.
> If in any given phrase one means Ukraine as a region, like Caucasus, then it is "на", if one means Ukraine as country then it is "в".
There is no such semantic distinction between these two prepositions.
You speak of a human language as if it were a programming language disregarding its history (while even for programming languages, history is important, which is why javascript or php are in the state they are currently in). Just as no-one was thinking of the troubled American past when they were using the word "master" as a name of their default git branch or of the primary database, so no Russian (at least none that I am aware of) relies on the preposition "на" to tell them that something is or is not a country. They do, however, rely on their vocabulary of linguistic collocations, developed through the years of using the language, that tells them that the word "Ukraine" wants the preposition "на".
There is no such semantic distinction between these two prepositions.
You speak of a human language as if it were a programming language disregarding its history (while even for programming languages, history is important, which is why javascript or php are in the state they are currently in). Just as no-one was thinking of the troubled American past when they were using the word "master" as a name of their default git branch or of the primary database, so no Russian (at least none that I am aware of) relies on the preposition "на" to tell them that something is or is not a country. They do, however, rely on their vocabulary of linguistic collocations, developed through the years of using the language, that tells them that the word "Ukraine" wants the preposition "на".
Well, i'm a native Russian speaker (left the country at the age of 28). I can only hope that you're too.
> Well, i'm a native Russian speaker
Were you bothered by the preposition "на"? Did you feel, back in secondary school, that saying "на Украине" somehow made it into something less than a country? Can you remember the time when it started bothering you?
Were you bothered by the preposition "на"? Did you feel, back in secondary school, that saying "на Украине" somehow made it into something less than a country? Can you remember the time when it started bothering you?
This is plainly not true. As a Polish native speaker I could observe the same old custom of relating to Ukraine/Belarus/Lithuania as a territory by using similar preposition "na" in Polish.
And yes, we also use "na" for islands (Cuba, Manhattan) but it's still deprecating.
What happened when your country invaded Ukraine was that practically from Day 1, everyone in Poland switched to "w Ukrainie" - a preposition used normally for the country.
Edit: "w Ukrainie" instead of "w" to make it more clear what I mean
And yes, we also use "na" for islands (Cuba, Manhattan) but it's still deprecating.
What happened when your country invaded Ukraine was that practically from Day 1, everyone in Poland switched to "w Ukrainie" - a preposition used normally for the country.
Edit: "w Ukrainie" instead of "w" to make it more clear what I mean
> This is plainly not true.
Which part isn't true?
There's an online corpus of the Russian language [0], whose entries of usage of the word Urkaine date back to the 17th century — you can easily see which preposition that word took throughout centuries. If you search through books on Russian grammar on Google Books, you will find examples specifically prescribing the preposition "на" throughout the 20th century.
The whole controversy about the preposition started somewhere around the year 2000, and quickly became political. For a disinterested Russian, who is not into politics, "на" would be a natural preposition to use with this word simply because he would have encountered it in classical literature, in the movies, or on TV. It was semantically charged only for those who were aware of the debate. The response from the linguists used to be that if Ukraine wants to use the preposition "в", it is free to do so for the Russian language spoken on its territory; but that it should have no say on how a language is used in another country.
I understand that in the recent years the usage of this preposition has become a political shibboleth; but I am not speaking about it from a political angle. My points are that the usage of this preposition, with this word, in Russian, is 1) historical, and 2) to those who aren't making a political statement, semantically neutral (i.e. it does not, in itself, connote derision, imperial ambitions, or anything of the kind). I have not made any claims about the Polish language (other than that, to my knowledge, it doesn't have articles).
[0] - https://ruscorpora.ru/
Which part isn't true?
There's an online corpus of the Russian language [0], whose entries of usage of the word Urkaine date back to the 17th century — you can easily see which preposition that word took throughout centuries. If you search through books on Russian grammar on Google Books, you will find examples specifically prescribing the preposition "на" throughout the 20th century.
The whole controversy about the preposition started somewhere around the year 2000, and quickly became political. For a disinterested Russian, who is not into politics, "на" would be a natural preposition to use with this word simply because he would have encountered it in classical literature, in the movies, or on TV. It was semantically charged only for those who were aware of the debate. The response from the linguists used to be that if Ukraine wants to use the preposition "в", it is free to do so for the Russian language spoken on its territory; but that it should have no say on how a language is used in another country.
I understand that in the recent years the usage of this preposition has become a political shibboleth; but I am not speaking about it from a political angle. My points are that the usage of this preposition, with this word, in Russian, is 1) historical, and 2) to those who aren't making a political statement, semantically neutral (i.e. it does not, in itself, connote derision, imperial ambitions, or anything of the kind). I have not made any claims about the Polish language (other than that, to my knowledge, it doesn't have articles).
[0] - https://ruscorpora.ru/
It's not the question of grammar but semantics.
Wrong grammar is when you put the verb before the subject in English. The grammar does not decide whether you say "on a call" or "in a call".
Wrong grammar would be if you used an incorrect case after the preposition, but the very choice of it involves the speaker and what semantics or meaning is meant by them.
Okay - you would find "NA" in the Russian corpus from the 17th century - but it is totally meaningless because East Ukraine was annexed in 17th century by Russia. I would have bet that this particular preposition was preferred.
I don't think any books on Russian grammar recommend a specific preposition - most likely you meant some stylistic compendium, but the style is something more subjective and even political in nature, isn't it?
In a nutshell, it's not a grammatical or historical thing, it's just shameless linguistical colonialism in its purest form.
Wrong grammar is when you put the verb before the subject in English. The grammar does not decide whether you say "on a call" or "in a call".
Wrong grammar would be if you used an incorrect case after the preposition, but the very choice of it involves the speaker and what semantics or meaning is meant by them.
Okay - you would find "NA" in the Russian corpus from the 17th century - but it is totally meaningless because East Ukraine was annexed in 17th century by Russia. I would have bet that this particular preposition was preferred.
I don't think any books on Russian grammar recommend a specific preposition - most likely you meant some stylistic compendium, but the style is something more subjective and even political in nature, isn't it?
In a nutshell, it's not a grammatical or historical thing, it's just shameless linguistical colonialism in its purest form.
It's not bizarre. It's one of the many factors that has led to the genocide of Ukrainians. Little things matter too.
Surely, the main factor is that Russians disrespect everyone else too, including their own less lucky compatriots. Russia must be destroyed as a culture if they can't learn to behave as civilized humans, if they want to be enslavers only. Though, it looks like Putin is already succeeding in this task.
Surely, the main factor is that Russians disrespect everyone else too, including their own less lucky compatriots. Russia must be destroyed as a culture if they can't learn to behave as civilized humans, if they want to be enslavers only. Though, it looks like Putin is already succeeding in this task.
FWIW, in German it's actually used with the definite article since.. forever I guess and maybe it's the same in other languages. I happen to know you don't use "the Ukraine" in English, but it's a hard habit to shake off - so this may not even be a case of any propaganda. (Just looked up the wikipedia article and there's also no mention of this being applicable, but you know, wikipedia...)
He's probably not trying to marginalize Ukraine. Billions of people grew up with that language, and it just takes time to get used to the change.
The world used to call Argentina "The Argentine," but that changed, too. There are a number of similar examples in the last hundred years or so.
Not everything is overnight, and your own link states that the change in terminology is both political, and recent. And while Wikipedia states the change was 1991, it's not like every person on the planet got a memo in the mail the next day letting them know what the new, approved, language is. For millions, it's still newish information.
The world used to call Argentina "The Argentine," but that changed, too. There are a number of similar examples in the last hundred years or so.
Not everything is overnight, and your own link states that the change in terminology is both political, and recent. And while Wikipedia states the change was 1991, it's not like every person on the planet got a memo in the mail the next day letting them know what the new, approved, language is. For millions, it's still newish information.
Besides not being a native speaker, I never thought about using an article with Ukraine. Now that you mention it, in German we always use an article with Ukraine, I never noticed it. But this is true for some other countries. Countries like USA, UK, Netherlands, Switzerland or Turkey are also always used with an article, I don't know what is the pattern behind it. All of those are certainly sovereign nations. So nothing was implied by using an article with Ukraine.
Nonsense! That’s just the name of the country in English.
FYI "The Ukraine" is a term pushed by Russian influences to make you think of it as a region (literally translated "the borderlands") as opposed to a sovereign state. The country is just called Ukraine.
Doesn't Ukraine have a lot more to lose over time? Russia can just flatten the terrain, or ultimately nuke. The reverse isn't possible.
> Doesn't Ukraine have a lot more to lose over time?
It seems most Ukrainians agree that the worst would be to live under Russian dictatorship. Maybe they have experience in this area.
It seems most Ukrainians agree that the worst would be to live under Russian dictatorship. Maybe they have experience in this area.
Nukes are a possibility, but MAD has stopped us all using them for many years so far.
As far as conventional arms go: Russia has quite a few planes, tanks, and artillery; however, so long as the USA wills it, the Ukraine will have more anti-air missiles, more anti-tank munitions, and more long-range rockets.
In any long-range fight, being able to locate your enemy is key; the pentagons ability to identify the location of Russian positions appears to be unsurpassed. So long as they are passing this intel to the Ukraine, along with long-range weapons to act on it, any attempt at a Russian advance will be done without access to local command/supply posts.
As far as conventional arms go: Russia has quite a few planes, tanks, and artillery; however, so long as the USA wills it, the Ukraine will have more anti-air missiles, more anti-tank munitions, and more long-range rockets.
In any long-range fight, being able to locate your enemy is key; the pentagons ability to identify the location of Russian positions appears to be unsurpassed. So long as they are passing this intel to the Ukraine, along with long-range weapons to act on it, any attempt at a Russian advance will be done without access to local command/supply posts.
Does MAD really protect Ukraine?
Edit: suppose the old man has properly lost it.
If Putin drops a tactical nuke on a Ukranian military position, will Nato really respond in kind? Seems like damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
Edit: suppose the old man has properly lost it.
If Putin drops a tactical nuke on a Ukranian military position, will Nato really respond in kind? Seems like damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
It might not be MAD but there is a really strong incentive from everyone else to maintain the nuclear taboo. Russia can expect NATO to get directly involved in the conventional war as well as losing their remaining allies if they do that. Whether that leads to further escalation or not is up to them.
I think NATO would respond, but non-nuclear. There is no need to answer tactical nuclear weapons with a nuclear strike. There are tons of NATO air forces available to strike against Russian troops in Ukrainian territory. They would just obliterate any Russian troops there.
It was a small but interesting news item, that a few days before the invasion, some of the US stealth bombers were moved to Rammstein air force base. So at any time there would be the capability of a forceful answer. But this also shows how ridiculous the claims were, that the NATO would seek to attack Russia, as that is the thing the NATO has tried hard to avoid so far.
It was a small but interesting news item, that a few days before the invasion, some of the US stealth bombers were moved to Rammstein air force base. So at any time there would be the capability of a forceful answer. But this also shows how ridiculous the claims were, that the NATO would seek to attack Russia, as that is the thing the NATO has tried hard to avoid so far.
Perhaps not, but China and India would definitely stop supporting Russia after that. China has a nuclear-equipped little madman of its own, so it needs to show what the consequences are for using nukes. India is also a nuclear country, bordered by another one, and can't imply Pakistan can just use nukes without consequence.
As if Pakistan is waiting for the global etiquette on the usage of nuclear weapons to change so they can nuke India!!
Both countries can’t use nukes because the other has them too. India has a fast growing economy at stake and Pakistan may be an economic disaster but Pakistani elites have huge assets in the west which can be frozen.
Usage of nukes in the Indian subcontinent has easily calculable first order effects.
In Ukraine it’s entirely different. It is ridiculous to suggest that the US will welcome the destruction of the entire human race if Putin even nukes civilian centres in Ukraine. They won’t. But there are second and third order consequences of such actions which are not in favour of Russia and certainly not in favour of Putin and his friends.
Both countries can’t use nukes because the other has them too. India has a fast growing economy at stake and Pakistan may be an economic disaster but Pakistani elites have huge assets in the west which can be frozen.
Usage of nukes in the Indian subcontinent has easily calculable first order effects.
In Ukraine it’s entirely different. It is ridiculous to suggest that the US will welcome the destruction of the entire human race if Putin even nukes civilian centres in Ukraine. They won’t. But there are second and third order consequences of such actions which are not in favour of Russia and certainly not in favour of Putin and his friends.
Speculation city, and Biden did clarify precisely a response to that a few days ago.
The strength of the response depends upon the relative strength of the attack.
Putin has been threatening nuclear holocaust for months now, and he would be wise to not do foolish things from his petulant temper tendencies. Bullies can’t accept people standing up to them, but them typically show themselves to be spineless cowards when the medicine is returned in force. It’s kind of characteristic of how bullies are formed from weak oppressed victim types who go sour and decide inflicting pain downstream is some solution to what ails their souls.
No it doesn’t. It seems Putin wants to conquer Ukraine and more importantly for the west to get over it. They certainly won’t if he nukes Kiev or does some such stupid shit.
The new Cold War will be sealed and it will be game over for his regime. He wants western apathy and social disorder to continue. And he wants a disaster zone in Ukraine as his personal entry point into Europe proper.
The new Cold War will be sealed and it will be game over for his regime. He wants western apathy and social disorder to continue. And he wants a disaster zone in Ukraine as his personal entry point into Europe proper.
well, be damned
I am massively concerned that Trump may actually win next elections. I keep hearing that's not possible, Americans are not that stupid and so on. But he almost won second time and republicans across whole spectrum seem to love him despite his massive character flaws.
If that happens, US helps to Ukraine stops, period. I would expect Europe is left on its own and that may be a bad time for Ukraine and actually not only Ukraine.
I certainly hope all this is incorrect since I have family and life in Europe.
If that happens, US helps to Ukraine stops, period. I would expect Europe is left on its own and that may be a bad time for Ukraine and actually not only Ukraine.
I certainly hope all this is incorrect since I have family and life in Europe.
Bullshit. I’ve no interest or opinion on whether Trump is good for America or whatever. But he will go in harder against Russia. He was the one who warned the Germans about their increasing fuel dependency on the Russians in the first place.
> In any long-range fight, being able to locate your enemy is key; the pentagons ability to identify the location of Russian positions appears to be unsurpassed.
Just what Russians are waiting. HIMARS flying over Ukrainian border into Russia and Balarus. Get some other allies involved, declare it a WW3 as pretext to invade Baltics.
Just what Russians are waiting. HIMARS flying over Ukrainian border into Russia and Balarus. Get some other allies involved, declare it a WW3 as pretext to invade Baltics.
> Just what Russians are waiting. HIMARS flying over Ukrainian border into Russia and Balarus. Get some other allies involved, declare it a WW3 as pretext to invade Baltics.
How does Russia plan to take the Baltics when they cannot even take a city less them 300km from their border in 6 months?.
How does Russia plan to take the Baltics when they cannot even take a city less them 300km from their border in 6 months?.
No, Russia isn't waiting for a reason to invade the Baltic states. If they wanted, they could have come up with it any time. However, that would mean a war with NATO, which they couldn't possibly win. So far they are struggling badly with the few modern weapons delivered by the NATO to Ukraine.
They are obviously provoking NATO for some unclear reason. Well it is pretty clear - annex any land possible - by hook or by crook.
It's not clear that they can "flatten" significant areas, they've already shown signs of being constrained by supply of ammunition. Especially since the US satellites can point out where the ammunition dumps are and the Ukranians can blow them up.
UA fights for its national identitiy - they ultimately have everything to lose.
It seems that way to me.
I'm not sure what the western forces game plan is and i'm not sure they actually want to help Ukraine too much, I think they are walking the fine line of wanting to hurt Russia enough and see what happens, but they don't want to truly arm Ukraine because if Russia really loses, they might just nuke.
I'm not sure what the western forces game plan is and i'm not sure they actually want to help Ukraine too much, I think they are walking the fine line of wanting to hurt Russia enough and see what happens, but they don't want to truly arm Ukraine because if Russia really loses, they might just nuke.
Your statements are not backed up with either public communication or a lack of monetary support.
In fact, the US just sent over a billion more $ in military aid.
Think again.
I understand, but I feel like they are monitoring the situation and making sure they walk that line clearly. Hence why they keep trickling the spending to them, they are monitoring and adjusting.
They could have done much more and given way more, why those are large numbers, it's still not on the scale truly needed to defeat Russia. They still hold back plenty.
They are obviously not going to say that directly in public, so public statements mean little.
They could have done much more and given way more, why those are large numbers, it's still not on the scale truly needed to defeat Russia. They still hold back plenty.
They are obviously not going to say that directly in public, so public statements mean little.
I don’t think it’s so tricky to analyze: they’ve deliberately sent weapons that are effective for liberation of Ukrainian territory and not sent weapons appropriate for conquesting Russia with.
Germany has its own inner soul struggle regarding moving from a pacifist stance to being able to support Ukraine, but the UK and US support hasn’t been ambiguous in any way I see it.
All of this could change in a second if Pooty either messes with Moldavia/Poland/Baltics or uses um unconventional weapons. I would not consider measured responses to be an open invitation for silliness
All of this could change in a second if Pooty either messes with Moldavia/Poland/Baltics or uses um unconventional weapons. I would not consider measured responses to be an open invitation for silliness
There's no 'just' in flattening a terrain or nuking.
And?
Russians are very inconsistent in their lying. On one hand they say they are already fighting NATO troops, and on the other hand they say that NATO needs to stay away else they will use all means possible.
I was in favour that NATO would secure the skies, but that is now too late I guess.
Ukraine didn't even receive the latest and best equipment such as battle tanks. Once they receive those (I'm confident they will), it will make it easier for them to retake land.
I was in favour that NATO would secure the skies, but that is now too late I guess.
Ukraine didn't even receive the latest and best equipment such as battle tanks. Once they receive those (I'm confident they will), it will make it easier for them to retake land.
> I was in favour that NATO would secure the skies
'Securing' skies is a term that has been repeated a lot but in practice it means potentially shooting down Russian aircrafts to 'secure' a corridor.
This would mean a NATO member doing an act of war against Russia _without_ the purpose of defending a NATO member state.
The main argument is where do you draw the line? Why did NATO not provide air support for Georgia in South Ossetia, or for Crimea in 2014 but now does so for Donetsk in 2022?
In my opinion doing so would just give Russian propaganda a stronger argument that NATO is intended on attacking Russia rather than securing it's member states.
'Securing' skies is a term that has been repeated a lot but in practice it means potentially shooting down Russian aircrafts to 'secure' a corridor.
This would mean a NATO member doing an act of war against Russia _without_ the purpose of defending a NATO member state.
The main argument is where do you draw the line? Why did NATO not provide air support for Georgia in South Ossetia, or for Crimea in 2014 but now does so for Donetsk in 2022?
In my opinion doing so would just give Russian propaganda a stronger argument that NATO is intended on attacking Russia rather than securing it's member states.
Just because we closed our eyes in the past doesn't mean we need to continue doing that. It's the straw that breaks the camels back.
Shooting down Russian airplanes over Ukrainian territory when they are literally bombing Ukraine is not "an act of war against Russia". That's a bit of a far stretch don't you think?
If NATO bombs Belarus and Russian airplanes defend, you can hardly call that "Russian war against NATO".
Shooting down Russian airplanes over Ukrainian territory when they are literally bombing Ukraine is not "an act of war against Russia". That's a bit of a far stretch don't you think?
If NATO bombs Belarus and Russian airplanes defend, you can hardly call that "Russian war against NATO".
> Shooting down Russian airplanes over Ukrainian territory when they are literally bombing Ukraine is not "an act of war against Russia". That's a bit of a far stretch don't you think?
It is an act of war. It is not a far stretch.
It is an act of war. It is not a far stretch.
It is clearly not threatening "the territorial integrity of Russia", as Russia likes to call it. Because those planes get attacked over enemy territory.
What does that have to do with it? One military shooting down another military's aircraft is an act of war.
Clearly not: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_sh...
Russia did nothing, as usual.
Russia did nothing, as usual.
Unless NATO says sorry whenever they shoot down a Russian plane like Turkey did.
> If NATO bombs Belarus and Russian airplanes defend, you can hardly call that "Russian war against NATO".
That is literally a casus belli. It very much is an act of war.
That is literally a casus belli. It very much is an act of war.
According to Russia, even sending weapons is an act of war. It all has degrees. There is a clear difference between attacking Russia on their own territory vs defening Ukraine over Ukraine territory, with their consent. Russia would do nothing, just like when Moskva was sunk, just like when airfields on annexed Crimea were attacked.
Edit: So what would happen if Russia flies a fighterjet over NATO territory and they shoot it down. An act of war?
Edit: So what would happen if Russia flies a fighterjet over NATO territory and they shoot it down. An act of war?
>Ukraine will fail eventually unless they can effectively force-multiply like we've never seen in any other armed conflict.
Ukrainian equipment is getting better with western donations while russian one is effectively running out of it. The newly mobilized units won't have anything better than soviet-era versions of T-72 and T-80, BMP-1 and D-20 howitzer, not even talking about T-62M. Ammo, missle and protective equipment already is getting really low.
Meanwhile, there are serious signals from US to provide M1A1 Abrams sooner than later.
This measure rather aims to prevent looming crushing defeat.
Ukrainian equipment is getting better with western donations while russian one is effectively running out of it. The newly mobilized units won't have anything better than soviet-era versions of T-72 and T-80, BMP-1 and D-20 howitzer, not even talking about T-62M. Ammo, missle and protective equipment already is getting really low.
Meanwhile, there are serious signals from US to provide M1A1 Abrams sooner than later.
This measure rather aims to prevent looming crushing defeat.
I don’t think any NATO nation will send much in the way of tanks. Tanks are a giant target on a modern battlefield. As superior as the latest Abrams might be to most other tanks, anti-tank weaponry is far better and fairly cheap these days.
The Russians are “fighting the last war” again, expecting numerical superiority in armor and artillery to win. It isn’t working.
The Russians are “fighting the last war” again, expecting numerical superiority in armor and artillery to win. It isn’t working.
> I don’t think any NATO nation will send much in the way of tanks. Tanks are a giant target on a modern battlefield. As superior as the latest Abrams might be to most other tanks, anti-tank weaponry is far better and fairly cheap these days.
Latest Ukrainian offensive disproves your notion. Maneuver warfare still works and can be employed by capable troops. And this was with done with relative parity of equipment - situation would look way different if Ukraine had order of magnitude better western tanks.
Latest Ukrainian offensive disproves your notion. Maneuver warfare still works and can be employed by capable troops. And this was with done with relative parity of equipment - situation would look way different if Ukraine had order of magnitude better western tanks.
What? NATO nations already sent hundreds of tanks.
Troops are almost irrelevant, Russia are running out of materiel. And I'm not convinced they have the power structure necessary to make a human wave approach work; this isn't 1940s USSR. Men will catch on that their guns also work on their own officers.
Not only that, an approach that doesn't have enough vehicles simply cannot work. They're limited to moving a few miles a day; how are they going to be supplied with food, let alone enough ammunition?
Not only that, an approach that doesn't have enough vehicles simply cannot work. They're limited to moving a few miles a day; how are they going to be supplied with food, let alone enough ammunition?
What are you talking about? Ukraine has clearly demonstrated its ability to make significant territorial gains in the previous weeks. How on earth are you drawing this conclusion?
I presume he is thinking on the basis of Russia deploying another 200,000 troops and the effect that may have on undoing the gains of late (whether it will or not is another matter...).
Extending that thought process, if a partial mobilisation realises 200,000 troops to fight, then the next logical step after that fails is a full mobilisation with pundits suggesting up to 1,000,000 "soldiers".
There is some merit in thinking that the sheer size of Russia means they can just keep churning out men for a zerg rush at a rate exceeding that which Ukraine can deal with, at a cost:benefit ratio acceptable for Russia but crushing for Ukraine.
Extending that thought process, if a partial mobilisation realises 200,000 troops to fight, then the next logical step after that fails is a full mobilisation with pundits suggesting up to 1,000,000 "soldiers".
There is some merit in thinking that the sheer size of Russia means they can just keep churning out men for a zerg rush at a rate exceeding that which Ukraine can deal with, at a cost:benefit ratio acceptable for Russia but crushing for Ukraine.
>Russia deploying another 200,000 troops
It is a very hard task even to just deploy, let alone with any gain. In February after months and months of training Russia has deployed to Ukraine about that number of the best forces it had (like Kantemirovskaya tank division). We've seen how it went.
The newly mobilized forces, even after 2-3 months of announced training, will be an order of magnitude worse with worse hardware (that if China doesn't help - there is a reason Putin made the announcement right after the Shanghai Organization summit, may be China promised something, though that would most probably accelerate US hardware to Ukraine). Deploying such forces to a battlefield, especially a one like in Ukraine - as they say it is much more harsh than even Chechen war - one risks loosing them as they come. For now Russia announced plans to use them initially in the 2nd/3rd lines of defense.
As an example - during recent Harkiv counter-offensive by Ukraine Russia was trying to stop Ukraine by throwing in significant new, recently recruited, additional forces without any staging, battle order forming, etc. - those forces were just destroyed as they came by Ukraine as a result.
Giving Ukraine more and better weapons will nullify any Russian number advantage and thus is the shortest path to end this war.
It is a very hard task even to just deploy, let alone with any gain. In February after months and months of training Russia has deployed to Ukraine about that number of the best forces it had (like Kantemirovskaya tank division). We've seen how it went.
The newly mobilized forces, even after 2-3 months of announced training, will be an order of magnitude worse with worse hardware (that if China doesn't help - there is a reason Putin made the announcement right after the Shanghai Organization summit, may be China promised something, though that would most probably accelerate US hardware to Ukraine). Deploying such forces to a battlefield, especially a one like in Ukraine - as they say it is much more harsh than even Chechen war - one risks loosing them as they come. For now Russia announced plans to use them initially in the 2nd/3rd lines of defense.
As an example - during recent Harkiv counter-offensive by Ukraine Russia was trying to stop Ukraine by throwing in significant new, recently recruited, additional forces without any staging, battle order forming, etc. - those forces were just destroyed as they came by Ukraine as a result.
Giving Ukraine more and better weapons will nullify any Russian number advantage and thus is the shortest path to end this war.
While my opinion is nothing more than armchair general - I agree. The overwhelming evidence supports this, even before the incredible counter offensive.
Even prior to the arrival of HIMARS, the decimation of Russian armour was astounding. And that was with weapons NATO infantry teams, the least specialist, most numerous bread and butter soldier force, are all trained on and supplied with.
As it stands; the Ukranians are better fed, equipped, supplied, intelligenced (!), and have the ability to rotate in and out of theatre to keep up momentum. As the offensive continues, their armaments increase in both quantity (captured russian equipment) and efficacy (NATO finally testing their weapons against that which they've theorised about fighting for the past 50 years). With every passing month, cadres of soldiers pass out from NATO training in the UK and throughout the EU.
Prediction - with that in mind - the Russians won't wait 2-3 months to deploy conscripts. They'll start loading trains this week.
It's going to be horrific. The metaphor of Russian gloves coming off will prove to be nothing but allowing them to shove greater quantities of meat into the grinder.
Even prior to the arrival of HIMARS, the decimation of Russian armour was astounding. And that was with weapons NATO infantry teams, the least specialist, most numerous bread and butter soldier force, are all trained on and supplied with.
As it stands; the Ukranians are better fed, equipped, supplied, intelligenced (!), and have the ability to rotate in and out of theatre to keep up momentum. As the offensive continues, their armaments increase in both quantity (captured russian equipment) and efficacy (NATO finally testing their weapons against that which they've theorised about fighting for the past 50 years). With every passing month, cadres of soldiers pass out from NATO training in the UK and throughout the EU.
Prediction - with that in mind - the Russians won't wait 2-3 months to deploy conscripts. They'll start loading trains this week.
It's going to be horrific. The metaphor of Russian gloves coming off will prove to be nothing but allowing them to shove greater quantities of meat into the grinder.
> They'll start loading trains this week.
Already happening. https://t.co/Wklq8me5tq
Also keeping the mobilized in 2nd-3rd line defense makes little sense. The current units on the front must be tired, decimated and in need of either retiring back for some rest/recovery/replenisment.
Rusty soldiers will get sent right into first line with all their rusty weapons, and other stock they have to buy themselves if they wish to not bleed to death from simple wounds. https://t.co/JEAxSNOLer https://t.co/GBhRj0g3y3 https://t.co/JnlN5lq51G
Also all this mobilization is unexplicably happening at the start of fall/winter seasons. When/if Russians finally manage to ship most of the people to Ukraine, it will already be winter, and they'll be freezing to death in areas with no working infrastructure, just like during late winter/early autmn earlier this year.
I really don't get it. The leadership must be grasping at straws with very little regard for human life.
Already happening. https://t.co/Wklq8me5tq
Also keeping the mobilized in 2nd-3rd line defense makes little sense. The current units on the front must be tired, decimated and in need of either retiring back for some rest/recovery/replenisment.
Rusty soldiers will get sent right into first line with all their rusty weapons, and other stock they have to buy themselves if they wish to not bleed to death from simple wounds. https://t.co/JEAxSNOLer https://t.co/GBhRj0g3y3 https://t.co/JnlN5lq51G
Also all this mobilization is unexplicably happening at the start of fall/winter seasons. When/if Russians finally manage to ship most of the people to Ukraine, it will already be winter, and they'll be freezing to death in areas with no working infrastructure, just like during late winter/early autmn earlier this year.
I really don't get it. The leadership must be grasping at straws with very little regard for human life.
I'd guess that this will end much sooner than it will come to pure population numbers on RUS/UA side of things.
But the prospect of full blown WW3 is now much more real than it was a month ago, that's for sure.
But the prospect of full blown WW3 is now much more real than it was a month ago, that's for sure.
World war? Between what systems of alliance? Does China want to stand with Russia? Esp. if nukes fly as Russia has threatened, what nation will ally themselves with Russia in a full-scale global conflict?
If I had to guess (and I'm really hoping that I'm wrong) I'd say that RUS will use small tactical nuclear weapons on UA which will trigger NATO response. Either direct on indirect but with such impact that it will not matter so RUS will escalate the conflict with NATO.
China is a question but I'd say that noone is benefiting from WW3 apart from perhaps military industry. So I don't really believe China will be too happy because they have a lot going on internally and they don't really need aditional problems that RUS will inevitably cause them.
But as I said: I really hope that time will prove me wrong.
China is a question but I'd say that noone is benefiting from WW3 apart from perhaps military industry. So I don't really believe China will be too happy because they have a lot going on internally and they don't really need aditional problems that RUS will inevitably cause them.
But as I said: I really hope that time will prove me wrong.
> I'd say that noone is benefiting from WW3 apart from perhaps military industry.
What do you mean? If nuclear escalation happens and WW3 is triggered there is absolutely no world for the military industry to benefit from. Weapons will be required, of course, so production will continue but there would be no semblance of economy or governments as we know them now.
Nukes flying are world-ending, at least the human world and societies we currently experience. There's no profit to be made in total global mayhem.
What do you mean? If nuclear escalation happens and WW3 is triggered there is absolutely no world for the military industry to benefit from. Weapons will be required, of course, so production will continue but there would be no semblance of economy or governments as we know them now.
Nukes flying are world-ending, at least the human world and societies we currently experience. There's no profit to be made in total global mayhem.
World war by itself would benefit military industry directly. That's not saying that they wish for WW3 in any means as the destruction (or crippling) of society would be huge and it would take many years to recover.
WW3 does not necessarily mean nukes at all. I personally think - based on how Russian generals used the military funding to enrich themselves - that most of the Russian nukes are not operational. They might have some low-yield "tactical" nukes (something like nuclear grenades). And I seriously doubt that US would use theirs since as soon as you use nukes, everyone will and after that there is no winner anymore.
WW3 does not necessarily mean nukes at all. I personally think - based on how Russian generals used the military funding to enrich themselves - that most of the Russian nukes are not operational. They might have some low-yield "tactical" nukes (something like nuclear grenades). And I seriously doubt that US would use theirs since as soon as you use nukes, everyone will and after that there is no winner anymore.
> There's no profit to be made in total global mayhem.
Unless you calculate you can be the last man standing in a world with drastically reduced pressure on natural resources due to depopulation
Unless you calculate you can be the last man standing in a world with drastically reduced pressure on natural resources due to depopulation
World War in the sense of nuclear weapons and the whole West at war.
Even if it stays that way - Russia against the West - and even if on paper Russia will lose since they are alone - nukes can fly especially over Europe. I'd understand why someone would call that a World War.
There is also a formality in the definition of war vs "special operation". When Russia formally declares war against Ukraine, the West will be considered a cobelligerent if they supply Ukraine with weapons. The partial mobilization is a step towards that
Even if it stays that way - Russia against the West - and even if on paper Russia will lose since they are alone - nukes can fly especially over Europe. I'd understand why someone would call that a World War.
There is also a formality in the definition of war vs "special operation". When Russia formally declares war against Ukraine, the West will be considered a cobelligerent if they supply Ukraine with weapons. The partial mobilization is a step towards that
Here be the entrance to “The Great Filter.” May our civilization survive and prosper.
What if China decides to make a move against Taiwan?
A direct war between NATO and Russia will go nuclear and cause tens of millions of casualties in the best case
If you want to go and fight, do it yourself
If you want to go and fight, do it yourself
Why? India is fighting China over a border conflict, no nukes used. Why would you think NATO securing Ukraine would end in a nuclear war? It's not as if either NATO or Russia is attacking on the others soil. Ukraine is neither NATO nor Russia, so there is no reason to claim it would be a direct conflict.
Fighting is a stretch. It’s fisticuffs. Sometimes involves the use of melee weapons. There are agreements in place banning the use of firearms.
> Is it time to make this a reality?
Nobody is going to directly engage a global nuclear superpower in armed conflict unless they are literally being invaded.
> purely from a population perspective, Ukraine will fail eventually unless they can effectively force-multiply like we've never seen in any other armed conflict.
Successful invasions and occupations are not decided "purely from a population perspective".
Nobody is going to directly engage a global nuclear superpower in armed conflict unless they are literally being invaded.
> purely from a population perspective, Ukraine will fail eventually unless they can effectively force-multiply like we've never seen in any other armed conflict.
Successful invasions and occupations are not decided "purely from a population perspective".
Oh, so why did "Korean" and "Vietnamese" pilots suddenly started speaking russian when they were shot down?
USSR directly engaged USA, China did the same in Korean War.
USSR directly engaged USA, China did the same in Korean War.
There are already US citizens fighting Russia in Ukraine. As long as there's plausible (or honest) deniability, USA and Russia aren't directly engaging in combat.
>There are already US citizens fighting Russia in Ukraine.
Those aren't active US serviceman.
Those aren't active US serviceman.
> Is it time to make this a reality?
That feels like it would increase the risk of nuclear escalation and strengthen domestic Russian support for the war.
That feels like it would increase the risk of nuclear escalation and strengthen domestic Russian support for the war.
>purely from a population perspective, Ukraine will fail
Ukraine has a long waiting list of people wanting to fight, Russia has been having to recruit in prisons as there is a shortage or Russians wanting to go be cannon fodder. This mobilization is supposed to help that but even so I'm not sure Russia has much of a manpower advantage. Also with modern weaponry sending out crap unmotivated troops doesn't work that well - one of the first groups of prisoners sent out just surrendered to Ukraine en mass.
Ukraine has a long waiting list of people wanting to fight, Russia has been having to recruit in prisons as there is a shortage or Russians wanting to go be cannon fodder. This mobilization is supposed to help that but even so I'm not sure Russia has much of a manpower advantage. Also with modern weaponry sending out crap unmotivated troops doesn't work that well - one of the first groups of prisoners sent out just surrendered to Ukraine en mass.
> Ukraine will fail eventually unless they can effectively force-multiply like we've never seen in any other armed conflict.
If I look at other conflicts, especially in the middle east, population numbers aren't everything. Occupying a territory cost money and people the longer it last unless the occupation is willing to commit genocide and eradicate everyone who lives there. Ukraine is also a very large country, and even with the goal of lebensraum, it will take time for Russia to move Russians settlers over there so that they don't need to spread their military to uphold control over all the land. Ukraine on the other hand can focus their military on the conflict border without needing to keep troops behind to prevent insurgence.
If I look at other conflicts, especially in the middle east, population numbers aren't everything. Occupying a territory cost money and people the longer it last unless the occupation is willing to commit genocide and eradicate everyone who lives there. Ukraine is also a very large country, and even with the goal of lebensraum, it will take time for Russia to move Russians settlers over there so that they don't need to spread their military to uphold control over all the land. Ukraine on the other hand can focus their military on the conflict border without needing to keep troops behind to prevent insurgence.
>Their main propaganda news channel has already said (incorrectly) that they are already fighting NATO and US troops in the breakaway areas.
Thats interesting, I'm not doubting you but I would like to see the original source if possible, got a link?
Thats interesting, I'm not doubting you but I would like to see the original source if possible, got a link?
Julia Davis tracks russian media. One of the examples of that is here:
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/157165441023281152...
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/157165441023281152...
Stratpol vidéos in France are entertaining, but you can find on Twitter Russian media pundits talking about 'Nato army' and stuff . Some ironically (hopefully he won't fall off his window).
Thanks, someone is doing a useful service translating Russian TV for the rest of us!
Nein. Germany will block it. See, its very convenient to have a weak east europe.
Their automotive industry and demography are on catastrophic crossroads, ~100 mln of people and the land between Germany and Russia are just such convenient resources.
Their automotive industry depends on east europe, and is a massive source of pollution and clocked cars. Some countries tried banning old german cars but obviously the eu “threatened” them with “sanctions”. So its not just the resources they are after but also their pockets and health. Just here on this forum you can see many express disdain at east europeans, more than any other group of people, instead of acting like actual allies. Perhaps poland’s idea of germany paying its debt to east europe is not such a bad idea and should be taken care of in full force once this war is over.
It is interesting how neither the Russians nor the West delves on to what extent this whole affair is about Germany, and the role Germany played in all this. Even now, the official narratives involving Germany focus on foot dragging on arming, stuff like that, whereas the actual geopolitical story is so much more 'interesting'.
Btw, history calls with a rude interruption to remind that the Germans were also the first to give the Yugoslavian civil war a nice big push to get it going.
https://apnews.com/article/f07f4162e6bb20a7039c69d10e526a62
p.s. EU (Germany+France) + Russia + China as foundational to next layer BRI + BRICS, countering "Anglo-Saxon" Empire of Waters.
This is what the war is actually about. Take out the Schnaps and get Schroeder and Merkle drunk and they will tell you all about it. :-)
[preemptive p.s.s. Yes, of course, but that's why NS2 had to be stopped.]
Btw, history calls with a rude interruption to remind that the Germans were also the first to give the Yugoslavian civil war a nice big push to get it going.
https://apnews.com/article/f07f4162e6bb20a7039c69d10e526a62
p.s. EU (Germany+France) + Russia + China as foundational to next layer BRI + BRICS, countering "Anglo-Saxon" Empire of Waters.
This is what the war is actually about. Take out the Schnaps and get Schroeder and Merkle drunk and they will tell you all about it. :-)
[preemptive p.s.s. Yes, of course, but that's why NS2 had to be stopped.]
> It is interesting how neither the Russians nor the West delves on to what extent this whole affair is about Germany, and the role Germany played in all this.
And thats fine, because the issue is neither russia not the west. The issue is east europe, the region of it thats sandwiched between russia and central europe (germany). Just to be clear, my aim is not germans but german politics which find it extremely convenient that a weak east europe cant compete with germany.
In regards to croatia and slovenia, and pretty much all other east eu countries, indeed germany has a good humanitarian track record and has been a steady supporter of democratisation of these countries. But somehow it managed to block their development through excessive regulation, and excessive chauvinism.
There is no debate about east europe on here where a person from that country doesnt throw in corruption and poverty, none of which are on a scale as bad as so dominate every.single.discussion.
Americans dont exhibit the same behaviour when it comes to india, yet india is far poorer and far more corrupt than any east eu country, yet germans always poop on poland, hungary, romania, and so on. A very inhibitive approach in my view, and very non allied like behaviour.
And thats fine, because the issue is neither russia not the west. The issue is east europe, the region of it thats sandwiched between russia and central europe (germany). Just to be clear, my aim is not germans but german politics which find it extremely convenient that a weak east europe cant compete with germany.
In regards to croatia and slovenia, and pretty much all other east eu countries, indeed germany has a good humanitarian track record and has been a steady supporter of democratisation of these countries. But somehow it managed to block their development through excessive regulation, and excessive chauvinism.
There is no debate about east europe on here where a person from that country doesnt throw in corruption and poverty, none of which are on a scale as bad as so dominate every.single.discussion.
Americans dont exhibit the same behaviour when it comes to india, yet india is far poorer and far more corrupt than any east eu country, yet germans always poop on poland, hungary, romania, and so on. A very inhibitive approach in my view, and very non allied like behaviour.
The EU is an alliance of shared interests and some very basic shared ideals. We are allies, not soulmates or lovers.
That is not intended to defend people who speak ill of their neighbours. Bad manners are always ugly. Just pointing out that being nice is not a prerequisite for being a useful and even so.ewhat dependable ally.
That is not intended to defend people who speak ill of their neighbours. Bad manners are always ugly. Just pointing out that being nice is not a prerequisite for being a useful and even so.ewhat dependable ally.
> We are allies, not soulmates or lovers.
To me it appears exactly that. One is abusive one is complacent. S/he hits me because s/he loves me. Thats the attitude of people in allied countries each time germany or the eu imposes sanctions because of “corruption” or some other wanna be do good reason, all the while their corrupt partners in the two entities walk free. In fact it hits the very same people, whom somehow think bowing their heads and slaving around europe is a good idea. Instead they should develop a personality and standup. When they warned germany its policies towards russia would backfire and were ignored they should have played the sanctions game just as hard. Do business with russia, but dont sell scrapyard cars in east europe. Abuse workers and smear them in the media, dont do business in east europe.
To me it appears exactly that. One is abusive one is complacent. S/he hits me because s/he loves me. Thats the attitude of people in allied countries each time germany or the eu imposes sanctions because of “corruption” or some other wanna be do good reason, all the while their corrupt partners in the two entities walk free. In fact it hits the very same people, whom somehow think bowing their heads and slaving around europe is a good idea. Instead they should develop a personality and standup. When they warned germany its policies towards russia would backfire and were ignored they should have played the sanctions game just as hard. Do business with russia, but dont sell scrapyard cars in east europe. Abuse workers and smear them in the media, dont do business in east europe.
[deleted]
130 points, 3 hours ago, 184 comments
Not on the front page or the second page of HN.
The comments have been civil, all things considered. These events have been extremely consequential and possibly the root cause of the looming global recession.
Not on the front page or the second page of HN.
The comments have been civil, all things considered. These events have been extremely consequential and possibly the root cause of the looming global recession.
C'mon, you can't expect potential WW3 to trump the current #1 item on HN: a 2011 article about "Effects of grill patterns on fan performance/noise".
[deleted]
That’s the beauty of HN. Being able to talk about important events and still be civil when discussing them.
I didn’t upvote the article because I thought the article was lacking details. Example:
>>>“New concepts were introduced into the Russian Criminal Code: including “voluntary surrender,” “looting,” “mobilization,” “martial law” and “wartime.””
>>>The rulings were passed unanimously.”
In my opinion, the article is lacking for not including the actual new code or sentences from the code.
I didn’t upvote the article because I thought the article was lacking details. Example:
>>>“New concepts were introduced into the Russian Criminal Code: including “voluntary surrender,” “looting,” “mobilization,” “martial law” and “wartime.””
>>>The rulings were passed unanimously.”
In my opinion, the article is lacking for not including the actual new code or sentences from the code.
Probably manually moderated out by dang in favour of another submission about lisp with 11 comments.
At least he doesn't purge /active which became my default some time ago.
At least he doesn't purge /active which became my default some time ago.
It is usually recommended here to read information from sources, here:
Address by the President of the Russian Federation (English transcript) [1] (video in Russian, no subs)[2]
[1] http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/69390
[2] http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/69390
Address by the President of the Russian Federation (English transcript) [1] (video in Russian, no subs)[2]
[1] http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/69390
[2] http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/69390
Excerpts clarifying what is meant by "partial mobilization":
As I have said, we are talking about partial mobilisation. In other words, only military reservists, primarily those who served in the armed forces and have specific military occupational specialties and corresponding experience, will be called up.
Additionally, the Executive Order on partial mobilisation also stipulates additional measures for the fulfilment of the state defence order. The heads of defence industry enterprises will be directly responsible for attaining the goals of increasing the production of weapons and military equipment and using additional production facilities for this purpose. At the same time, the Government must address without any delay all aspects of material, resource and financial support for our defence enterprises.
As I have said, we are talking about partial mobilisation. In other words, only military reservists, primarily those who served in the armed forces and have specific military occupational specialties and corresponding experience, will be called up.
Additionally, the Executive Order on partial mobilisation also stipulates additional measures for the fulfilment of the state defence order. The heads of defence industry enterprises will be directly responsible for attaining the goals of increasing the production of weapons and military equipment and using additional production facilities for this purpose. At the same time, the Government must address without any delay all aspects of material, resource and financial support for our defence enterprises.
Also, official Telegram channel of Ministry of Defence posted[1][3] this transcript from Interview of the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation, General of the Army S. K. Shoigu[2][4]
And, of course, I want to precede the questions that can appear in this regard: there is nothing to do with mobilising or conscripting students that currently study in higher educational institutions. All of them attend classes and nobody is going to conscript or to mobilise them.
The same is about those who are currently in draft service. They are neither involved in it. They are not to be mobilised or sent to be involved in the special military operation. Our conscripts continue serving at the territory of the Russian Federation as they did before.
That is because we have got an enormous mobilisation resource, the resource of those who have served. There are about 25 million of those who have combat experience and military profession.
Therefore you can understand that this mobilisation is partial: one per cent or a bit more from the entire mobilisation resource.
[1] https://t.me/mod_russia/20029 [2] https://telegra.ph/Intervyu-Ministra-oborony-Rossijskoj-Fede... [3] https://t.me/mod_russia_en/4198 [4] https://telegra.ph/Interview-of-the-Minister-of-Defence-of-t...
And, of course, I want to precede the questions that can appear in this regard: there is nothing to do with mobilising or conscripting students that currently study in higher educational institutions. All of them attend classes and nobody is going to conscript or to mobilise them.
The same is about those who are currently in draft service. They are neither involved in it. They are not to be mobilised or sent to be involved in the special military operation. Our conscripts continue serving at the territory of the Russian Federation as they did before.
That is because we have got an enormous mobilisation resource, the resource of those who have served. There are about 25 million of those who have combat experience and military profession.
Therefore you can understand that this mobilisation is partial: one per cent or a bit more from the entire mobilisation resource.
[1] https://t.me/mod_russia/20029 [2] https://telegra.ph/Intervyu-Ministra-oborony-Rossijskoj-Fede... [3] https://t.me/mod_russia_en/4198 [4] https://telegra.ph/Interview-of-the-Minister-of-Defence-of-t...
"partial" is part of the speech, but not of the decree which does not specify who can be mobilized: https://twitter.com/DrRadchenko/status/1572486143198756868
Can someone Russian explain what on earth they are thinking? Russia appears to have 10x the casualties as Ukraine, soldiers that doesn't really want to fight, and are currently losing. Yet the leaders think it is a good idea to keep the war going? To me it seems that with the material Ukraine is receiving from the West they will easily retake all territory Russia has occupied.
> what on earth they are thinking
Honestly, we don't know either.
It looks like panic? A last resort (before nuclear, god forbid)? An agony? Rejection of reality? Some kind anger/bargain, in terms of stages of grief?
This whimsical child plays with our lives and lives of Ukrainians, I've never been so ashamed to share a country with him.
Honestly, we don't know either.
It looks like panic? A last resort (before nuclear, god forbid)? An agony? Rejection of reality? Some kind anger/bargain, in terms of stages of grief?
This whimsical child plays with our lives and lives of Ukrainians, I've never been so ashamed to share a country with him.
>Russia appears to have 10x the casualties as Ukraine
Reliable source? That isn't what I read anywhere from not-so-partial sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrain...
Reliable source? That isn't what I read anywhere from not-so-partial sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrain...
I like how Russian forces have various estimates, but for Ukrainian forces we take Ukraine data for granted, while the truth is both countries are highly likely downplaying their losses, same as both of their dictators are same corrupted thieves as proven in Pandora Papers last year when they were appearing together in all articles. Can't believe someone believes any data coming from these 3rd world countries.
Of course both sides have an interest in downplaying their losses, and exaggerating their victories. Do you think that reporters and conflict analysts aren't perfectly aware of this ancient fact?
Where are then US, UK and other countries estimates about Ukraine losses? Because they certainly aren't in linked Wikipedia article and all I can find in Google is just Ukrainian propaganda and few articles from Russian claims (which are on opposite side of spectrum, not thta those ridiculous US estimates would not be propaganda as well).
> all I can find in Google is just Ukrainian propaganda
There is no use discussing it if any results that contradict you are "propaganda"
There is no use discussing it if any results that contradict you are "propaganda"
> all I can find in Google is just Ukrainian propaganda and few articles from Russian claims
As I said all I can find for Ukrainian losses is Ukrainian propaganda straight from Ukrainian gov or Russian propaganda from Russian gov. I wanna filter out both of these extremes and see some reasonable numbers since any data from RU/UA are clearly completely unrealistic for their own purposes.
"Information" spread by Ukrainian gov ais well known propaganda and not "information", there is no point to call them otherwise.
There is really no use of discussing it if you can't provide independent estimates by UK, US or even better some more neutral observers like China, India, etc.
As I said all I can find for Ukrainian losses is Ukrainian propaganda straight from Ukrainian gov or Russian propaganda from Russian gov. I wanna filter out both of these extremes and see some reasonable numbers since any data from RU/UA are clearly completely unrealistic for their own purposes.
"Information" spread by Ukrainian gov ais well known propaganda and not "information", there is no point to call them otherwise.
There is really no use of discussing it if you can't provide independent estimates by UK, US or even better some more neutral observers like China, India, etc.
Officials say there are close to 6k dead. Mobilization wants 300k recruits. This doesn't add up at all.
Not sure about 10x casualties as Ukraine, but I'm sure it's 10x of what they're saying
Not sure about 10x casualties as Ukraine, but I'm sure it's 10x of what they're saying
Recruiting 300k and number of dead soldiers are not always correlate.
It's amount of land to control and amount of soldiers required is in correlation.
RF seems underestimate amount of soldiers need to control and protect land, they dropped lot of land and reduced length border to protect.
Just like we're in a bubble that says "haha Russia is losing, so naive", they're in a bubble that says "haha Russia is greatest army, winning everywhere where those dirty Americans aren't cheating. Ukraine is shelling its own villages for PR".
Edit: except their bubble seems a lot harder.
Edit: except their bubble seems a lot harder.
[deleted]
Gotta try to save face. Russians will continue to support their government in Ukraine if they believe it is still doing well in Ukraine.
Russia has no military capabilities to feed and transport so many soldiers, let alone train them, officers are already in Ukraine and probably already dead. It's basically cannon fodder.
> It's basically cannon fodder.
Yep, same as Luhansk and Donetsk "volunteers", with WWI vintage rifles and 1960s tanks. This hasn't worked since WWI, or even before (the humiliations against China) so I'm curious how they see this playing out.
Yep, same as Luhansk and Donetsk "volunteers", with WWI vintage rifles and 1960s tanks. This hasn't worked since WWI, or even before (the humiliations against China) so I'm curious how they see this playing out.
Is there any scenario from this point onwards, any at all that results in Russia coming out stronger once the smoke clears?
Because I can't see any.
Seems to me like the Russian govt are now in a situation where they have no choice but to see this thing through just to try and save face.
Because I can't see any.
Seems to me like the Russian govt are now in a situation where they have no choice but to see this thing through just to try and save face.
I am not a historian, so this post is just describing my own impression. I may be wrong, but this is at least how I perceived the historical events.
The past 10-20 years have been a tragedy for the relationship between Russia and Europe, and a failure from Putin to take advantage of the goodwill that existed after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Many European countries actually wanted a close relationship with Russia, as they (naively) thought that it was moving in a democratic direction. Lots of companies started offices in Russia and countries like Germany trusted Russia enough to supply them with gas. They will probably not do that again unless they have alternative suppliers.
There were of course some negative rhetorics from old school politicians, and Europe were still close allies with US. But the general hope was that Russia was moving closer to Europe and that in time they could perhaps even join the EU to create a new political and economical power.
Unfortunately Putin decided to go in the opposite direction and trying to rebuild the old empire. Oligarks made it difficult to do business and the political rhetorics made "the west" into an enemy.
The only way I see Russia coming out of this stronger, is if the pressure from the people is high enough to let a real democratic election vote in a new leadership that can reduce corruption. This could start repairing foreign relations which would improve the economic situation. Maybe we could get back to the optimism we had 15-20 years ago.
This is probably not likely to happen in the short term.
The only "upside" of this war is that due to the dependency on gas from Russia, Europe will accelerate the process of switching to greener energy. Windmills, solar power and maybe even nuclear power plants. This may be remembered in history as the turning point in the reduction of global warning, that came with a high human cost.
The past 10-20 years have been a tragedy for the relationship between Russia and Europe, and a failure from Putin to take advantage of the goodwill that existed after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Many European countries actually wanted a close relationship with Russia, as they (naively) thought that it was moving in a democratic direction. Lots of companies started offices in Russia and countries like Germany trusted Russia enough to supply them with gas. They will probably not do that again unless they have alternative suppliers.
There were of course some negative rhetorics from old school politicians, and Europe were still close allies with US. But the general hope was that Russia was moving closer to Europe and that in time they could perhaps even join the EU to create a new political and economical power.
Unfortunately Putin decided to go in the opposite direction and trying to rebuild the old empire. Oligarks made it difficult to do business and the political rhetorics made "the west" into an enemy.
The only way I see Russia coming out of this stronger, is if the pressure from the people is high enough to let a real democratic election vote in a new leadership that can reduce corruption. This could start repairing foreign relations which would improve the economic situation. Maybe we could get back to the optimism we had 15-20 years ago.
This is probably not likely to happen in the short term.
The only "upside" of this war is that due to the dependency on gas from Russia, Europe will accelerate the process of switching to greener energy. Windmills, solar power and maybe even nuclear power plants. This may be remembered in history as the turning point in the reduction of global warning, that came with a high human cost.
If they could conquer Ukraine and effectively quell unrest, the Federation could be said to have come out stronger. That is very unlikely though, with the Ukrainian army getting effective support.
If they manage to hold the land bridge to Krim and negotiate a cease-fire, it can be argued that they had limited success in their objectives. But at a huge economic and humanitarian cost.
And in a nuclear war, nobody wins. So stronger could only be used in relative terms.
If they manage to hold the land bridge to Krim and negotiate a cease-fire, it can be argued that they had limited success in their objectives. But at a huge economic and humanitarian cost.
And in a nuclear war, nobody wins. So stronger could only be used in relative terms.
> If they could conquer Ukraine and effectively quell unrest, the Federation could be said to have come out stronger
Even that is doubtful. They have lost tens of thousands of their best troops, tons of expensive equipment, and destroyed their economy short (sanctions and blackmail) and long term (nobody would trust them again as a reliable supplier, so their exports of raw materials economy will suffer).
Even that is doubtful. They have lost tens of thousands of their best troops, tons of expensive equipment, and destroyed their economy short (sanctions and blackmail) and long term (nobody would trust them again as a reliable supplier, so their exports of raw materials economy will suffer).
International trade keeps going. Just because some economies have curbed trading with Russia does not mean they've run out of trading partners. It is doubtful the sanctions would remain in place for long after a capitulation of Ukraine.
Losing troops and military equipment is insignificant in the long term. Both have to be replaced regularly anyway. That is no loss unless one counts the pollution and the humanitarian cost. And we know the Russian government doesn't consider those costs.
From my point of view, if they could pull it off, the Russian Federation would be stronger having annexed Ukraine. Not that I want to see that scenario, or think it likely.
Losing troops and military equipment is insignificant in the long term. Both have to be replaced regularly anyway. That is no loss unless one counts the pollution and the humanitarian cost. And we know the Russian government doesn't consider those costs.
From my point of view, if they could pull it off, the Russian Federation would be stronger having annexed Ukraine. Not that I want to see that scenario, or think it likely.
> It is doubtful the sanctions would remain in place for long after a capitulation of Ukraine.
I doubt that. The sanctions from 2014 have remained in place even during the "quiet" years.
I doubt that. The sanctions from 2014 have remained in place even during the "quiet" years.
Maybe that was because those sanctions didn't hurt much?
[deleted]
Would the West intervene in a nuclear war limited to Ukrainian territory?
In such case i would open NATO armoury for Ukrainians and gift them all the shiny toys they are willing to take.
I would assume so. Probably not with a nuclear answer, but some restricted air strikes against Russian troops inside Ukrainian territory.
You know radioactivity residues travel fast, and to any direction right?
I wonder what that scenario would bring the Russian army. Tactical nukes against military targets are not that much more effective than a bunch of conventional missiles. Nuking the population would be hard to justify in their narrative.
On the other side, I don't know who would intervene. The risk of further escalation might lead to the acceptance of nuclear genocide limited to Ukraine. And Ukrainian capitulation would be swift if Russia demonstrated they were willing to attack the population with nuclear bombs. The whole scenario is difficult to imagine. The last time civilians got nuked is 77 years ago. And the Japanese people had nobody who could have retaliated for them.
On the other side, I don't know who would intervene. The risk of further escalation might lead to the acceptance of nuclear genocide limited to Ukraine. And Ukrainian capitulation would be swift if Russia demonstrated they were willing to attack the population with nuclear bombs. The whole scenario is difficult to imagine. The last time civilians got nuked is 77 years ago. And the Japanese people had nobody who could have retaliated for them.
Mobilization could be a sign that it's no longer about face but about ass.
What does this mean?
I presume its about what to „save“ as in „saving face“, i.e. keeping your reputation intact vs. „Saving ass“, i.e. staying alive/in power.
Keeping up the facade of this being a „special military operation“ left alive the excuse of „we are not really trying all that hard to win this“ whereas (partial) mobilization more signlas towards „this is going south lets do whatever works to end this“
Keeping up the facade of this being a „special military operation“ left alive the excuse of „we are not really trying all that hard to win this“ whereas (partial) mobilization more signlas towards „this is going south lets do whatever works to end this“
Are they going to try to blame this failure on the soldiers?
[deleted]
Regarding the "Partial" claim: https://twitter.com/JanR210/status/1572498112840695809
Aeroflot stopped selling air tickets to all Russian men aged 18-65 who don’t have authorization from the military office (voenkomat).
Aeroflot stopped selling air tickets to all Russian men aged 18-65 who don’t have authorization from the military office (voenkomat).
This is fake (at least for now). They can sell it. All tickets to Turkey, Dubai have already sold
It seems to me that the occupied regions of Ukraine are very vast and cannot be controlled by the number of Russian troops that they now have in Ukraine. Accordingly, more human resources are needed, so they want to close this gap with the help of this call (about 300 thousand soldiers).
Well good news then, the occupied regions of Ukraine just got smaller.
....ten years in a prison that probably isn't going to exist...
Will the winter and the frozen ground give advantages to Russia? When is this likely to happen?
I heard that the February invasion was too late and that the thaw was beginning, hampering access.
I heard that the February invasion was too late and that the thaw was beginning, hampering access.
Given their piss poor logistics and supplies, it seems very unlikely that they will be prepared for a winter invasion. Those men will freeze to death.
According to Shoigu (their minister of Defence) they'll use the conscripted men in order to secure the existing front-line, which is quite long. Couple that with the incoming referendums during which the regions that now Russia controls in Southern and Eastern Ukraine will vote for an annexation to Russia, which makes me doubtful that the Russian Army will try and make a push further North across the Dnieper or even towards Mykolaiv or Odessa. Not sure though what will happen with the part of Donetsk region that they do no presently control, i.e. to cities like Kramatorsk and Slavyansk. As such, I don't think that the ground being frozen or not will have such a big effect going forward.
Of course, I might be wrong on all this and the Russians launching a new offensive on Kiev and Kharkov.
Of course, I might be wrong on all this and the Russians launching a new offensive on Kiev and Kharkov.
Kyiv and Kharkiv
I think it is more correct to use Ukrainian names for Ukrainian cities over Russian.
I think it is more correct to use Ukrainian names for Ukrainian cities over Russian.
Kiev and Kharkov is what we use in Romanian (spelled in a slightly different manner, but pronounced the same), I think I can manage this. Were I to speak or write in Ukrainian (which is a language I don't know, for the time being) I would have used the Ukrainian spelling.
Winter means you need winter outfit and that was a problem in February. No idea if it still is.
(CNBC) Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday announced a partial military mobilization in Russia, putting the country's people and economy on a wartime footing as Moscow's invasion of Ukraine continues.
In a rare pre-recorded televised announcement, Putin said the West "wants to destroy our country" and claimed the West had tried to "turn Ukraine's people into cannon fodder," in comments translated by Reuters, repeating earlier claims in which he has blamed Western nations for starting a proxy war with Russia.
Putin said "mobilization events" would begin Wednesday without providing further details, aside from saying that he had ordered an increase in funding to boost Russia's weapons production, having committed (and lost) a large amount of weaponry during the conflict, which began in late February.
In a rare pre-recorded televised announcement, Putin said the West "wants to destroy our country" and claimed the West had tried to "turn Ukraine's people into cannon fodder," in comments translated by Reuters, repeating earlier claims in which he has blamed Western nations for starting a proxy war with Russia.
Putin said "mobilization events" would begin Wednesday without providing further details, aside from saying that he had ordered an increase in funding to boost Russia's weapons production, having committed (and lost) a large amount of weaponry during the conflict, which began in late February.
Partial... impartial...
There is no such thing as "partial mobilization".
There is a law on mobilization, but who cares about laws there days in Russia.
The main objective of this mobilization is to call up to 5mln conscripts in the army.
This morning, people already started to receive summons in person.
There is no such thing as "partial mobilization".
There is a law on mobilization, but who cares about laws there days in Russia.
The main objective of this mobilization is to call up to 5mln conscripts in the army.
This morning, people already started to receive summons in person.
It is a bit like the "balanced stance", what does a balanced stance on an invasion even mean?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2022/sep/15/putin-th...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2022/sep/15/putin-th...
[deleted]
>There is no such thing as "partial mobilization".
What do you mean by this? If you have 2 million men available in a full mobilization but call up only 300.000 this seems partial?
What do you mean by this? If you have 2 million men available in a full mobilization but call up only 300.000 this seems partial?
They will call them later. 300,000 noobs with minimal training, physique, crappy equipment, low morale and useless aparatchik leaders will be sent to meat grinder of eastern Ukraine. "Nas mnogo" strategy barely worked in WWII, with modern warfare (and continuing western aid) they won't make that much difference.
High tech equipment in good numbers is what decides outcomes these days when armies clash. Plus Ukraine can and does use insurgency on their lost territories, no army ever including the best one won against this.
High tech equipment in good numbers is what decides outcomes these days when armies clash. Plus Ukraine can and does use insurgency on their lost territories, no army ever including the best one won against this.
It’s more a political signal sent to the west. Russia was designing the war in Ukraine as a special operation. That put some limits on what they could officially do.
With the referendum in Donetsk and Luhansk, Russia is reframing the conflict as happening on Russian soil. That allows them to declare it a war and open the door to nuclear retaliation.
Mobilising and calling it a proxy war play with this line. It’s basically Russia telling the west they are serious about escalating if they keep pushing.
With the referendum in Donetsk and Luhansk, Russia is reframing the conflict as happening on Russian soil. That allows them to declare it a war and open the door to nuclear retaliation.
Mobilising and calling it a proxy war play with this line. It’s basically Russia telling the west they are serious about escalating if they keep pushing.
> It’s basically Russia telling the west they are serious about escalating if they keep pushing.
I think that's the message Russia believes it is conveying. The information I think they are really signaling (outside of the rhetoric), and what I suspect Nato sees, is that Russia is conceding that it cannot win and hoping its bluff will freeze the conflict, which I don't think it will do.
I think that's the message Russia believes it is conveying. The information I think they are really signaling (outside of the rhetoric), and what I suspect Nato sees, is that Russia is conceding that it cannot win and hoping its bluff will freeze the conflict, which I don't think it will do.
Russia remains a nuclear power. NATO should be and is careful.
I agree they know they can’t win but they now need an exit ramp. That’s what I personally read in their posture.
It would probably be wise to give them one.
I agree they know they can’t win but they now need an exit ramp. That’s what I personally read in their posture.
It would probably be wise to give them one.
The "exit ramp" is that they withdraw from Ukraine, or at the very very least they withdraw to the lines that existed before 2022.
I'm really not sure what else people who say this mean.
I'm really not sure what else people who say this mean.
What I mean is that we need to use diplomacy to allow Russia a way to enter negotiations and stop the war while keeping a modicum of face. There is absolutely no chance Russia just leaves Ukraine on their own while saying "we have lost, we were bad and will now behave as you wish" so there would be little point insisting on that. If what we want is a come back to pre-invasion frontiers we need to give them a way to spin that as an acceptable outcome.
The alternative is escalation and that doesn’t seem to end well. It might be what the USA wants - they are unlikely to be the ones nuked after all but Europe would be bearing the most of it and that’s not something I wish.
The alternative is escalation and that doesn’t seem to end well. It might be what the USA wants - they are unlikely to be the ones nuked after all but Europe would be bearing the most of it and that’s not something I wish.
If they did it in Afghanistan, utterly losing and achieving nothing (at least good for them), they can do it again. Especially if its all their fault and incompetence and self-caused harm. Why should rest of the world babysit some mobster maniac's ego so his feelings are not hurt when he is killing around is beyond me.
You understand he will do it again and again, until he cannot or he is dead. Lets work on the former part for now by draining his military of any capabilities.
You understand he will do it again and again, until he cannot or he is dead. Lets work on the former part for now by draining his military of any capabilities.
You're still not really saying what you mean in practical terms, but I assume that means ceding parts of Ukraine in a peace deal. This will never happen.
The alternative isn't escalation, it's what we've seen to date: a long, grinding war.
The alternative isn't escalation, it's what we've seen to date: a long, grinding war.
It doesn’t necessarily mean ceding parts of Ukraine, no.
There are plenty of things to be negotiated here: the lifting of economic sanctions, what happen to Crimea and the Black Sea port, how far will Ukraine integration into the EU go and how fast.
I don’t understand what the USA is aiming for in Ukraine. The American media have generally been far more bellicist than they usually are for foreign regional conflicts since even before the invasion. There is something at play which I don’t entirely grasp.
There are plenty of things to be negotiated here: the lifting of economic sanctions, what happen to Crimea and the Black Sea port, how far will Ukraine integration into the EU go and how fast.
I don’t understand what the USA is aiming for in Ukraine. The American media have generally been far more bellicist than they usually are for foreign regional conflicts since even before the invasion. There is something at play which I don’t entirely grasp.
> how far will Ukraine integration into the EU
This should be only between Ukraine and EU.
Appeasement rarely works.
This should be only between Ukraine and EU.
Appeasement rarely works.
Russia has plenty of nukes for the US and Europe if Putin decides the murder-suicide path is the only way forward.
The problem with your line of thinking is that Russia needs to lose. It's citizens need to understand that it has lost. Germany after WWI didn't and it gave rise to the stab in the back myth and nationalism. If Russia is allowed to spin anything as a victory here, it and it's citizens would learn nothing and it will just be a truce. Not to mention how extremely unfair would be to deny Ukraine it's integrity to placate Russia, a violent genocidal invader.
The problem with your line of thinking is that Russia needs to lose. It's citizens need to understand that it has lost. Germany after WWI didn't and it gave rise to the stab in the back myth and nationalism. If Russia is allowed to spin anything as a victory here, it and it's citizens would learn nothing and it will just be a truce. Not to mention how extremely unfair would be to deny Ukraine it's integrity to placate Russia, a violent genocidal invader.
I tend to agree with this. Anything less than unequivocal, total loss will mean that we are right back at this in 8 or 12 years.
Nuclear countries must not be allowed to take what they want and threaten nuclear destruction if anyone tries to stop them.
That would be a terrible outcome.
Nuclear countries must not be allowed to take what they want and threaten nuclear destruction if anyone tries to stop them.
That would be a terrible outcome.
What is that supposed to achieve exactly?
The reverse of what you are writing actually happened at the end of WW1 by the way. Germany definitely understood they lost. They were humiliated, were dragged to Versailles to sign an armistice treaty and had to pay an insane reparation amount. That’s what gave rise to nationalism.
Russia army has been mostly destroyed. Its economy is faltering. Its ability to wage war is greatly reduced. Its standing on the international scene forever diminished.
There is no point in dragging them in the mud further than strictly necessary. Why back them in a corner to the point they are tempted to do the unthinkable?
The reverse of what you are writing actually happened at the end of WW1 by the way. Germany definitely understood they lost. They were humiliated, were dragged to Versailles to sign an armistice treaty and had to pay an insane reparation amount. That’s what gave rise to nationalism.
Russia army has been mostly destroyed. Its economy is faltering. Its ability to wage war is greatly reduced. Its standing on the international scene forever diminished.
There is no point in dragging them in the mud further than strictly necessary. Why back them in a corner to the point they are tempted to do the unthinkable?
> They were humiliated, were dragged to Versailles to sign an armistice treaty and had to pay an insane reparation amount.
Technically the armistice is in Compiègne, the peace treaty is in Versailles (as revenge for the proclamation of the German empire there after the Franco-Prussian war), but yes, however
> Germany definitely understood they lost.
This is false. Germans were getting glorious victories propaganda up until Ludendorff said they can't win, and threw the hot potato at the Kaiser and a civilian government was formed to seek a peace. So from a citizen's perspective, there were privations but they were winning until suddenly there's a civilian government, communist rebels and we have surrendered (to be later humiliated). Germany wasn't occupied. The German people didn't understand they lost, really, and why. Hence Ludendorff's stab in the back myth and nationalism proliferated.
> Russia army has been mostly destroyed. Its economy is faltering. Its ability to wage war is greatly reduced. Its standing on the international scene forever diminished.
But Russians don't know that because they're being fed propaganda to the opposite effect. So if today Putin declares withdrawal, Russian people won't know what happened and why, so we'll be back at it in a few years time.
The point isn't to make Russia suffer for the humiliation, but Russians need to understand they've lost and all the horrors they've inflicted while losing. And yes, they should pay for it.
Technically the armistice is in Compiègne, the peace treaty is in Versailles (as revenge for the proclamation of the German empire there after the Franco-Prussian war), but yes, however
> Germany definitely understood they lost.
This is false. Germans were getting glorious victories propaganda up until Ludendorff said they can't win, and threw the hot potato at the Kaiser and a civilian government was formed to seek a peace. So from a citizen's perspective, there were privations but they were winning until suddenly there's a civilian government, communist rebels and we have surrendered (to be later humiliated). Germany wasn't occupied. The German people didn't understand they lost, really, and why. Hence Ludendorff's stab in the back myth and nationalism proliferated.
> Russia army has been mostly destroyed. Its economy is faltering. Its ability to wage war is greatly reduced. Its standing on the international scene forever diminished.
But Russians don't know that because they're being fed propaganda to the opposite effect. So if today Putin declares withdrawal, Russian people won't know what happened and why, so we'll be back at it in a few years time.
The point isn't to make Russia suffer for the humiliation, but Russians need to understand they've lost and all the horrors they've inflicted while losing. And yes, they should pay for it.
Who is "they" in this dialectic? The Russian people definitely deserves a future.
They could even win freedom from corruption, also win democracy, and even pluralism, thanks to the outcome of this war.
They deserve no less.
Vladimir and his cronies deserves a hefty wake-up call...
russian people should do something about it then. Iron curtain didnt fell on it own, there were years of strikes involving bloody clashes with military.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_Polish_protests
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_1976_protests
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Lublin_strikes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacification_of_Wujek
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerzy_Popie%C5%82uszko#Assassi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Polish_strikes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Polish_trade_union...
Similar things were happening in Czechoslovakia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution and other European countries under Soviet occupation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_Polish_protests
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_1976_protests
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Lublin_strikes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacification_of_Wujek
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerzy_Popie%C5%82uszko#Assassi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Polish_strikes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Polish_trade_union...
Similar things were happening in Czechoslovakia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution and other European countries under Soviet occupation.
Here in the real world no one gets anything because they "deserve it".
If they want a future they have to fight for it.
If they want a future they have to fight for it.
I don't think the signal was intended primarily for the international audience. Putin is under a lot of pressure from hawks in his own ranks to win this war. They were asking him why he isn't mobilising. And now they will be saying that it's not enough. I guess there won't be enough boots for the new conscripts, so this dynamic will be interesting to watch.
I really don't think he is facing any kind of true rivalry here. Read up a bit (ie [1] is fantastic since its from 2018 but still 100% valid) on the structures of power and ingrained potential (and limits) of corruption that he gives to those under him. Its not like there is any democracy, other hawks/oligarchs with big ego need to shut up and follow within their constraints or they are murdered or imprisoned, usually pretty visibly, sometimes with whole families.
He did it in very smart way, I leave him that (plenty of KGB experience to learn from). Hitler and other dictators were proper amateurs compared to how Russia is run today. Nobody on their own has enough power to stand against him. He has a separate branch of paramilitary forces (on top of Wagner, GRU and KGB forces) that answer only to him and is there only to protect him.
What it would require is massive conspiracy and cooperation of literally all of his underlings to topple him down, which is unrealistic to ever happen. Lone shooter/poison deliverer from his closest circle may have the best chance, but I presume he has multiple safeguards there too.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF9KretXqJw
He did it in very smart way, I leave him that (plenty of KGB experience to learn from). Hitler and other dictators were proper amateurs compared to how Russia is run today. Nobody on their own has enough power to stand against him. He has a separate branch of paramilitary forces (on top of Wagner, GRU and KGB forces) that answer only to him and is there only to protect him.
What it would require is massive conspiracy and cooperation of literally all of his underlings to topple him down, which is unrealistic to ever happen. Lone shooter/poison deliverer from his closest circle may have the best chance, but I presume he has multiple safeguards there too.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF9KretXqJw
Yea I didn't want to imply that they could replace him. Or that they even aspire to that. It's more that Putin is losing the narrative. As long as people believe in his strong Russia, they are much easier to govern. As he's losing that story, he has to govern by fear. Much harder, because people will be weasely, instead of proud.
In the end, aside from talking to a bunch of Russians, I don't know the place. So my understanding is incomplete I'm sure.
In the end, aside from talking to a bunch of Russians, I don't know the place. So my understanding is incomplete I'm sure.
> With the referendum in Donetsk and Luhansk, Russia is reframing the conflict as happening on Russian soil. That allows them to declare it a war
By their logic it would allow them to declare it a Ukrainian Special Military Operation...
By their logic it would allow them to declare it a Ukrainian Special Military Operation...
To push to the extreme, you'd have to mobilize every single Russian to have a "full" mobilization.
So anything short of that is a "partial" mobilization, which would be basically be any actual mobilization.
So anything short of that is a "partial" mobilization, which would be basically be any actual mobilization.
A full mobilisation would imply mobilising all the people who can be mobilised not every single Russian. That’s not what’s happening here hence the partial.
Shigu himself stated there are 25mil people eligible for the mobilization right now in ru. Thats pretty much everyone below 60.
Partial is the opposite of complete here not of impartial. It’s the adjectival form of the noun part.
I am not sure if you were making a joke or actually misunderstood.
I am not sure if you were making a joke or actually misunderstood.
I think GP means that you either mobilise or you don't, which I can sort of get on board with, but if you say 'part of the army is mobilised' and then 'the army is partially mobilised' it seems fairly natural, even if it perhaps doesn't strictly make sense.
The actual point is that there is no such thing in Russian law. Only "mobilization" - a full, complete, impartial one. So this is actually "a mobilization", the "partiality" of it is just making it sound nice on the TV but in practice what Putin signed is a full, complete, impartial mobilization.
And it's not like they did it because that's the law they have to work with. Just yesterday they made extensive last-minute changes to many laws - especially these concerning refusal of mobilization, refusal to fight, and surrender in combat (they made it all criminal).
And it's not like they did it because that's the law they have to work with. Just yesterday they made extensive last-minute changes to many laws - especially these concerning refusal of mobilization, refusal to fight, and surrender in combat (they made it all criminal).
> This morning, people already started to receive summons in person.
Wow... That's actually quite terrifying how fast these things can go south.
Wow... That's actually quite terrifying how fast these things can go south.
I mean, they've likely been planning this for months. It's not a surprise that they had it ready to go immediately upon the public announcement.
these people are reservist. They knew and already accepted that this could happen
You know what? The majority of men in Russia are reservists.
You either served in the army or went through higher education and got away earning a leutenant rank along the way.
In reality, the state will call in all men between 20 and 27, sparing Moscow residents for the time being.
You either served in the army or went through higher education and got away earning a leutenant rank along the way.
In reality, the state will call in all men between 20 and 27, sparing Moscow residents for the time being.
>sparing Moscow residents for the time being
about that https://twitter.com/KramarenkoMari3/status/15725291528337612...
about that https://twitter.com/KramarenkoMari3/status/15725291528337612...
no, there's a difference between being a reservist and having done military service
> In reality, the state will call in all men between 20 and 27
- source ?
- all men between 20 and 27 is only 300 000 ?
> In reality, the state will call in all men between 20 and 27
- source ?
- all men between 20 and 27 is only 300 000 ?
Personally I believe that NATO should occupy the whole of Western Ukraine up to about 100km from the frontline, with a clear warning that any direct fire on NATO troops will result in retaliation. This will free up the Ukrainians to fight Russia on the frontline without worries about Belarus etc.
do you know what occupy means
Be present somewhere. What you're thinking of is a derived meaning, because usually the presence is facilitated by use of force.
Putin's approval rating since the war began has been a steady 80%+ (https://www.statista.com/statistics/896181/putin-approval-ra...). We don't know yet what September's numbers will look like, but it will likely take a hit from the retreats and losses of territory to the Ukrainians this month. Mobilization is going to drop that further. People are ok supporting a war in the abstract, but less so if they have to go out there and fight themselves. And they'll like it even less when they find that people with connections aren't being called up.
Calling for mobilization now gives them a few months to train and get equipped when winter brings fighting to a close. It'd be interesting to see where Russia finds officers for these new troops. Or maybe training/equipment/officers don't matter, if the plan is to use them as cannon fodder.
Regardless, Ukraine will find it harder to make progress next year like they've done in the last few weeks. There won't be any fronts that are thinly manned and easy to punch through like Kharkiv was.
Calling for mobilization now gives them a few months to train and get equipped when winter brings fighting to a close. It'd be interesting to see where Russia finds officers for these new troops. Or maybe training/equipment/officers don't matter, if the plan is to use them as cannon fodder.
Regardless, Ukraine will find it harder to make progress next year like they've done in the last few weeks. There won't be any fronts that are thinly manned and easy to punch through like Kharkiv was.
> Putin's approval rating since the war began has been a steady 80%+ (https://www.statista.com/statistics/896181/putin-approval-ra...).
These numbers are meaningless. Approval could be 5% and you wouldn't know, amd average russian wouldn't know.
Its difficult for a western mindset to understand the mentality.
In Russia no-one trusts that a rating agency is independant or real or has nothing to do with the government.
They will always reply that they support any official policy, even if the policy is anal probing.
Many have gone to jail for 15 years for voicing dissent. Prisons with widespread torture
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-introduce-jail-t...
I am hoping that mobilisation will cause some sort of social unrest. You don't know what everyone else is thinking, it's like the opposite of manufacturing concent
These numbers are meaningless. Approval could be 5% and you wouldn't know, amd average russian wouldn't know.
Its difficult for a western mindset to understand the mentality.
In Russia no-one trusts that a rating agency is independant or real or has nothing to do with the government.
They will always reply that they support any official policy, even if the policy is anal probing.
Many have gone to jail for 15 years for voicing dissent. Prisons with widespread torture
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-introduce-jail-t...
I am hoping that mobilisation will cause some sort of social unrest. You don't know what everyone else is thinking, it's like the opposite of manufacturing concent
How can you take these polls seriously?
The mobilization only includes people who formerly served in the military (at least 1-2 years of training). A certain percentage of them are "reservists" who work normal jobs but are summoned for a month-long military training every year to be ready in the case of war, and so they will probably be prioritized (at least according to Putin & Shoigu).
This is not cannon fodder. Russia is running out of willing soldiers, not soldiers in general.
This is not cannon fodder. Russia is running out of willing soldiers, not soldiers in general.
It’s hard to see where this ends; should things move toward weakening of the Russian government will he go without attempting to escalate his way out of domestic danger?
I think mobilisation and moving toward declaring the special operation a war (more mobilisation) could be the beginnings of that slippery slope.
I think mobilisation and moving toward declaring the special operation a war (more mobilisation) could be the beginnings of that slippery slope.
Dunno but its a bit reminicent of 1916 which led to overthrow of the Russian government https://mobile.twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/15722891550481...
Putin is "committed" so to speak, so this is just following his current strategy through to its conclusion: force the West to give up on Ukraine or accept massive escalation.
The fundamental question is - is NATO committed enough to the Ukraine cause to demolish Europe? Probably not.
Everyone talking about Russia being "already defeated" knows little of the Russian capacity for misery. Napoleon learned the hard way. The Russians also accepted losses in WW1 and the following civil war that would have destroyed most other societies (and indirectly destroyed Russia too), and of course, they continued fighting in WW2 when most democratic societies would have surrendered. Do not underestimate Russia.
Compare losses in the Brusilov Offensive alone to all-time combat losses for most other nations (including the US)...Russians will keep fighting long after it seems sensible.
Eventually Biden and Blinken will back away from Ukraine...the US public will find another Current Thing to obsess over, and US troop commitments are completely out of the question.
Basically, Russia gets Ukraine eventually, its just a matter of how bad the carnage is
The fundamental question is - is NATO committed enough to the Ukraine cause to demolish Europe? Probably not.
Everyone talking about Russia being "already defeated" knows little of the Russian capacity for misery. Napoleon learned the hard way. The Russians also accepted losses in WW1 and the following civil war that would have destroyed most other societies (and indirectly destroyed Russia too), and of course, they continued fighting in WW2 when most democratic societies would have surrendered. Do not underestimate Russia.
Compare losses in the Brusilov Offensive alone to all-time combat losses for most other nations (including the US)...Russians will keep fighting long after it seems sensible.
Eventually Biden and Blinken will back away from Ukraine...the US public will find another Current Thing to obsess over, and US troop commitments are completely out of the question.
Basically, Russia gets Ukraine eventually, its just a matter of how bad the carnage is
Russia needs to not do the same: its plays so far have assumed that the US and Europe are not willing to sacrifice anything to help Ukraine, which has turned out to be false. It also remains to be seen whether Russians ability to suffer terrible conditions translates to effectiveness in an offensive war (especially worth considering that Ukraine's most recent offensive resulted in a rout of some of Russia's most elite soldiers). With the US specifically, it has a capability of sustaining an unpopular war where american soldiers are dying for a suprisingly long time. This is a war where no US soldiers are dying and there's is both tremendous popular and political support for continuing to support Ukraine from both sides of the political spectrum (which is getting very rare. Yes there are some voices spouting Russian propaganda but they seem to have little sway).
> Everyone talking about Russia being "already defeated" knows little of the Russian capacity for misery.
This gets trotted out every time but it's a really stupid argument. Russians may have been willing to endure extremely poor conditions to defend their homeland. They're not going to do the same to invade ukraine. And no, people are not going to suddenly believe that Ukraine is their homeland because Putin has claimed it so. This is an offensive operation. If Russia declines to extreme poverty, it will simply be unable to maintain effective logistics to the front. Which is really hard to do when the enemy has accurate long range missiles and all you have is trains.
This gets trotted out every time but it's a really stupid argument. Russians may have been willing to endure extremely poor conditions to defend their homeland. They're not going to do the same to invade ukraine. And no, people are not going to suddenly believe that Ukraine is their homeland because Putin has claimed it so. This is an offensive operation. If Russia declines to extreme poverty, it will simply be unable to maintain effective logistics to the front. Which is really hard to do when the enemy has accurate long range missiles and all you have is trains.
> knows little of the Russian capacity for misery. Napoleon learned the hard way...
AS far as I know Russians from Napoleon are no longer alive so not sure how this sentiment is relevant.
AS far as I know Russians from Napoleon are no longer alive so not sure how this sentiment is relevant.
> Eventually Biden and Blinken will back away from Ukraine...the US public will find another Current Thing to obsess over, and US troop commitments are completely out of the question.
Basically, Russia gets Ukraine eventually, its just a matter of how bad the carnage is
Thank you for echoing Russian state propaganda, however your predictions are predicated on false premises that don’t match the commitments already made and fulfilled.
Your scare tactics might have sounded plausible 6 months ago, but it appears impossible for Russia to ever own and manage Ukrainian territory. The occupation has done no rebuilding, hasn’t brought drinking water supplies to occupied cities, hasn’t even managed yet to bury the bodies that still litter many streets and is an oppressive and failed occupation in every sense of the word. Presuming that this occupation is inevitable is itself a point of major contention I can’t see any evidence for.
Russia has already lost. How many more will die before it’s leadership realizes this?
Thank you for echoing Russian state propaganda, however your predictions are predicated on false premises that don’t match the commitments already made and fulfilled.
Your scare tactics might have sounded plausible 6 months ago, but it appears impossible for Russia to ever own and manage Ukrainian territory. The occupation has done no rebuilding, hasn’t brought drinking water supplies to occupied cities, hasn’t even managed yet to bury the bodies that still litter many streets and is an oppressive and failed occupation in every sense of the word. Presuming that this occupation is inevitable is itself a point of major contention I can’t see any evidence for.
Russia has already lost. How many more will die before it’s leadership realizes this?
From where are people getting reliable updates on the ground situation?
During the Gulf wars we would get all these "embedded" reporters; seems there aren't any now.
During the Gulf wars we would get all these "embedded" reporters; seems there aren't any now.
There are a lot of western reporters on the ground in the Ukraine. Sometimes more, sometimes less close to the front. One difference to earlier conflicts is, that many Ukrainians of course have smartphones and consequently can record pictures and videos. These can be cross checked by the reporters and immediately give detailed information.
It's really concerning how many people here are calling for a war between nuclear states...
Stupid question, but what does Putin want exactly? what will end the war?
At first the aim was to overthrow the Western-oriented government and install a puppet government in Ukraine. Then he realized Ukrainians didn't actually want that and were willing and able to fight back. So now he's basically looking for anything he can reasonably sell as a success to his own populace to be able to end the war as soon as possible. Annexing more of Ukraine, especially the Donbass, is one such thing. The problem is that Ukraine isn't just going to roll with that, plus sanctions will only increase, again leading to further economic decline. He really can't win anymore. Only face-saving options are becoming a second Iran / North Korea, or a Chinese vassal.
Iran is probably not the best example right now, with people on the streets rioting and shouting death to the dictator and all
He wants the natural resources of Ukraine, and he wants to reimpose the Russian Empire, whose border encompassed a larger area than that of the Soviets.
Some sort of a stalemate which he can reasonably spin as a win.
If not, he will be killed.
Now its a life and death situation for him.
If not, he will be killed.
Now its a life and death situation for him.
eh - who is going to kill him ? at this point, they would have done it already probably
There isn't really a "concession" you could give that would make Putin happy.
Whatever you give Putin, he will want more. You could give them all of Ukraine, and Putin would start plotting his next invasion on whatever country he wants next (Moldova, Latvia, Poland, Georgia, etc)
Ultimately, He wants the "right" to expand and grow the his new Russian Empire to at least the size of the old Russian Empire or the USSR without the US or the EU or NATO interfering and getting in his way.
Whatever you give Putin, he will want more. You could give them all of Ukraine, and Putin would start plotting his next invasion on whatever country he wants next (Moldova, Latvia, Poland, Georgia, etc)
Ultimately, He wants the "right" to expand and grow the his new Russian Empire to at least the size of the old Russian Empire or the USSR without the US or the EU or NATO interfering and getting in his way.
I partly understand where they're coming from with the 'evil west' moving right into their back yard. The US got pretty upset when the shoe was on the other foot in the Cuban Missile Crisis. But this is all way to out of hand now, it should have been sorted diplomatically, there's no obvious route to de-escalation that anyone finds acceptable.
Macron tried, but other european leaders have their heads stuck in their arse (cater only to their own bubble). USA is happy to sell arms and undermine european and russian economies.
> Macron tried
Not sure what he tried exactly. He talked to Putin, but did he bring anything to the table?
Not sure what he tried exactly. He talked to Putin, but did he bring anything to the table?
He cannot bring what Zelenski won't even consider.
Well... it's complicated by the firehose of Russian propaganda, but their actions make it clear: eradication and assimilation of Ukrainian culture and nation, and the seizure of Ukraine's territory and resources - 'genocide' sums it up succinctly.
Putin's regime has demonstrated that the lives of ordinary Russians are meaningless in the pursuit of its political goals - just like every Russian/Soviet regime before it. This implies that the war can only end with a total defeat for Russia or Ukraine.
Ukraine is in an existential fight, while Russia is in a political one. Disregard what anyone claims about corruption in Ukraine: its decentralized democracy has enabled it to survive so far, while Russia is (literally and metaphorically) disintegrating.
Russia is bigger with limitless brutality; Ukraine is determined and smart. We'll have to see which of these qualities brings victory...
Putin's regime has demonstrated that the lives of ordinary Russians are meaningless in the pursuit of its political goals - just like every Russian/Soviet regime before it. This implies that the war can only end with a total defeat for Russia or Ukraine.
Ukraine is in an existential fight, while Russia is in a political one. Disregard what anyone claims about corruption in Ukraine: its decentralized democracy has enabled it to survive so far, while Russia is (literally and metaphorically) disintegrating.
Russia is bigger with limitless brutality; Ukraine is determined and smart. We'll have to see which of these qualities brings victory...
Genocide is hyperbole, a true genocide would be enough to turn public opinion against the war, there are millions of Ukrainians living throughout Russia and millions of Russians living in Ukraine
Wendover Productions "Why Russia Is Invading Ukraine" on YouTube provides some good info. Some reasons include:
- They need to secure energy sources (natural gas) to ensure a future for their economy. Ukraine was threatening this business by beginning to get funding from Western companies to develop their natural gas industry
- Geographically, losing Ukraine to NATO/the West would result in compromised defensive lines
- Putin wants to reestablish the former united Soviet Union
And they screwed up big time on all counts lmao
[deleted]
Whole Europe annexed is surely enough.
I assume that the guarantee that Ukraine will begin to respect the Minsk treaty that they signed.
Putin wants to secure Crimea, which is where a large part of the Russian navy is and their only connection to the Mediterranean.
> their only connection to the Mediterranean.
If you look at the map russia has quite a few other cities with direct access to black sea. e.g. Rosnov, Sochi, Novorosijsk...
If you look at the map russia has quite a few other cities with direct access to black sea. e.g. Rosnov, Sochi, Novorosijsk...
touche. I guess I'm stupid. But Sevastopol is important.
It was important. As the Ukraine already attacked targets there, recently Russia moved their submarine base from Sevastopol to some mainland harbor. That means, effectively this harbor has been lost to Russia as a consequence of the war.
Never mind that the Bosporus is closed for military vessels.
Never mind that the Bosporus is closed for military vessels.
Yeah i think that would be here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Novorossiysk
It will be important, after the war, to whoever wins.
[deleted]
Despite the sad news this thread reads like all technologists of HN suddenly became military professionals and strategists whilst utilising the bubble sort strategy to call out for nuclear war, full scale conflict or just territorial gains.
I mean nothing is as simple as it seems...
I mean nothing is as simple as it seems...
[deleted]
It seems like every piece of news about this war gets buried in an avalanche of “beware propaganda and misinformation” caveats. But I suppose at this point it is safe to say this has gone quite poorly for Russia so far.
tclover(1)
All flights out of Russia are now booked out with millions of people trying to escape mobilisation.
If the Western leaders had any foresight, they would come up with a scheme that enables them to do so and drains Putin's manpower. Anything from rebuilding Ukraine to getting them a free ticket to Brazil.
Unfortunately, as demonstrated by dependancy on Russian gas, western leaders have the foresight of a frog.
The recent visa restrictions only help government propaganda that the West hates the russian people so you must fight.
Also braindead decisions like language test centers banning Russians so now you can't get a test to apply for a job or visa.
If the Western leaders had any foresight, they would come up with a scheme that enables them to do so and drains Putin's manpower. Anything from rebuilding Ukraine to getting them a free ticket to Brazil.
Unfortunately, as demonstrated by dependancy on Russian gas, western leaders have the foresight of a frog.
The recent visa restrictions only help government propaganda that the West hates the russian people so you must fight.
Also braindead decisions like language test centers banning Russians so now you can't get a test to apply for a job or visa.
The people that could realistically move from Russia already have. Just because all flights are fully booked doens't mean millions are willing to or able to move.
And what gas? Currently Russia is exporting a negligible amount of gas to western countries. They played that card a long time ago.
It's almost comical to talk about foresight and Russia in the same sentence without even acknowledging how blind Putin has had to have been to even have considered starting this mess.
And what gas? Currently Russia is exporting a negligible amount of gas to western countries. They played that card a long time ago.
It's almost comical to talk about foresight and Russia in the same sentence without even acknowledging how blind Putin has had to have been to even have considered starting this mess.
> It's almost comical to talk about foresight and Russia in the same sentence
I don't think our benchmark for foresight should be an aging dictator thats probably loosing his mind.
> The people that could realistically move from Russia already have.
What is the basis for this assertion? You could say 'we don't want them here', at least it would be honest. But let's not pretend they had every opportunity to leave and simply chose not to.
Most people can't leave because they have no long-term visas to anywhere.
Hundreds of thousands of people have fled to Georgia because it's one of the very few countries that allow visa-free entry. Many are illegally overstaying, because there is nothing else they can do.
For the top 5% of Russians that have knowledge of English, the legal chops,the income and the grounds to get a western visas, embassies take many months to process your documents, have quotas and limited processing capacity. And they reduced their staff levels since the 'special operation' started.
You can even be refused visa to donate an organ to your family https://www.ieyenews.com/uk-leukaemia-transplant-blocked-by-...
Suppose you are an upper class Russian that has savings, earned every penny honestly and wants to leave to Britain. What can you do? Well maybe you get yourself an excellent job that sponsors your visa, suppose you have 300k+ of salary and all the time in the world. But can you bring with your dumb brother? No, you will have to leave him behing, watch him get drafted and killed. Can you bring your aging mother with arthritis that needs regular help just to get through the day? No, you cannot. What are you meant to do, leave them behind to die?
I don't think our benchmark for foresight should be an aging dictator thats probably loosing his mind.
> The people that could realistically move from Russia already have.
What is the basis for this assertion? You could say 'we don't want them here', at least it would be honest. But let's not pretend they had every opportunity to leave and simply chose not to.
Most people can't leave because they have no long-term visas to anywhere.
Hundreds of thousands of people have fled to Georgia because it's one of the very few countries that allow visa-free entry. Many are illegally overstaying, because there is nothing else they can do.
For the top 5% of Russians that have knowledge of English, the legal chops,the income and the grounds to get a western visas, embassies take many months to process your documents, have quotas and limited processing capacity. And they reduced their staff levels since the 'special operation' started.
You can even be refused visa to donate an organ to your family https://www.ieyenews.com/uk-leukaemia-transplant-blocked-by-...
Suppose you are an upper class Russian that has savings, earned every penny honestly and wants to leave to Britain. What can you do? Well maybe you get yourself an excellent job that sponsors your visa, suppose you have 300k+ of salary and all the time in the world. But can you bring with your dumb brother? No, you will have to leave him behing, watch him get drafted and killed. Can you bring your aging mother with arthritis that needs regular help just to get through the day? No, you cannot. What are you meant to do, leave them behind to die?
I don't blame neighbouring countries for not wanting an influx of Russians to their countries, even though most of them wouldn't want to have anything to do with the current Russian government. That has been used by the Russian government as an excuse for occupation and annexation so many times it's starting to be ridiculous.
I generally agree with your message expect of this part.
> Hundreds of thousands of people have fled to Georgia because it's one of the very few countries that allow visa-free entry. Many are illegally overstaying, because there is nothing else they can do.
Russian citizens can stay in Georgia up to 360 days without visarun (to nearby Armenia for example), so they are hardly overstaying there yet.
> Hundreds of thousands of people have fled to Georgia because it's one of the very few countries that allow visa-free entry. Many are illegally overstaying, because there is nothing else they can do.
Russian citizens can stay in Georgia up to 360 days without visarun (to nearby Armenia for example), so they are hardly overstaying there yet.
russians must stand up to Putin and fight or die being a slave in a war
With individual EU countries being perfectly egoistic and pragmatist, with Germans being in the pockets of Russian oligarchs, this situation overall is heading into catastrophic direction.
Dude, we don't get any gas anymore from them, the oligarchs are on sanctions lists and one of those oligarchs is currently getting raided by the police for tax evasion. More are probably going to follow.
[deleted]
I personally blame Russia war mongering, the USA brain dead diplomacy of the past twenty-five years and their constant meddling in European affairs for their own advantage. But to each their own I guess.
In all, I don't think the mobilization is likely to matter. The Russian problem is bad supplies, bad comms, and bad morale. When the russian front in kharkiv collapsed and everyone fled, there were many units just wandering around, and even setting up defensive lines because they didn't know the rest of the force had been routed and that the enemy was already behind them. Forcing people to the front isn't going to change this. Russian strategy has been repeating idiotic assaults on bakhmut for 2 months with no gains while just trying to hold on elsewhere. Ukraine on the other hand has been maintaining a decent momentum from their offensive, taking Lyman, and on the verge of looking to retake Lysychansk and maybe Severodonetsk again. Progress will be relatively slow, but it's not crazy to imagine another wave of collapse.
It'll take a long time to get a working army together. I'd bet on Ukraine and western support every day. The only thing that could change the calculus is nuclear weapons.