Vladimir Putin is pushing Russia into past: Maybe a generation, maybe a century(economist.com)
economist.com
Vladimir Putin is pushing Russia into past: Maybe a generation, maybe a century
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2022/03/12/vladimir-putin-is-pushing-russia-into-the-past
238 comments
I genuinely struggle to understand what people mean by being "proud" of one's country. Could you elaborate?
Maybe I'm focusing on a different aspect than most people. I understand the emotion of pride. But people seem to often be encouraging pride in some group or development.
I can see why such encouragement makes sense when the audience meaningfully contributed to that praiseworthy state of affairs. But I don't see the justification for that for e.g. happening to have been born in a particular country.
Maybe I'm focusing on a different aspect than most people. I understand the emotion of pride. But people seem to often be encouraging pride in some group or development.
I can see why such encouragement makes sense when the audience meaningfully contributed to that praiseworthy state of affairs. But I don't see the justification for that for e.g. happening to have been born in a particular country.
I have a dual citizen Polish-American, I was born in Poland and I think I can answer this. I wasn't proud of being born in Poland until I went back in my 20's and went to the concentration camps and learned a bit more about the history. Poles are extremely resilient people and have a vast history. Seeing other poles do well in tech space, sports and now helping people from Ukraine just makes me feel good and happy.
I think you may need to experience people’s opinions from non western countries.
Often people from poor countries feel greater pride in their countries than people from advanced economies.
If you talk about the bad things in the US a great many would nod in agreement.
Do the same to someone who lives in Azerbaijan, China. Iran, Belarus, etc and you risk more pushback.
Often people from poor countries feel greater pride in their countries than people from advanced economies.
If you talk about the bad things in the US a great many would nod in agreement.
Do the same to someone who lives in Azerbaijan, China. Iran, Belarus, etc and you risk more pushback.
> Often people from poor countries feel greater pride in their countries than people from advanced economies.
I wonder if that's more specifically "[elite(ish)] people from advanced economies." There's this sort of transnational/globalist outlook thing going in some circles that looks down its nose at patriotism, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's mainly a Western cultural thing.
I wonder if that's more specifically "[elite(ish)] people from advanced economies." There's this sort of transnational/globalist outlook thing going in some circles that looks down its nose at patriotism, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's mainly a Western cultural thing.
I think there is something to that. Educated elites feel as if they have transcended the nation state and may feel this is the superior take and ironically this can veer on a kind of bigotry.
I have seen this before especially in immigrant communities to the US. It has baffled me. Has there been any introspection as to why natural born people are not as blindly patriotic to their country?
My theory is that they understand that a country like the US only earned all of its amazing rights and freedom due to generations of people pushing against the status quo and that invokes the same non-pride as people are feeling today.
Immigrants have not gone through the same upbringing as natural born citizens. As a result, they have a more rosy view of reality.
It takes some group of people not to accept what is reality today to forge a better future.
For example: BLM is heavily villainized by some groups in the US. Time will tell what the long term consequences of BLM will be(if any). But maybe we will look back decades from now when there is a turning point in the country and there ends up being equal justice and treatment for Black and Brown communities and maybe we will remember BLM as a contributor of change(but not the anti-US sentiment that went along with it).
My theory is that they understand that a country like the US only earned all of its amazing rights and freedom due to generations of people pushing against the status quo and that invokes the same non-pride as people are feeling today.
Immigrants have not gone through the same upbringing as natural born citizens. As a result, they have a more rosy view of reality.
It takes some group of people not to accept what is reality today to forge a better future.
For example: BLM is heavily villainized by some groups in the US. Time will tell what the long term consequences of BLM will be(if any). But maybe we will look back decades from now when there is a turning point in the country and there ends up being equal justice and treatment for Black and Brown communities and maybe we will remember BLM as a contributor of change(but not the anti-US sentiment that went along with it).
> most of them are sharp, however anecdotally most of the most pervasive cheaters were also Russian international students while I was in college.
We should remember that this is the result of the incentive systems they have had and the examples of material success (i.e. oligarchs) in the overtly kleptocratic system they inhabit, and not some kind of inherent cultural tendency of Russians. This is especially the case at this moment, when there is a tendency in the West to conflate Russians with the government of Russia.
> For instance, unlike the US most Russians even in the current generation attend a state university, party and drink like crazy until they attend college and shortly after college get married and immediately have children. ... This kind of culture is not necessarily aligned with fleeing the country to the west.
What do you mean by "not necessarily aligned"? The US has plenty of people who marry young and have kids. They disproportionately tend to be less formally educated, though.
Are you saying that young university-educated and married+kids Russians migrants don't fit in with their similarly educated contemporaries in developed countries? That also seems unlikely because that profile fits most educated migrants (i.e from India and China) to western countries.
We should remember that this is the result of the incentive systems they have had and the examples of material success (i.e. oligarchs) in the overtly kleptocratic system they inhabit, and not some kind of inherent cultural tendency of Russians. This is especially the case at this moment, when there is a tendency in the West to conflate Russians with the government of Russia.
> For instance, unlike the US most Russians even in the current generation attend a state university, party and drink like crazy until they attend college and shortly after college get married and immediately have children. ... This kind of culture is not necessarily aligned with fleeing the country to the west.
What do you mean by "not necessarily aligned"? The US has plenty of people who marry young and have kids. They disproportionately tend to be less formally educated, though.
Are you saying that young university-educated and married+kids Russians migrants don't fit in with their similarly educated contemporaries in developed countries? That also seems unlikely because that profile fits most educated migrants (i.e from India and China) to western countries.
It makes sense but unfortunately it will be difficult for any NATO company to hire a Russian born citizen for fear of hiring a spy. Same issue exists for anyone born in a dictatorship.
All tech companies I’ve worked at happily hire anyone regardless of their national origin, as long as there aren’t specific sanctions banning them from being hired.
I worked at $FAANG and a coworker was hired, then fired on their first day: they had chosen to omit that they had worked for a Chinese tech company from their resume, but the background check came back and said he did.
That's not sanctions, that's because my $FAANG had hard evidence that Chinese tech company employees were switching to my company, stealing data, then leaving.
I've also heard people from my current parent company's headquarters (in Switzerland) will only hire Swiss citizens for important servers (SAP, etc). Not italians, germans, or french (and if you look at where they are headquartered, the city is literally on the border of germany and france, with many people commuting in daily).
That's not sanctions, that's because my $FAANG had hard evidence that Chinese tech company employees were switching to my company, stealing data, then leaving.
I've also heard people from my current parent company's headquarters (in Switzerland) will only hire Swiss citizens for important servers (SAP, etc). Not italians, germans, or french (and if you look at where they are headquartered, the city is literally on the border of germany and france, with many people commuting in daily).
Ironically, China hasn't seemed to have this issue for the past decade. Especially at government funded universities.
Here's a great Twitter thread that digs into how poor tires are an indicator of poor maintenance: https://twitter.com/TrentTelenko/status/1499164245250002944
Which doesn't reveal much. Underfunded military undermined by graft performing incompetently after period of peace is textbook Russia military adventurism. This has been happening for 100s of years. Important thing is RU military tends to get it's shit together under pressure and typically win, even if at stupendous costs. Most of RU equipment loss so far has been due to breakdowns, which is not surprising because shocking amount RU kit fall apart even during their military exercises. They have so many USSR era chassis in storage that doctrine is just to abandon. USSR / RU hardware in general are not engineered for longevity due to tech gap / low costs with assumption that they won't have long lifespan on the battlefield.
As urgent as the Ukraine invasion is, we should find attention for Taiwan.
Mainland China's claims on Taiwan are if anything more belligerent than Russia's claims on Ukraine have been. China has been building up the ability to cross the Taiwan Strait for decades. And its indifference for human rights and international law is clear.
The world must give thought, now, to how it deters China from invading Taiwan.
Mainland China's claims on Taiwan are if anything more belligerent than Russia's claims on Ukraine have been. China has been building up the ability to cross the Taiwan Strait for decades. And its indifference for human rights and international law is clear.
The world must give thought, now, to how it deters China from invading Taiwan.
Arm them with nuclear weapons and have them increase their defense spending and investment in themselves.. Become Israel basically, and fast!
Get gun ownership up to 25% like Switzerland.
Get gun ownership up to 25% like Switzerland.
>Arm them with nuclear weapons
The reality is problematic for Taiwan, they are so dependant on the Chinese economy that any major pivot that results in an economic war could halve or quarter their economic output in very little time.
They do not have enough leverage to take the stance you are putting forth.
The reality is problematic for Taiwan, they are so dependant on the Chinese economy that any major pivot that results in an economic war could halve or quarter their economic output in very little time.
They do not have enough leverage to take the stance you are putting forth.
But, what is his gain? I cannot figure it out.
At this point I think he thought getting into Ukraine would be a walk in the park, and the sanctions would be minimal. And now... he's just too proud to back down so he just keeps pushing further.
I think he'd prefer to own it, but I think he'd prefer to destroy the country rather than see it become part of NATO.
Mariupol and Melitopol in particular are exceptionally strategic locations. This video does a good job of explaining why the land bridge to Crimea is so important to Russia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwzliJF0-SI
Mariupol and Melitopol in particular are exceptionally strategic locations. This video does a good job of explaining why the land bridge to Crimea is so important to Russia:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwzliJF0-SI
The more he destroys Ukraine, the worse it will get for Russia, and more help Ukraine will get from the rest of the world.
I dont think he considers economic pain to be a factor when considering the military integrity of the nation.
The worse this war gets the stronger Ukraine has to be afterwards and the more and faster help it will get from the west. So the fear of Ukraine maybe looking more successful than Russia in 10 years or maybe joining NATO in 10 years now has become Ukraine having a better economic outlook than Russia after two weeks, and both EU and NATO memberships (or at least some form of defense guarantees equivalent to NATO) look quite likely even in the short term.
The pain isn’t just economic. Everything he touches seems to have the completely opposite effect to what he says he wants, such as Ukraine/Finland/Sweden outside NATO. There is no logic.
The pain isn’t just economic. Everything he touches seems to have the completely opposite effect to what he says he wants, such as Ukraine/Finland/Sweden outside NATO. There is no logic.
>The worse this war gets the stronger Ukraine has to be afterwards and the more and faster help it will get from the west
I really dont think thats true. When Europe is spending billions to host millions of refugees already while inflation keeps climbing the appetite to spend yet more money to rebuild Ukraine is really going to pall. This will be a gift to Europe's far right and EU exit campaigns will spring up in response to the EU's attempts to distribute the pain and costs of this.
Moreover, I think the west has an overly optimistic view of how well it is going to handle 10-20 million Ukrainian refugees long term given how much political strife was caused by 1 million Syrians.
I really think it could break up the EU. I think this may even have been Putin's intention.
NATO is also unlikely to fast track Ukraine's membership in a destroyed state. It'll probably wait.
I really dont think thats true. When Europe is spending billions to host millions of refugees already while inflation keeps climbing the appetite to spend yet more money to rebuild Ukraine is really going to pall. This will be a gift to Europe's far right and EU exit campaigns will spring up in response to the EU's attempts to distribute the pain and costs of this.
Moreover, I think the west has an overly optimistic view of how well it is going to handle 10-20 million Ukrainian refugees long term given how much political strife was caused by 1 million Syrians.
I really think it could break up the EU. I think this may even have been Putin's intention.
NATO is also unlikely to fast track Ukraine's membership in a destroyed state. It'll probably wait.
I'm optimistic about Europe. I think the division we have seen in the last decade with Brexit and Fidesz and Le Pen and Farage will shrink back, when people see Russia as a dangerous example of what it leads to, and hopefully see how fragile democracy is and how hard (and important) it can be to protect it, in Ukraine. The EU and Europe as a whole has really come together. I also think that the refugee situation will be a non-issue. I wouldn't have thought so even a month ago, but now I'm optimistic about that too.
The "help from the west" I hope will come from e.g. that assets now frozen in London, Switzerland and elsewhere can be transfered to Ukraine as war reparations from Russia. I'm more pessimistic about the future when it comes to China/Taiwan, Russia (How do we even handle having a pariah state on par with Iran but the size of Russia on our doorstep?).
The "help from the west" I hope will come from e.g. that assets now frozen in London, Switzerland and elsewhere can be transfered to Ukraine as war reparations from Russia. I'm more pessimistic about the future when it comes to China/Taiwan, Russia (How do we even handle having a pariah state on par with Iran but the size of Russia on our doorstep?).
I don't think it's just pride. I think that he thinks he can't afford to take the loss - it will weaken his position too much. (His position within Russia, not his position externally. Putin is terrified of a color revolution in Russia.)
TIL what a color revolution is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution
In the current situation his main objective is not losing face.
Two weeks ago his goal was a land grab.
Two weeks ago his goal was a land grab.
ITT: people with no experience of combat who think wars are solved in two weeks. The Iraqi desert spoiled us, but surely we still remember Afghanistan...?
If anybody in the Russian army is worth half a ruble, they planned this to take months at least. They came straight out of engagements in Syria and Chechnya, which took years to turn. Whether they told their troops (who, in Russia, are synonim with "cannon fodder" since forever) is another matter, of course.
If anybody in the Russian army is worth half a ruble, they planned this to take months at least. They came straight out of engagements in Syria and Chechnya, which took years to turn. Whether they told their troops (who, in Russia, are synonim with "cannon fodder" since forever) is another matter, of course.
Last I checked, Ukraine is not Afghanistan, for a few reasons:
1. It's not a constantly feuding cornucopia of tribes, regional warlords, and militias that have spent 20 years fighting eachother in a never-ending civil war.
2. Prior to the star of the war, it had fully functional, developed-world logistics networks.
3. Russia borders it, it's not trying to project power across an ocean.
4. Russia is far culturally closer to Ukraine that the United States ever will be to Afghanistan.
5. People accustomed to developed world lifestyles get war-weary much, much faster.
In light of those four factors, Putin was banking on an easy victory, with Ukraine choosing a bad peace over a protracted, bloody war.
1. It's not a constantly feuding cornucopia of tribes, regional warlords, and militias that have spent 20 years fighting eachother in a never-ending civil war.
2. Prior to the star of the war, it had fully functional, developed-world logistics networks.
3. Russia borders it, it's not trying to project power across an ocean.
4. Russia is far culturally closer to Ukraine that the United States ever will be to Afghanistan.
5. People accustomed to developed world lifestyles get war-weary much, much faster.
In light of those four factors, Putin was banking on an easy victory, with Ukraine choosing a bad peace over a protracted, bloody war.
Ukraine is not really considered a developed country. By GDP per capita it is even poorer than Moldova (which I had always thought was “the poorest country in Europe”).
Ukraine is poor, but it wasn't undeveloped, even at the time that it left the USSR.
Its economy was not steered well since that point, but there's a world of difference between it and Afghanistan.
Its economy was not steered well since that point, but there's a world of difference between it and Afghanistan.
In light of captured documents outlining how they expected this to be over in three weeks, no one in the Russian military is worth a ruble.
> In light of captured documents outlining how they expected this to be over in three weeks, no one in the Russian military is worth a ruble
To be fair, the US policy leadership made similar misunderestimates of the difficulties it would face in Iraq, it just didn't have global sanctions crushing it's economy at the same time.
(On the other hand, a key figure in that determination and policy planning regarding Iraq was reportedly described by the General that commanded the invasion and early occupation as “the dumbest fucking guy on the planet”, so, there's that.)
To be fair, the US policy leadership made similar misunderestimates of the difficulties it would face in Iraq, it just didn't have global sanctions crushing it's economy at the same time.
(On the other hand, a key figure in that determination and policy planning regarding Iraq was reportedly described by the General that commanded the invasion and early occupation as “the dumbest fucking guy on the planet”, so, there's that.)
Militarily, the US performed very well in the initial invasion of Iraq. It was more a political failure after the defeat of the Iraqi Army and Republican Guard that led to the insurgency.
Pride on his deathbed. He is old and wants to go with glory, at the expense of young Russians' future of course.
The pictures that are coming out of this are shocking, if Russians were allowed to view them they’d turn on Putin instantly. If the pictures of Ukrainian suffering didn’t do that then the ones of fallen russians would. Beyond senseless and horrific all because Putin bought his own lies.
Many Russians have seen them and still support the invasion. There are TV interviews showing this regularly now. It’s not a lot different from Republicans in the US ignoring other realities.
I think, in fairness, most people only watch easily accessible TV, which tells them a very different story. Also TV interviews, in state-controlled media, are kind of meaningless.
I can well imagine it's true, just not that you can tell by looking at TV interviews.
I can well imagine it's true, just not that you can tell by looking at TV interviews.
These are US TV interviews of Russian citizens, but fair point that we don't really know. This was before the restrictions on what you're allowed to say, though.
> if Russians were allowed to view them they’d turn on Putin instantly
Unfortunately, the power of brainwashing is enormous.
Unfortunately, the power of brainwashing is enormous.
For as long as there's been a Russian Empire Crimea has been either an aspiration or a strategic territory. It's the key to controlling the Black Sea and projecting power in SE Europe and the Caucauses. To some extent, it's the crown jewel of the Russian Empire. If you're an emperor (which Putin essentially is) it's very hard to explain away losing your crown jewel. It shatters the myth of a resurgent/strong Russia and would be an existential threat to Putin's regime.
That's the why. Why now is a little bit trickier. But I think it's because of a fundamental weakness. Russia's military is essentially still the Soviet military. It's a decaying force using last generation military technology that is rapidly being left behind. MANPADs (infantry mobile air defense) & Javelins (anti-tank missiles) have all but rendered their planes, helicopters, and tanks obsolete. And, as a country, they are too corrupt and poor to modernize their military.
They're going to win this war but it's obvious that they're mustering about the best invasion force they can and even then it's been a slow moving brutal war. Five more years of Russian decay and Ukrainian modernization would bring the outcome into doubt. Ten years and maybe it's impossible.
That's the why. Why now is a little bit trickier. But I think it's because of a fundamental weakness. Russia's military is essentially still the Soviet military. It's a decaying force using last generation military technology that is rapidly being left behind. MANPADs (infantry mobile air defense) & Javelins (anti-tank missiles) have all but rendered their planes, helicopters, and tanks obsolete. And, as a country, they are too corrupt and poor to modernize their military.
They're going to win this war but it's obvious that they're mustering about the best invasion force they can and even then it's been a slow moving brutal war. Five more years of Russian decay and Ukrainian modernization would bring the outcome into doubt. Ten years and maybe it's impossible.
Russia isn't going to win this war, short of using weapons of mass destruction. They don't have the manpower. They walk troops into Kyiv and they will be slaughtered by the Ukrainian military. The only way Russia wins this war is to obliterate Ukraine, and raise the deaths by multiple orders of magnitude from what we've seen so far. Hundreds of thousands per day or more.
And I rather expect Putin will try to do exactly that, and we see carnage the world hasn't seen since the last world war to try and goad NATO into reacting. What we need is for the U.N. general assembly to catch up with what's going on. It's not enough to just condemn the invasion. The purpose of the U.N. is to prevent world wars and right now they're not doing enough.
And I rather expect Putin will try to do exactly that, and we see carnage the world hasn't seen since the last world war to try and goad NATO into reacting. What we need is for the U.N. general assembly to catch up with what's going on. It's not enough to just condemn the invasion. The purpose of the U.N. is to prevent world wars and right now they're not doing enough.
Extending long term military, political, even economic security in face of declining/terminal demographics. It's an existential gamble for a bigger RU light cone. The alternative framing is there was much more to lose. RU is better off losing 20 years of progress than 200 years of future security. A few generations doomed to middle income is one of the milder calamity in terms of costly historical RU mistakes.
I think people overlook how rational the geopolitical calculus is, it's only shocking because eating so much short/medium term loss is counter to the interest of a "compromised" leader, i.e. one who has to answer to the public. My feeling is Putin has simply secured so much power that he can do what most leaders can not, pursue long term geopolitically maximizing gamble and survive it. I doubt he'll be deposed - no one wants to inherit this shitshow.
Also history rarely looks down on leaders who regain lost land, especially one of such cultural importance as UKR is to RU. If Putin can hold on to UKR, he'll have statues built of him for centuries and impartial historians 100 years from now will likely evaluate his conquest favorably.
In the meantime, the real question is ask what the west will lose not accommodating RU interests and maintaining sanctions comparable to a blockade. RU hasn't even began retaliating yet, they can (IMO will) extract disportionate cost from 40Trillion western block economy versus what the west block can punish a 1.5T RU economy.
I think people overlook how rational the geopolitical calculus is, it's only shocking because eating so much short/medium term loss is counter to the interest of a "compromised" leader, i.e. one who has to answer to the public. My feeling is Putin has simply secured so much power that he can do what most leaders can not, pursue long term geopolitically maximizing gamble and survive it. I doubt he'll be deposed - no one wants to inherit this shitshow.
Also history rarely looks down on leaders who regain lost land, especially one of such cultural importance as UKR is to RU. If Putin can hold on to UKR, he'll have statues built of him for centuries and impartial historians 100 years from now will likely evaluate his conquest favorably.
In the meantime, the real question is ask what the west will lose not accommodating RU interests and maintaining sanctions comparable to a blockade. RU hasn't even began retaliating yet, they can (IMO will) extract disportionate cost from 40Trillion western block economy versus what the west block can punish a 1.5T RU economy.
Russia is facing existential risks now that it wasn't as late as one month ago. If the Soviets couldn't "hold" to AFG, there's no way he can hold UKR. The "long term geo-politically maximizing" strategy here is quite clear, just look at what China has managed to achieve in the past 30 or 40 years. Russia may have made big mistakes before, but that does not exactly help if they keep making big mistakes.
>existential risks now
Existential risk now pale in comparison to long term existential risk of irrevocably west/NATO aligned UKR, hence emphasis on eating "short/medium term loss". Soviets didn't want to hold AFG, it was peripheral counter insurgency work, on tier of Vietnam war was to PRC. UKR is reforging historic empire, it's core interest like TW is to PRC. As for holding UKR, it remains to be seen. There's very real possibly they'll Grozny the entire country and displace 20M+ which will destabilize Europe and make holding UKR feasible.
>if they keep making big mistakes.
Taking UKR isn't a big mistake, hasty special operations gamble was, but complete occupation isn't, especially now when RU is still capable. UKR with another 5 years US training and support would make such conquest out of reach, especially coupled with continued RU demographic/military decline. TBH for RU best time was 2014 considering how poor sanction proofing their economy went.
>look at what China has managed to achieve
RU isn't PRC in terms of demographics, and even PRC will eventually have to take TW / push back US aligned containment security architecture in East Asia. Common argument for PRC doing so in next 10-20 years is that's when PRC power will be maximal. RU has no peak to look forward to, is already on decline. It can't afford to wait.
Existential risk now pale in comparison to long term existential risk of irrevocably west/NATO aligned UKR, hence emphasis on eating "short/medium term loss". Soviets didn't want to hold AFG, it was peripheral counter insurgency work, on tier of Vietnam war was to PRC. UKR is reforging historic empire, it's core interest like TW is to PRC. As for holding UKR, it remains to be seen. There's very real possibly they'll Grozny the entire country and displace 20M+ which will destabilize Europe and make holding UKR feasible.
>if they keep making big mistakes.
Taking UKR isn't a big mistake, hasty special operations gamble was, but complete occupation isn't, especially now when RU is still capable. UKR with another 5 years US training and support would make such conquest out of reach, especially coupled with continued RU demographic/military decline. TBH for RU best time was 2014 considering how poor sanction proofing their economy went.
>look at what China has managed to achieve
RU isn't PRC in terms of demographics, and even PRC will eventually have to take TW / push back US aligned containment security architecture in East Asia. Common argument for PRC doing so in next 10-20 years is that's when PRC power will be maximal. RU has no peak to look forward to, is already on decline. It can't afford to wait.
West/NATO aligned Eastern Europe and UKR was Russia's own doing, they should've been working on fixing that for the past 20 years. They didn't do it, arguably they didn't even try which is surprising. Even China has not made that mistake. And Russia would've found it a lot easier to appeal to Ukraine than China to Taiwan or to their neighbors more generally. Now you're saying that they might be planning to displace 20M+ people, somehow I doubt that would improve things.
>should've been working on fixing that for the past 20 years
Post USSR broken RU didn't have as many carrots as West/NATO. Their leverage was coalescing their big sticks after period of disorder. West/NATO equally culpable indulging UKR and failing to manage her as buffer led to RU resorting to sticks, because they couldn't compete on carrots.
>Even China has not made that mistake
Look at 1st, 2nd, 3rd TW strait crisis, PRC wasn't even capable of succeeding but they still tried. 92 consensus provided ~30 years of detente but that's gone, and PRC is building up to try again. Improving geo strategic conditions for long term security is rarely a mistake, especially considering RU headwinds. The mistake for RU is waiting this long in the first place.
>appeal to Ukraine than China to Taiwan
See how HK opinion on PRC shifted in a generation, and how TW's as well. That's what happens when new gen grows up in antagonistic political systems (again influenced/funded by west) - value fracture, identities diverge. Past certain point, appealing with carrots stop working. Again 1.5T RU economy can't out compete on 40T western block. Was even more lopsided 20 years ago. It's not they didn't try, they just didn't stand a chance.
>might be planning to displace 20M+ people, somehow I doubt that would improve things.
Destabilized europe with 20M refugees while RU has defendable UKR geography and resources is a massive long term "improvement". More than half of world's population are neutral/still need RU exports. I don't think warcriming to victory is the plan considering how kid gloves RU ROE has been so far, but it's likely the inevitable outcome if RU demands aren't met. RU peer-level military strategy is artillery slowly glassing everything. They don't have capability to prosecute a high tech war with relatively less disruption.
Post USSR broken RU didn't have as many carrots as West/NATO. Their leverage was coalescing their big sticks after period of disorder. West/NATO equally culpable indulging UKR and failing to manage her as buffer led to RU resorting to sticks, because they couldn't compete on carrots.
>Even China has not made that mistake
Look at 1st, 2nd, 3rd TW strait crisis, PRC wasn't even capable of succeeding but they still tried. 92 consensus provided ~30 years of detente but that's gone, and PRC is building up to try again. Improving geo strategic conditions for long term security is rarely a mistake, especially considering RU headwinds. The mistake for RU is waiting this long in the first place.
>appeal to Ukraine than China to Taiwan
See how HK opinion on PRC shifted in a generation, and how TW's as well. That's what happens when new gen grows up in antagonistic political systems (again influenced/funded by west) - value fracture, identities diverge. Past certain point, appealing with carrots stop working. Again 1.5T RU economy can't out compete on 40T western block. Was even more lopsided 20 years ago. It's not they didn't try, they just didn't stand a chance.
>might be planning to displace 20M+ people, somehow I doubt that would improve things.
Destabilized europe with 20M refugees while RU has defendable UKR geography and resources is a massive long term "improvement". More than half of world's population are neutral/still need RU exports. I don't think warcriming to victory is the plan considering how kid gloves RU ROE has been so far, but it's likely the inevitable outcome if RU demands aren't met. RU peer-level military strategy is artillery slowly glassing everything. They don't have capability to prosecute a high tech war with relatively less disruption.
There's a difference between what Putin hoped to gain, and what he will actually gain. I suspect that Putin thought this would be a cakewalk and he hoped to gain territory in Ukraine. Instead, this is increasingly looking like a huge blunder for the Russian state.
The name of the game now is probably self-preservation and saving-face for the Putin government. What "self-preservation" means to Putin is hard to guess but an embarrassing retreat from Ukraine doesn't seem like it's on the table yet.
The name of the game now is probably self-preservation and saving-face for the Putin government. What "self-preservation" means to Putin is hard to guess but an embarrassing retreat from Ukraine doesn't seem like it's on the table yet.
staying in power in light of this huge miscalculation
Survival of his regime, as best I can tell. When a reasonably functional democracy (Ukraine) abuts an autocracy (Russia), the democracy starts to make the autocracy look bad in the eyes of those living in it, threatening the autocrat's power. Putin seems to have over-estimated the risk (paranoia perhaps), but this seems to be a typical dynamic which is also playing out between China and Taiwan.
0xy(4)
China's support while Russia negotiate Ukraine permanent neutrality with NATO/EU (with troops on the field).
What's the price of Ukraine as a non-Western state? I'm surprised we can spend hours valuing the cost of the sanctions but few can put a price on what Putin has been asking for.
What's the price of Ukraine as a non-Western state? I'm surprised we can spend hours valuing the cost of the sanctions but few can put a price on what Putin has been asking for.
The price is similar to giving your pocket money to the school bully. It's not just a one time price.
Perhaps if the message is "I'm not a bully, I'm a school monitor with a badge to prove it" maybe it's different.
The best question to pose oneself is, if NATO was such a bully instead, where is the moral, good, international aid, charity, role model and respect that Putin has performed in times of peace? Where is his school monitor badge that he should have got?
Perhaps if the message is "I'm not a bully, I'm a school monitor with a badge to prove it" maybe it's different.
The best question to pose oneself is, if NATO was such a bully instead, where is the moral, good, international aid, charity, role model and respect that Putin has performed in times of peace? Where is his school monitor badge that he should have got?
In a few weeks, there will be no more non-NATO countries on Russia's western border, and you will have nothing to be concerned about.
Anyone who thinks Russia can invade NATO is as mistaken as the Russians that currently believe NATO can, and wants to, invade Russia. There are, unfortunately, hundreds of millions of people who believe one or the other.
Anyone who thinks Russia can invade NATO is as mistaken as the Russians that currently believe NATO can, and wants to, invade Russia. There are, unfortunately, hundreds of millions of people who believe one or the other.
Let's see. I bet neither NATO nor the EU will consider accepting Ukraine or Georgia as new members, after Russia proved they're ready to invade these countries to defend their interests.
Do you believe the West would go to war with Russia, only to add a few members to a giant military alliance that was designed for a post-WWII world?
The US will retreat and focus on China and the EU will try to become more independent from NATO and Russia (and they'll negotiate with Putin if need be, unless he already jumped on China's side for good).
Do you believe the West would go to war with Russia, only to add a few members to a giant military alliance that was designed for a post-WWII world?
The US will retreat and focus on China and the EU will try to become more independent from NATO and Russia (and they'll negotiate with Putin if need be, unless he already jumped on China's side for good).
> Do you believe the West would go to war with Russia, only to add a few members to a giant military alliance that was designed for a post-WWII world?
No, I believe that alliance will defend its members, and given that Russia can't even successfully bully the poorest country in Europe, it is in no position to start a war over Finland or Sweden.
Of course Ukraine won't be a part of NATO.
The US can't withdraw from Europe, unless it wants to see the American hegemony collapse overnight. And if we know anything about empires, it's that they will keep hold on what they've spent decades building long past the point of positive ROI or reason.
No, I believe that alliance will defend its members, and given that Russia can't even successfully bully the poorest country in Europe, it is in no position to start a war over Finland or Sweden.
Of course Ukraine won't be a part of NATO.
The US can't withdraw from Europe, unless it wants to see the American hegemony collapse overnight. And if we know anything about empires, it's that they will keep hold on what they've spent decades building long past the point of positive ROI or reason.
Sweden and Finland are putting out feelers towards joining NATO.
The invasion was not at all defensive as defined in U.N. charter article 51. This war is a direct violation of article 2. Russia is a party to the charter, this war is expressly prohibited under it. Russia is also a party to the Budapest Memorandum in which they recognized Ukraine's sovereignty and 1994 borders, with the only condition being Ukraine become a non-nuclear nation under the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty.
Had Ukraine been a member of NATO or the EU would Russia have invaded? Almost certainly not, and that's because of the credible use of overwhelming military power to repel such an attempt. Why is the U.N. system inadequate in this case? Article 39 and 41 give the Security Council the power to repel breaches to the peace using armed force. But Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council and thus effectively has a veto vote (lack of consent to use armed forces against itself is a certain outcome).
This exposes a real problem when the belligerent is a member of the Security Council. And as Russia cannot be trusted to honor their agreements, and the U.N. Security Council in matters involving Russian aggression can't be depended on, it is completely reasonable for the EU to bring in Ukraine and Georgia as members rather than have Russia initiate yet another war right on Europe's doorstep. This is the third time Putin has waged an aggressive war without provocation or any compelling case for defense.
And hopefully it still is a post-WW2 world. Putin is seemingly making a case of a pre-WW2 view of "might makes right" without any international system of peacefully resolving disputes. He's certainly not bound by any agreements. It's a recipe for a very expensive second Cold War.
Had Ukraine been a member of NATO or the EU would Russia have invaded? Almost certainly not, and that's because of the credible use of overwhelming military power to repel such an attempt. Why is the U.N. system inadequate in this case? Article 39 and 41 give the Security Council the power to repel breaches to the peace using armed force. But Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council and thus effectively has a veto vote (lack of consent to use armed forces against itself is a certain outcome).
This exposes a real problem when the belligerent is a member of the Security Council. And as Russia cannot be trusted to honor their agreements, and the U.N. Security Council in matters involving Russian aggression can't be depended on, it is completely reasonable for the EU to bring in Ukraine and Georgia as members rather than have Russia initiate yet another war right on Europe's doorstep. This is the third time Putin has waged an aggressive war without provocation or any compelling case for defense.
And hopefully it still is a post-WW2 world. Putin is seemingly making a case of a pre-WW2 view of "might makes right" without any international system of peacefully resolving disputes. He's certainly not bound by any agreements. It's a recipe for a very expensive second Cold War.
[deleted]
Could somebody describe what upward mobility looks like in Russia? I have a really hard time understanding it when I hear terminology like “kleptocrats” or “oligarchs”. At best I can generalize that upward mobility sucks in Russia, but I’d really like to hear a few narratives of what this looks like from people who actually grew up in Russia.
Interestingly upward mobility in Russia (I moved out in 2008 but visited almost every year since, I guess not anymore) may be easier in a certain way, because education is free if you can pass exams, or otherwise cheap. Now on one hand, that means that most people don't value it, so most of my CS-major fellow students had no notion of CS, coding, or really much of anything IT-related by the end of their education... and many people I know have degrees in some random X that they got "because everyone does it" but they don't do X and never intend to (X can be marketing, or it can be biology, or whatever). On the other hand almost anyone who actually wants it can get decent education for ~free.
Then you get a job (in IT, often while still in college) and here's upward mobility :) There are obviously less jobs on every level of "upwards" compared to the USA, but there are still plenty. Many people also (used to?) freelance for Western customers. Until recently, if you don't engage in politics life was pretty good. One aspect of being upper middle class in Russia is that you are surrounded by cheap labor, so everything - healthcare, home improvement, nannies, etc. - is dirt cheap. E.g. you could have a reliable full-time live-in caretaker for an elderly person for like $500-600/month (before the recent ruble collapse) in Moscow; even cheaper in other cities I suspect.
Another peculiar aspect with Russia is that it's very centralized, so it really helps to move (imagine Silicon Valley -> Seattle/Austin/... -> the rest - type centralization, but with an even steeper salary gradient and for nearly ALL jobs, not just IT). Ideally you want to be in Moscow; some other major cities (Saint Petersburg, Novosibirsk) are also not so bad but people still move to Moscow if they can.
Then you get a job (in IT, often while still in college) and here's upward mobility :) There are obviously less jobs on every level of "upwards" compared to the USA, but there are still plenty. Many people also (used to?) freelance for Western customers. Until recently, if you don't engage in politics life was pretty good. One aspect of being upper middle class in Russia is that you are surrounded by cheap labor, so everything - healthcare, home improvement, nannies, etc. - is dirt cheap. E.g. you could have a reliable full-time live-in caretaker for an elderly person for like $500-600/month (before the recent ruble collapse) in Moscow; even cheaper in other cities I suspect.
Another peculiar aspect with Russia is that it's very centralized, so it really helps to move (imagine Silicon Valley -> Seattle/Austin/... -> the rest - type centralization, but with an even steeper salary gradient and for nearly ALL jobs, not just IT). Ideally you want to be in Moscow; some other major cities (Saint Petersburg, Novosibirsk) are also not so bad but people still move to Moscow if they can.
Just as sanctions hit with historic speed and scope it is possible that damages could be reversed as quickly. This could become an opportunity to make long needed capital improvements. Either way it needs to be acknowledged that the past is a poor guide to this current situation.
Destruction versus creation are asymmetric. It is faster to destroy than to build.
Our continued ripple effects in the supply chain are a pretty good reminder.
You get minor bottle necks and the working system breaks.
To start or rebuild the system you start will all the bottle necks and have to add the pieces one at a time until you have something working.
You get minor bottle necks and the working system breaks.
To start or rebuild the system you start will all the bottle necks and have to add the pieces one at a time until you have something working.
Maybe this time around people will build a bit more slack in their logistics. Maximizing profit and efficiency is what got us into this mess.
Younger me was appalled when I learned most everyone seems to operate in a just-in-time fashion. Remember when you could go to the supermarket and ask if they have any extra in the back room? Stores don't even have that any more, everything shipped to the store goes straight to the shelf. Then COVID comes along and fucks that up.
Younger me was appalled when I learned most everyone seems to operate in a just-in-time fashion. Remember when you could go to the supermarket and ask if they have any extra in the back room? Stores don't even have that any more, everything shipped to the store goes straight to the shelf. Then COVID comes along and fucks that up.
All of life is logistics. There’s no getting around the need to try to maximize efficiency. You can choose to improve resilience as well, of course.
Supermarkets don’t usually have much extra stuff because they carry a lot of perishable stuff. This is no different than outdoor markets for millennia. If anything, we’re a bit better off due to refrigeration and better preservation techniques, but if you have too much slop, that just means greater food wastage.
There is still a backroom for places I go. You can see it behind the milk cartons.
Supermarkets don’t usually have much extra stuff because they carry a lot of perishable stuff. This is no different than outdoor markets for millennia. If anything, we’re a bit better off due to refrigeration and better preservation techniques, but if you have too much slop, that just means greater food wastage.
There is still a backroom for places I go. You can see it behind the milk cartons.
I hope not. Russia has been doing this kind of stuff for the past 300 years, in Eastern Europe. It's just now that the West started to care.
They were always imperialistic, and never cared for human lives.
Yeah, thats the imperialist mentality. The west didnt care as much until recently due to being imperialists themselves, but this is no longer the guiding policy (though still a sentiment present in politics and societies).
> this is no longer the guiding policy
After 20 years of failed Western imperial warfare over several countries, this statement is really, really incorrect.
The problem is, in fact, that imperialism got back on the menu in 2001, and in 2003 it became the main dish. At that point, anyone who had a doubt on what to choose, followed the chef's advice. It would have been silly not to.
After 20 years of failed Western imperial warfare over several countries, this statement is really, really incorrect.
The problem is, in fact, that imperialism got back on the menu in 2001, and in 2003 it became the main dish. At that point, anyone who had a doubt on what to choose, followed the chef's advice. It would have been silly not to.
That is just not true. Just because the US invaded it does not equate imperialism. The intended purpose matters, and the US never wanted them as colonies or to install puppet regimes, or to exploit the resources.
> The intended purpose matters, and the US never wanted them as colonies or to install puppet regimes, or to exploit the resources.
The US absolutely wanted Iraq as a puppet regime, not just on its own but as a toehold for a project to transform the region into a set of US economic satellites. Numerous people who went on to senior defense and foreign policy roles in the Bush Administration wrote about that intent before Bush was elected, and agitated to use 9/11 as the pretext for that war immediately after it happened, but were initially drowned out by people that thought we ought to address the people that actually launched the attack first.
The US also very much wanted to exploit Iraq’s resources to fund that project and insulate the US against the economic power of other oil producing states to influence domestic economic conditions.
The US absolutely wanted Iraq as a puppet regime, not just on its own but as a toehold for a project to transform the region into a set of US economic satellites. Numerous people who went on to senior defense and foreign policy roles in the Bush Administration wrote about that intent before Bush was elected, and agitated to use 9/11 as the pretext for that war immediately after it happened, but were initially drowned out by people that thought we ought to address the people that actually launched the attack first.
The US also very much wanted to exploit Iraq’s resources to fund that project and insulate the US against the economic power of other oil producing states to influence domestic economic conditions.
Then how come most of the oil in Iraq was leased to other countries, not the US? And how come they didn't install a puppet regime, winning the war and all?
> Then how come most of the oil in Iraq was leased to other countries, not the US?
Because state production policy, not nationality of the firms involved, was the mechanism of influence sought.
> And how come they didn't install a puppet regime, winning the war and all?
They did; for quite some time after it was established, the post-Saddam Iraqi government took direction from the US.
It didn't turn out to be durable nor did the US manage to use it as the planned lever against the rest of the Middle East, in part because a substantial part of the war and post-war planning was coordinated by “the dumbest fucking guy on the planet” [0] (to quote Gen. Franks) and as a result the occupation/counter-insurgency phase was both botched from the beginning and, arguably, not really a realistic way of achieving some of its broader objectives even if it had been planned competently and executed ideally, and in part because the US changed policy priorities and executive administrations during the occupation away from the original objectives (in part because different policy makers has different ideology, and in part because of recognition of the how badly the situation was botched.) Hence the upthread description of failed imperial warfare, which would not be used of if the imperialist objectives motivated the war had been achieved.
[0] it's looking like the planning for the Ukraine operation by Russia may have had similar levels prioritizing what the ruling clique finds to be ideologically-appealing fantasy over hard-nosed practicality in its planning.
Because state production policy, not nationality of the firms involved, was the mechanism of influence sought.
> And how come they didn't install a puppet regime, winning the war and all?
They did; for quite some time after it was established, the post-Saddam Iraqi government took direction from the US.
It didn't turn out to be durable nor did the US manage to use it as the planned lever against the rest of the Middle East, in part because a substantial part of the war and post-war planning was coordinated by “the dumbest fucking guy on the planet” [0] (to quote Gen. Franks) and as a result the occupation/counter-insurgency phase was both botched from the beginning and, arguably, not really a realistic way of achieving some of its broader objectives even if it had been planned competently and executed ideally, and in part because the US changed policy priorities and executive administrations during the occupation away from the original objectives (in part because different policy makers has different ideology, and in part because of recognition of the how badly the situation was botched.) Hence the upthread description of failed imperial warfare, which would not be used of if the imperialist objectives motivated the war had been achieved.
[0] it's looking like the planning for the Ukraine operation by Russia may have had similar levels prioritizing what the ruling clique finds to be ideologically-appealing fantasy over hard-nosed practicality in its planning.
> how come they didn't install a puppet regime
Because the definition of "puppet regime" in US terms is "a somewhat democratic government that can be conditioned to work only in the ideological confines we set". Only where that fails, like in Egypt or Pakistan, they support overt strongmen.
The first 5-10 years or so of post-Saddam Iraq were an attempt at achieving the former. Then Iran brought some stability and it was accepted as the lesser evil, because resources and political support for the occupation were over.
Because the definition of "puppet regime" in US terms is "a somewhat democratic government that can be conditioned to work only in the ideological confines we set". Only where that fails, like in Egypt or Pakistan, they support overt strongmen.
The first 5-10 years or so of post-Saddam Iraq were an attempt at achieving the former. Then Iran brought some stability and it was accepted as the lesser evil, because resources and political support for the occupation were over.
> a somewhat democratic government that can be conditioned to work only in the ideological confines we set
That is not what a puppet regime is...especially when you consider that "ideological confines" for the US means free trade, civil liberties, justice system, free elections. Calling that a puppet regime is whitewashing the truly horrible puppet regimes that Russia is installing.
That is not what a puppet regime is...especially when you consider that "ideological confines" for the US means free trade, civil liberties, justice system, free elections. Calling that a puppet regime is whitewashing the truly horrible puppet regimes that Russia is installing.
The US is a country with the strongest Imperial streak in the west, that is true, but youre still comparing apples to oranges. The Russian brand of imperialism is something from colonialist times, and involves eradicating entire populations, nationalities, to replace with their own. They forcibly resettled over 20 million people last century (or maybe that was just Stalin), countries with rich history which simply do not exist anymore. And the Russian society allows this, because the imperialist mentality is so prevalent that the state gets away with it, because they cannot do wrong, and because the mental slavery of a large part of the population is unshakeable.
And just because these conflicts existed doesnt mean imperialism guides everything. If it did, and the US practiced full imperialism they would own half of middle east by now, and millions of arabs would be dead.
And just because these conflicts existed doesnt mean imperialism guides everything. If it did, and the US practiced full imperialism they would own half of middle east by now, and millions of arabs would be dead.
American Imperialism: keep the oil flowing (we don't have to sell it ourselves, you guys drill, sell and profit, just keep it flowing), keep the trade as free as possible, have at least some sort of justice system that is not medieval, don't start genocides, don't start senseless wars (by senseless we mean against a country that respects all the points above), don't humiliate us(Cuba, Iran). If you do these, you're gonna be in pretty good terms with the US, in general.
IMO this about sums it up, the fierce American Imperialism. You just cannot put American imperialism and Russian Imperialism in the same paragraph without being a Russian troll or apologist.
Russian Imperialism: conquer nations through medieval, brutal wars, for no reason other than "they border us, so we must attack them first", displace 30% of the population to Siberia (10% in gulags), move in your Russian colonists to take their place, install your own people at the top of the country, you can only do good trades with Russia and its allies, maybe you'll have your entire resources stolen anyway.
IMO this about sums it up, the fierce American Imperialism. You just cannot put American imperialism and Russian Imperialism in the same paragraph without being a Russian troll or apologist.
Russian Imperialism: conquer nations through medieval, brutal wars, for no reason other than "they border us, so we must attack them first", displace 30% of the population to Siberia (10% in gulags), move in your Russian colonists to take their place, install your own people at the top of the country, you can only do good trades with Russia and its allies, maybe you'll have your entire resources stolen anyway.
well, I for one hope that the world changed forever, and the wars are now economic and cybernetic. Russia with late middle age tactics and 20th century fascism can just be walled off for all I care. When they evolve to present day they should be allowed out.
paywall free
https://archive.ph/mWWhJ
wow, straight up running their own obtrusive ads on it no less.
Didn't know they had this kind of ads since I'm using adblock. I agree this is pretty bad.
To when Kiew was the capital of Russia?
that would be the absolute 5d chess: capture Kiev, move the capital there and change the name of the country to Kievan Rus
without paywall: https://archive.ph/mWWhJ
In today's news:
"I assure you, we will overcome adversity, and we will do everything to no longer depend on the West in any strategic sectors of our life that are of decisive importance for our people".
- Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
In today's news:
"I assure you, we will overcome adversity, and we will do everything to no longer depend on the West in any strategic sectors of our life that are of decisive importance for our people".
- Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
In other news Lavrov's stepdaughter has a £4 million flat in the most upmarket area of London - well she has it at the moment, for how much longer who knows.
Putin has deep pockets and can provide Lavrov's family (or any other sanctioned person) with far more expensive stuff wherever China has more influence that the West. That sphere of influence will expand over time. I wouldn't doubt that Kong Kong, or some other rich Asian cities, will welcome oligarch. This war is a huge transfer of power to the East.
Sure, Putin will buy Abramovich a football team to replace Chelsea in an equally prestigious league. Or maybe not.
In any event making Russia 100% dependent on China's indulgence doesn't seem like a seriously smart move for Lavrov and co.
In any event making Russia 100% dependent on China's indulgence doesn't seem like a seriously smart move for Lavrov and co.
This is an interesting take on Putin's miscalculation in Ukraine.
He's a spy, not a soldier. He relies on subterfuge and fabrication. And he's being undone as his fabricated and delusional view of Ukraine, Russia and the world bangs up against reality.
https://samf.substack.com/p/giving-peace-a-chance
He's a spy, not a soldier. He relies on subterfuge and fabrication. And he's being undone as his fabricated and delusional view of Ukraine, Russia and the world bangs up against reality.
https://samf.substack.com/p/giving-peace-a-chance
https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2022/03/09/mariupol-materni...
After watching this bombarded hospital I wish them to burn in hell. They deserve much stronger sanctions than North Korea.
After watching this bombarded hospital I wish them to burn in hell. They deserve much stronger sanctions than North Korea.
It's horrible, and I bet all well informed Russians will agree that it is. Who are "they"? I think it is mostly up to a small group of people. I feel it is important to not forget that, and not get lost in hatred and revenge. Which is easy to say from far away from the front, I know.
“Well informed” is doing a lot of work there. The Russian equivalent of the American Republican is cheering this on, regardless of what information they have access to.
Because Americans are either Republicans or Democrats? Because you can't both think that the government should perhaps not have a monopoly on weapons AND be pro-choice? And you can't both condemn the war and then argue that Gorbachov was promised that the NATO would not expand and it is a factor in this war? What are you saying here?
We are humans and our opinions and ideas fall on continuums in many dimensions. Lets keep talking, to anyone, with respect.
We are humans and our opinions and ideas fall on continuums in many dimensions. Lets keep talking, to anyone, with respect.
If someone’s a Republican now they’re just nuts. Nothing to do with actual policy preferences anymore, just fake stuff. That’s what I’m referring to.
I have no words for this. It sounds to me like you have just lost it. Either that or your entire country lost it.
For god's sake, call anyone that voted republican (why do you even call them "a republican"? Maybe they just didn't like Hillary back when?!) and talk to them with an open mind and be kind. I think that would be the best thing to do for your country right now.
For god's sake, call anyone that voted republican (why do you even call them "a republican"? Maybe they just didn't like Hillary back when?!) and talk to them with an open mind and be kind. I think that would be the best thing to do for your country right now.
While I appreciate how crazy our country looks from outside, it's not that different from other English-speaking countries right now. There's a set of people whose perception of the world has become completely detached from reality. The vast majority of those people identify with the Republican party.
I fully agree with cautioning people not to get consumed with hate/revenge or to project Putin/supporters' faults on all Russians, but it's quite a bit more complicated even among the folks who "agree that the war is horrible" will, over the course of a few exchanges, begin arguing that western aggression/expansionism forced Putin's hand and he's really just defending Russian sovereignty. Or else they "agree that the war is horrible" but then fixate on how bad the sanctions are and how the west is so awful for imposing those sanctions. So it definitely feels like a lot of the Russians who "agree that the war is horrible" don't really mean it, or at least implicitly think the Ukrainians have it good compared to the sanctioned Russians. Of course, there are Russians who sincerely think the war is horrible--they're out protesting bravely (criticizing the war is punishable by 15 years in prison per a new "misinformation" law); however, few of the Russians I've talked to who "oppose the war" have anything good to say about these protesters.
> It's horrible, and I bet all well informed Russians will agree that it is.
One of the heavy pregnant woman photographed there has her instagram full of hundreds of Russians calling her a crisis actor, wishing her and her (yet unborn) child death and being raped. [0]
That's also the position of Russia MFA [1]
[0] https://twitter.com/ComeGentleNight/status/15019005935977185...
[1] https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/150192182043753676...
One of the heavy pregnant woman photographed there has her instagram full of hundreds of Russians calling her a crisis actor, wishing her and her (yet unborn) child death and being raped. [0]
That's also the position of Russia MFA [1]
[0] https://twitter.com/ComeGentleNight/status/15019005935977185...
[1] https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/150192182043753676...
It is of course true that the "average Russian" is not shelling Mariupol, is not an oligarch, and may not even have voted for Putin. Voting and support numbers showing broad support for Putin, if accurate and genuine, should be seen in the context of Russian propaganda.
And yet... this is the first time that Russians experience the anguish they have caused to Central and Eastern Europe over the past 80 years. USSR caused untold misery, to Russians too, but to its non-Russian subjects mostly. Economies were exploited, lives and bones were broken, culture subdued. Attempts to leave USSR be peaceful means were violently quashed, such as in Czechoslovakia in 1968, Hungary in 1956, and lots of smaller events along the way. Pro-USSR sentiment in Russia remains strong, as was support for annexation of Crimea.
At some point, "ordinary Russians" need to understand that the "Russian empire" machine they support, by sentiment if not democratic votes, brings misery and destruction to all who stand in its way.
In my experience, this sentiment is also not limited to "domestic-only" Russians, who perhaps lack access to "different bias" sources of information. I knew a number of highly educated and intelligent Russians living in the West, who still drank the kool aid.
I'm not saying, it's their turn to suffer, but for this reason I'm struggling to muster depths of sympathy.
And yet... this is the first time that Russians experience the anguish they have caused to Central and Eastern Europe over the past 80 years. USSR caused untold misery, to Russians too, but to its non-Russian subjects mostly. Economies were exploited, lives and bones were broken, culture subdued. Attempts to leave USSR be peaceful means were violently quashed, such as in Czechoslovakia in 1968, Hungary in 1956, and lots of smaller events along the way. Pro-USSR sentiment in Russia remains strong, as was support for annexation of Crimea.
At some point, "ordinary Russians" need to understand that the "Russian empire" machine they support, by sentiment if not democratic votes, brings misery and destruction to all who stand in its way.
In my experience, this sentiment is also not limited to "domestic-only" Russians, who perhaps lack access to "different bias" sources of information. I knew a number of highly educated and intelligent Russians living in the West, who still drank the kool aid.
I'm not saying, it's their turn to suffer, but for this reason I'm struggling to muster depths of sympathy.
My colleague with family in the region has said that the hospitals are evacuated and being used for logistics. Which might explain why they would be targeted.
This video being described as “difficult to watch” seems a lot like propaganda.
I don’t know what the truth is, but I know it’s not black and white.
This video being described as “difficult to watch” seems a lot like propaganda.
I don’t know what the truth is, but I know it’s not black and white.
That the Russians invaded Ukraine and not the other way 'round is pretty much black and white though.
yes. That's the nature of war. Just like general disinformation and the campaign to support the poor Ukrainians roasting devious Russian in their tanks (while taking 0 losses of course!) and painting the heroic image of a people waging urban warfare defending (read: destroying beyond recognition) their country to the last drop of blood.
Some further reading:
https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1498490752065757184
https://yasha.substack.com/p/insurgency
Putin is evil (and a child of the end of history). And yet, fighting fire with fire in heated, nationalistic conflicts has never been a recipe for improvement.
Some further reading:
https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1498490752065757184
https://yasha.substack.com/p/insurgency
Putin is evil (and a child of the end of history). And yet, fighting fire with fire in heated, nationalistic conflicts has never been a recipe for improvement.
Honestly, everyone in Ukraine has a right to be anywhere in Ukraine. If they do logistics in a hospital it doesn’t give Russia the right to bomb it - because Russia’s invasion isn’t in any way justifiable or legal.
So, putting up barricades behind a schoolbus is ok as well?
Yes, absolutely. If the invaders don’t want to shoot a schoolbus, all they have to do is go back home.
>My colleague with family in the region
Just say he is Russian instead.
>Which might explain why they would be targeted.
Why is it hard to believe that Russians would intentionally target Ukrainian hospitals? Have you seen what the Russian media and social media say about Ukrainians?
Russia literally bombed and killed 47 civilians waiting for food last week.
>but I know it’s not black and white
Russia started an irredentist invasion of an independent democratic country.
How is that not black and white?
Just say he is Russian instead.
>Which might explain why they would be targeted.
Why is it hard to believe that Russians would intentionally target Ukrainian hospitals? Have you seen what the Russian media and social media say about Ukrainians?
Russia literally bombed and killed 47 civilians waiting for food last week.
>but I know it’s not black and white
Russia started an irredentist invasion of an independent democratic country.
How is that not black and white?
The truth is Putin's troops invaded Ukraine and are killing innocent people every hour. And it's obvious that each day of this aggression will make this number higher and higher.
Same thing happened in Gaza - Israel blamed Hamas of course:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-israeli-strike-damaged-g...
https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-israeli-strike-damaged-g...
Western news has been notoriously racist when it comes to middle-east crisis vs Ukraine coverage.
Not sure if it's limited to certain news outlets, but that's the overall feeling I'm getting.
Not sure if it's limited to certain news outlets, but that's the overall feeling I'm getting.
Maybe to some degree. A lot of it is that in most conflicts both sides have some credible arguments, I disagree with the degree of responses and general treatment of WB and Gaza, but Israel usually claims with some degree of truth to be responding to attacks during their incursions and bombings, while noone believes Russia had a valid reason to invade Ukraine.
Half of Russia feels the same way about their country that you do about Israel.
I'm talking about outside of Russia/Israel. And I personally do not see Israel positively wrt Palestine, but find their pretexts a lot more credible than Putin's so I understand why there's a lot more unanimity in Western press about Ukraine
> After watching this bombarded hospital I wish them to burn in hell. They deserve much stronger sanctions than North Korea.
It should be noted that sanctions have done nothing to change the behavior of North Korea's leadership to be more palatable to the West. I bet it'll be the same with Russia.
It should be noted that sanctions have done nothing to change the behavior of North Korea's leadership to be more palatable to the West. I bet it'll be the same with Russia.
NK is not Russia. Russia knows what western brands and luxuries are. There have been lines in Russia to McDonalds, Victoria's Secret and other stores.
The sanctions are working. Russians are going back in time and soon will be standing in line for bread.
Chelsea a large premier league team owned by an oligarch has been frozen and he can't sell like he wanted to.
Nikkita Mazepin has been removed from F1 and sanctioned along with his oligarch father and no longer can travel in EU.
Aeroflot(russian airline) grounded its planes because they will get seized and cannot enter EU/US air space.
Other oligarchs are moving their expensive yachts because those are getting seized. Their other assets such as properties and bank accounts are being frozen all over the world and they a lot real estate in the UK. This definitely hurts.
The list goes on and on.
The sanctions are working. Russians are going back in time and soon will be standing in line for bread.
Chelsea a large premier league team owned by an oligarch has been frozen and he can't sell like he wanted to.
Nikkita Mazepin has been removed from F1 and sanctioned along with his oligarch father and no longer can travel in EU.
Aeroflot(russian airline) grounded its planes because they will get seized and cannot enter EU/US air space.
Other oligarchs are moving their expensive yachts because those are getting seized. Their other assets such as properties and bank accounts are being frozen all over the world and they a lot real estate in the UK. This definitely hurts.
The list goes on and on.
> NK is not Russia. Russia knows what western brands and luxuries are. There have been lines in Russia to McDonalds, Victoria's Secret and other stores.
Do you really think the Russian government will withdraw from Ukraine because people can't buy McDonald's in Moscow anymore?
China isn't sanctioning Russia. I bet the oligarchs and other elietes will continue to get whatever Western status goods they want through smuggling (just like North Korea!), and the Russia people will have sufficient Chinese-manufactured consumer goods (like everyone everywhere else), just equivalents with different logos.
Do you really think the Russian government will withdraw from Ukraine because people can't buy McDonald's in Moscow anymore?
China isn't sanctioning Russia. I bet the oligarchs and other elietes will continue to get whatever Western status goods they want through smuggling (just like North Korea!), and the Russia people will have sufficient Chinese-manufactured consumer goods (like everyone everywhere else), just equivalents with different logos.
"The world was theirs", they could show off their wealth in Paris, in London, in Florence, in New York, in Athens and Mallorca, in Tel Aviv and Sydney. Do you think they would be happy of having their world "shrink" to just Russia and China? Would that feel claustrophobic for these wealthy Russians? Could they do something about it, throwing their weight to shift some power balance and replace their dictator with another one more in line with the actual interests of the Russian riling class?
> "The world was theirs", they could show off their wealth in Paris, in London, in Florence, in New York, in Athens and Mallorca, in Tel Aviv and Sydney. Do you think they would be happy of having their world "shrink" to just Russia and China?
We'll see, but "being unhappy" is a far cry from deciding to take on some KGB goon who appears to have no compunction against murdering rivals.
I highly doubt there will be regime change in Russia because some politically-connected oligarchs' wives can't flout their Hermes handbags in Paris. That seems far more like a fantasy than a realistic expectation.
We'll see, but "being unhappy" is a far cry from deciding to take on some KGB goon who appears to have no compunction against murdering rivals.
I highly doubt there will be regime change in Russia because some politically-connected oligarchs' wives can't flout their Hermes handbags in Paris. That seems far more like a fantasy than a realistic expectation.
I agree. Just saying that it's not that oligarchs will just get their goods from china and nothing will change for them. Whether that's going to have any impact whatsoever is another story.
> and soon will be standing in line for bread
No. Sure, they won't have access to Western technological miracle products like Netflix, Facebook, and PornHub, but they have plenty of grain production, processing, transportation, and baking capacity for as much bread as they want, particularly since they'll be exporting less of their own wheat.
Your examples are very telling. Wow, Russians are being excluded from sportsball, motor racing, sex tourism, and extravagant yachting excursions! Nothing of value was lost.
Their actual concerns will be the German, Italian, and Japanese precision machine tools, optics, and PLC/robotics/automation components that their own industry relies on. These are the real worries, not a goddamned soccer club.
No. Sure, they won't have access to Western technological miracle products like Netflix, Facebook, and PornHub, but they have plenty of grain production, processing, transportation, and baking capacity for as much bread as they want, particularly since they'll be exporting less of their own wheat.
Your examples are very telling. Wow, Russians are being excluded from sportsball, motor racing, sex tourism, and extravagant yachting excursions! Nothing of value was lost.
Their actual concerns will be the German, Italian, and Japanese precision machine tools, optics, and PLC/robotics/automation components that their own industry relies on. These are the real worries, not a goddamned soccer club.
> Their actual concerns will be the German, Italian, and Japanese precision machine tools, optics, and PLC/robotics/automation components that their own industry relies on. These are the real worries, not a goddamned soccer club.
And for stuff like that, there's always front companies and smuggling (if they can't find what they need on the market in China). IIRC, that's what they used to do during Soviet times.
And for stuff like that, there's always front companies and smuggling (if they can't find what they need on the market in China). IIRC, that's what they used to do during Soviet times.
Putin meets with oligarchs, the richest people in the country have access and communicate with governments and have the ability to affect policy making.
Placing sanctions on people close to Putin and freezing their soccer team worth billions of dollars definitely has an impact.
Many car manufacturers are pulling out and not selling parts. We live in a globalized society and Russia was a part of it. Putin was betting on oil/natural gas money but that soon will be gone.
Placing sanctions on people close to Putin and freezing their soccer team worth billions of dollars definitely has an impact.
Many car manufacturers are pulling out and not selling parts. We live in a globalized society and Russia was a part of it. Putin was betting on oil/natural gas money but that soon will be gone.
Our countries should send an ultimatum: if no agreement have been found by next week, frozen assets will be nationalized. Having Chelsea belong to BoJo would be fun :)
Everyone agrees sanctions will make Russia poorer. What is less clear, and none of your examples show, is if it will change Russia's geopolitical actions.
It's not like a lack of sanctions would change their behavior either though, maybe nothing we do will change their behavior. In that case they can do less damage to the rest of the world if they are poor and cut off than if they are rich and able to trade freely.
And there is still a chance sanctions will change their behavior even if in some cases like with NK it hasn't worked.
And there is still a chance sanctions will change their behavior even if in some cases like with NK it hasn't worked.
Sanctions affect dictatorships and oligarchies differently.
> It should be noted that sanctions have done nothing to change the behavior of North Korea's leadership to be more palatable to the West.
Sanctions aren't chosen because they are effective at changing behavior, but because they limit capacity if they fail to change behavior. The sanctions on Russia are not “we believe Putin will behave in response to the sanctions” but “we intend to destroy Russia’s economy and thereby limit it's ability to engage in aggression until and unless we are convinced that Putin has made a durable course correction.”
Sanctions aren't chosen because they are effective at changing behavior, but because they limit capacity if they fail to change behavior. The sanctions on Russia are not “we believe Putin will behave in response to the sanctions” but “we intend to destroy Russia’s economy and thereby limit it's ability to engage in aggression until and unless we are convinced that Putin has made a durable course correction.”
How do you know the sanctions on North Korea haven’t changed anything? It’s impossible to know what their behavior would have been in an alternate reality without sanctions.
> How do you know the sanctions on North Korea haven’t changed anything? It’s impossible to know what their behavior would have been in an alternate reality without sanctions.
But it is possible to know that their behavior continues to be extremely unacceptable to the West. So if your goal with sanctions is to stop the invasion of Ukraine and to get Russia to stop threatening its neighbors with similar, it's very likely that sanctions won't work.
IMHO, sanctions are something the West does when it doesn't want to solve a problem but still wants to feel like it's doing something.
I also think sanctions will end up being counterproductive. They'll fail to address the military situation AND geopolitically they'll push Russia into a deeper alliance with China, strengthening the latter.
You've already seen an example of that with Belarus. A few years ago it got sanctioned and its leader was forced to turn to Russia for help. Now it's militarily supporting the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
But it is possible to know that their behavior continues to be extremely unacceptable to the West. So if your goal with sanctions is to stop the invasion of Ukraine and to get Russia to stop threatening its neighbors with similar, it's very likely that sanctions won't work.
IMHO, sanctions are something the West does when it doesn't want to solve a problem but still wants to feel like it's doing something.
I also think sanctions will end up being counterproductive. They'll fail to address the military situation AND geopolitically they'll push Russia into a deeper alliance with China, strengthening the latter.
You've already seen an example of that with Belarus. A few years ago it got sanctioned and its leader was forced to turn to Russia for help. Now it's militarily supporting the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
I don't think anyone in public has enough information to state this. We don't know what NK we'd have to deal with had those sanctions not been in place.
> I don't think anyone in public has enough information to state this. We don't know what NK we'd have to deal with had those sanctions not been in place.
But we do know that it is currently an extremely totalitarian country that developed nuclear weapons and ICBMs while under sanctions, and it continues to have a gun pointed at the head of South Korea (e.g. enough dug in artillery to level Seoul a couple times over).
But we do know that it is currently an extremely totalitarian country that developed nuclear weapons and ICBMs while under sanctions, and it continues to have a gun pointed at the head of South Korea (e.g. enough dug in artillery to level Seoul a couple times over).
ATGM position of Mariupol defenders:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4-zYV_6Tgk
I hope they have evacuated all residents from there. Even if no one left Mariupol through evacuation corridors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4-zYV_6Tgk
I hope they have evacuated all residents from there. Even if no one left Mariupol through evacuation corridors.
WarGonzo is Russian state propaganda. How do we know those are Ukrainian defenders and not Russians pretending to Ukrainians?
Google Maps perhaps?
Seems like here: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.1186918,37.6934124,333m/data...
Seems like here: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.1186918,37.6934124,333m/data...
US-armed Israel was bombing hospitals and clinics in Gaza last year.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MSF/status/1393868206566223872
Of course Israel said Palestinians they were fighting were nearby, but that is what the Russians are saying too.
I don't remember the maudlin, mawkish melodrama of hospitals and clinics being bombed by a US armed country being such a big deal in the US last year.
Actually Biden's team is in Saudi Arabia right now discussing a deal for Saudi Arabia to export more oil if the US drops its minimal sanctions last year relating to its bloody war in Yemen and disembowlment of a Washington Post reporter in a Turkish embassy.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MSF/status/1393868206566223872
Of course Israel said Palestinians they were fighting were nearby, but that is what the Russians are saying too.
I don't remember the maudlin, mawkish melodrama of hospitals and clinics being bombed by a US armed country being such a big deal in the US last year.
Actually Biden's team is in Saudi Arabia right now discussing a deal for Saudi Arabia to export more oil if the US drops its minimal sanctions last year relating to its bloody war in Yemen and disembowlment of a Washington Post reporter in a Turkish embassy.
When people say stuff like this, I'm inclined to make the distinction between the Russian state and the Russian people. Russia isn't a democracy, so its actions don't necessarily represent the will of the Russian people. And indeed, tens of thousands risk imprisonment by protesting the war, and this gives me hope. However, I've been really bummed lurking on r/AskARussian where many Russians perspectives read like, "I don't like Putin and I don't support this war but the sanctions are worse and the evil West forced Putin's hand and actually Putin is a hero and I love him and support the war". Even still, I don't want Russia to be cut off from the rest of the world, but I also want Putin's murderous conquest to be stopped.
No one is better positioned to end this than the Russian people. I don't see how they can be absolved of that responsibility.
I sort of agree with you, but I don't think the judgment by westerners is justified considering how few westerners have contributed in any significant way toward the freedoms we enjoy and how many actively seek to undermine them (campaigns against free speech, due process, egalitarianism/"colorblindness", unfavorable election results, etc). While it's true that Russians are in the best position to fix their government, those who protest or otherwise resist demonstrate a braveness well in excess of anything most living westerners can claim, and I think that should be the posture with which we discuss Russians resisting their government.
EDIT: as a sibling commenter points out, many western countries are still directly financing the war via payments to Russian state fossil fuel companies. How many westerners would be willing to endure a year or more of high prices and economic downturn to resist the Russian invasion (yes, Americans favor boycotting Russian oil now, but (1) will they still after a year of high gas prices and (2) many other western countries are far more dependent on Russian oil than America)?
EDIT: as a sibling commenter points out, many western countries are still directly financing the war via payments to Russian state fossil fuel companies. How many westerners would be willing to endure a year or more of high prices and economic downturn to resist the Russian invasion (yes, Americans favor boycotting Russian oil now, but (1) will they still after a year of high gas prices and (2) many other western countries are far more dependent on Russian oil than America)?
This is not entirely accurate. European countries pay billions of dollars for gas directly to the state. If they stopped immediately, the damage would be far greater than anything coming from the ordinary citizens.
The Russian people can stop that trade by just not showing up for work at Gazprom and Rosneft.
I agree, Europe should stop buying Russian gas. But the Russian people are closer to all of this.
I agree, Europe should stop buying Russian gas. But the Russian people are closer to all of this.
The Russian people are the only ones that can stop this. It’s their fight, they created their government.
As another commenter points out, the West could stop financing the war by payments to the Russian state in exchange for fossil fuels. But that would be pretty inconvenient for westerners.
Yeah, that's entirely true. I wish I could get our country to stop buying oil. I live near an (electric, hydro powered) subway station so I don't have to own a car!
Remember that the first victim of war is the truth. Putin deserves scorn for starting an unnecessary fight that will inflict unnecessary suffering on millions, but focusing on individual acts is basically meaningless, because they'll be spun to death on both sides.
I’m not sure that it matters how much a country defending itself spins things. If the invaders don’t want spin, they can go back to their (unbombed) homes.
I'm just saying that focusing on this or that "atrocity" is just a way to lose sight of the big picture, which inevitably favours somebody's agenda. We don't want to hype ourselves into WW3, no matter how hard some Ukrainians might want us to; we want to find a way to save lives and ramp this down somehow.
Great points, I totally agree.
I’m a little worried that Russia will decide to lay waste to Ukraine and not stop until they’ve killed the government. :(
I’m a little worried that Russia will decide to lay waste to Ukraine and not stop until they’ve killed the government. :(
mediumsmart(1)
peakaboo(3)
Putin is pushing, Putin started, Putin invaded... Trump announced, Biden sanctioned...
Guys, really, it's not 1900s anymore, we do understand that they don't make decisions, right? Terrible thing is that russians think America is behind the curtains (I asked), EU and US think Putin is crazy (also asked), and only handful of people understands that this terrible conflict is played out by globalists who were year by year buying out Ukraine's soil. Kind of alike to what Turkey and Britain are doing to the North Cyprus. No one cares about population there - only territory! It's just terrible!
Did you just read War and Peace or something? This was Putin's choice.
The issue is that now due to currency devaluing and most modern companies / orgs refusing to cooperate with Russian companies, not factoring in banking / capital flows, there are very few reasons for people with skills to remain in Russia or grow their skills in Russia. Without smart young people helping to push Russia forward, not just tech wise but in most technically hard industries, the outlook for Russians are not good. Why work somewhere where your compensation for time could be worth nothing or denied by the rest of the western world?
That said, I think the west fails to understand how similar young Russians still are to their parents from the Soviet era. For instance, unlike the US most Russians even in the current generation attend a state university, party and drink like crazy until they attend college and shortly after college get married and immediately have children. This is also consistent across a huge swath of fields. For instance, I have friends who are artists / florists who have two kids at 24. This kind of culture is not necessarily aligned with fleeing the country to the west. One of the most fascinating traits of my young Russian friends (most of whom are artists) is their denial or confusion of being "proudly russian", even prior to Ukraine many seemed embarrassed to be proud of their country.