from the Finnish outback — Apollodorus

I stopped reading after that, your way of discussing in this thread is just low quality through and through so don't even bother caring. I won't be interacting with some in this thread because I don't want to sink to that level.

've seen that story bandied around, but it's not true. Yeltsin was corrupt af, and he chose Putin as his successor so he'd have protection from prosecution.

Putin has the same problem. He can't step down unless he has a successor who's loyal and corrupt. — frank

Why is progress through time such a hard thing for people to understand? Yes, Yeltsin was corrupt, but there's a lot of shades of grey in all of this. He was corrupt, but that's totally normal for a nation who still has echos of its former regime. The only thing that matters is how it progress, does it move towards less corruption or more? Yeltsin doesn't matter, what matters is if the entire nation moves in the right direction.

As an example, just look at Ukraine. It had the same problems with corruption for a long time and it still has a lot ingrained in the day to day life (before the war). But they acted to work against that kind of corruption and they had made a lot of progress in just the last couple of years.

All it takes is one leader that might be corrupt, might be a fucking asshole or super bad at his job, but open to let the society change in the direction IT wants.

Ukraine was slowly becoming more stable, with better standards and protection of it's citizens individuality and freedom of speech, it had everything aimed right in the best direction.

This is what Putin stopped in Russia, he stopped the progression of Russia to get to that place and instead did everything in his power to consolidate power to himself.

So, you can't say that "it's not true", because you're viewing everything with black and white glasses, thinking that me saying Yeltsin was better for the progression of Russia is me saying he is a good leader and uncorrupted. He was not, he was shit, but the nation had the right course, before Putin killed all of that ambition.

Speaking of consolidating power, these two articles by the Russian journalist Farida Rustamova are interesting. She has talked to her contacts among the Russian power elite about the war, first in the first week after the invasion ("They’re carefully enunciating the word clusterf*ck"), and then again weeks later (“Now we're going to f*ck them all.”).

(Given that most of her sources are anonymous and there is little independent confirmation for any of this, you can only trust her integrity. But she has written for respected media outlets before independent media was completely shut down in Russia.)

What she describes in the first article is that apparently, the full-scale invasion was a complete surprise to all, and the first reaction to it was shock, incomprehension and fear. But then the mood changes. There is the expected rally-around-the-flag effect, as well as a realization that, like it or not, this is a new reality to which they will have to adapt.

Over the past week, I’ve spoken with several people close to Putin, as well as with about a dozen civil servants of various levels and state company employees. I had two goals. First of all, to understand the mood among the Russian elites and people close to them after the imposition of unprecedented sanctions on Russia. Secondly, to find out whether anyone is trying to convince President Putin to stop the bloodshed — and why Roman Abramovich ended up playing the role of mediator/diplomat.

In short, it can be said that, over the past month, Putin’s dream of a consolidation among the Russian elite has come true. These people understand that their lives are now tied only to Russia, and that that’s where they’ll need to build them. The differences and the influence of various circles and clans have been erased by the fact that, for the most part, people have lost their past positions and resources. The possible conclusion of a peace treaty is unlikely to change the mood of the Russian elites. "We’ve passed the point of no return,” says a source close to the Kremlin. “Everyone understands that there will be peace, but that this peace won't return the life we had before.” — Farida Rustamova

I think all socially directed violence is illegitimate. Only personal self-defence is legitimate. Whenever someone decides for others to go forth elsewhere and fight to the death, whatever the reason, it is ethically wrong whether we label that war a just war or not.

We're not made for this, and I mean that in a very real biological and mental sense — Benkei

What do you base this claim on?

Throughout history, pretty much every society has had a social class or category of soldiers, warriors. These were people whose primary or sole purpose in life was to go to war. Not every person is or can be a member of this class, but some are. You, however, seem to think that all people are the same, or should be the same.

I'm wondering if the harsh sanctions may have been a mistake. If it just closes Russia off to the rest of the world, that's unfortunate.

They are. No doubt about it to my mind. Perhaps isolate sanctions to oligarchs and Putin, try to make these bite, other sanctions only hurt the population.

I think that having a cursory glance at 20th century history shows that sanctions haven't prevented a war from occurring. Nothing comes to mind, though someone here may point one out to me.

I mean, would it make sense to sanction all of France for its savagery in Algeria? Or sanctioning all of Indonesia for East Timor? Etc., etc.

You have to deal with those who have power, which are the leaders.

I'm guessing the people who endorse sanctioning are those who couldn't tolerate being sanctioned themselves.

Sure.

Just like those who love war (or romanticize it) are willing to shout and support it till' the end of other people's blood.

They're depressingly subservient. It seems they have totally bought into the fact that Putin is an absolute ruler. This is probably why he is able to stay in power, because so many people around him simply believe that there can be no alternative. The transition to Czarist Stalinism is complete.

Just like those who love war (or romanticize it) are willing to shout and support it till' the end of other people's blood. — Manuel

I don't really know anybody like that. Do you?

Really? I think it's pretty evident and frequent.

The late Christopher Hitchens, most of the Bush Administration. The Kremlin now.

Basically those initiating a war, who don't have to participate in the field of battle. It's quite common.

The late Christopher Hitchens, most of the Bush Administration. The Kremlin now. — Manuel

I think Christopher Hitchens was a piece of decaying fungus shaped like a human.

The Bush administration didn't invade Iraq because they had romantic notions about war.

The Kremlin now? I really don't know.

Interesting read:
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-april-3

I took my rhetoric too far, I did not intend to literally suggest that many people love war.

The point was to express that those in power who argue for war, that it's a noble cause because of "democracy", "unification", "de-Nazification" and so on, will enthusiastically continue supporting the war, that other people pay with there lives.

I think one can make a case that there is a certain "ideal" element to this, who is against "democracy" or for Nazis? But more often than not, the arguments are bs or vastly exaggerated as is the case now .

think one can make a case that there is a certain "ideal" element to this, who is against "democracy" or for Nazis? But more often than not, the arguments are bs or vastly exaggerated as is the case now . — Manuel

Definitely. I think with any war, someone who's making a profit off of it is facilitating it.

Maybe sometimes those facilitators tip events toward war, so the real reasons for it are many and sometimes not known far and wide.

Yes.

In this case, many oil companies are very very happy. Not to mention Lockheed and company.

And seeing as this war may escalate again, they are even happier. It's savage.

In this case, many oil companies are very very happy. Not to mention Lockheed and company.

And seeing as this war may escalate again, they are even happier. It's savage. — Manuel

Yep.

Seems like Russian forces are failing at combined arms ...



... and are instead leveling civilian targets only to be taken out by drones ...



Bad, both because civilian targets are destroyed :fire: :death: (civilians killed, houses, McDonald's ruined), and because the Russian leaders send their troops in to become cannon fodder :death: (when they could be at home doing less destructive things and have a Vodka). Seeing someone blown to pieces is kind of disturbing either way.

Rumors on the street will have it that the Ukrainian forces have been supplied with Switchblades, which might work well for them.

Putin has gotten Russia into a bit of a quagmire, stubborn Ukrainians with guns, sanctions interrupting the economy, ... He may have the upper hand in a more strategic sense, but has apparently lost out more tactically per se.

frank
10.4k
In this case, many oil companies are very very happy. Not to mention Lockheed and company.

And seeing as this war may escalate again, they are even happier. It's savage.
— Manuel

Yep. — frank

Being specific about who benefits, who has the upper hand, etc is very welcome. Some suspect that certain politicians also get paid sums of money by arms companies to make decisions to favor them, but this has not been proven.

I think we would do well with a list of people responsible for the Ukraine tragedy, but Zelenkyys' current location is unknown except for the satellites that broadcast his TV appearances.

https://nypost.com/2022/03/07/ukrainian-president-volodymyr-zelensky-revealed-his-location/

Meanwhile I estimate the score is thus:

People of the world : -5
People of Ukraine : -10
People of Russia : -6

It is an unusual conflict, in which no-one will benefit. Have we seen mutually assured destruction here?

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/LMT

You may want to invest in your 'defence' :

https://www.fool.com/investing/stock-market/market-sectors/industrials/defense-stocks/

He was corrupt, but that's totally normal for a nation who still has echos of its former regime. The only thing that matters is how it progress, does it move towards less corruption or more? — Christoffer

There are several concerns:

World Bank published The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) reports that evaluate efficiency of governments in several countries on the basis of following six indicators.

Voice and Accountability
Political Stability and Absence of Violence
Government Effectiveness
Regulatory Quality
Rule of Law
Control of Corruption.

http://www.countryranker.com/worlds-top-20-countries-with-best-government/

The world index of best countries does rate Sweden highly,

http://www.countryranker.com/worlds-top-20-countries-with-best-government/

1. Finland
2. Singapore
3. Denmark
4. Sweden
5. Norway
6. Switzerland
7. Netherlands
8. New Zealand
9. Liechtenstein
10. Canada

The big question is : do the people of that country have a say in how that country is being run? Peace, stability, prosperity, these things are important, but how do you get there? Sanctions do not help, not does meddling in elections, funding of protests by foreign countries, and planned poverty. Nor does disintegration. How do you explain Yemen's right to self determination - it's a joke. How is Yemen supposed to progress?

I see no way for the good people of this world to control the trajectory of their nations be it in economy, foreign policy or the environment, maybe they never had a prayer, though revolutions keep occurring 360 degrees revolutions, these. Paradoxically, the unpredictability of war has the chance to disrupt the system. It is not ideal.

Nice is-ought mistake there. Selective in your history too. And nowhere have I suggested everybody should be the same. And no I don't feel like expanding on this other than the obvious point we're the only animal who have started mass killing itself - not as an isolated incident but policy. The fact you think that's normal and go out of your way to defend its existence would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg on Sunday said Russia is shifting its strategy in Ukraine, discounting the idea that it could be withdrawing from the war-torn country.

“What we see is not a real withdrawal, what we see that Russia is re-positioning its troops and they are taking some of them back to rearm them, to reinforce them, to resupply them, but we should not in a way be too optimistic because the attacks will continue,” Stoltenberg said during an interview with co-anchor Dana Bash on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“And we are also concerned about potential increased attacks especially in the south and in the east. So this is not a real withdrawal but more a shift in the strategy, focusing more on the south and the east,” he added.

Stoltenberg discounted the idea that Russian President Vladimir Putin is scaling back his goals for the war that began six weeks ago. — NATO chief says Russia shifting strategy: ‘This is not a real withdrawal’

NATO's said it, so it must be true, right?

Definition of siege:
a military operation in which enemy forces surround a town or building, cutting off essential supplies, with the aim of compelling those inside to surrender.
This hasn't at all happened, so what are you talking about? Quite baseless remarks. — ssu

You did not read my comments.

I explain that the I never "predicted" Kiev would be 100% encircled with 0 supplies in the first place, just explaining an alternative purpose (lay siege) the Russians may have compared to entering the city and taking it in Urban combat (the dominative Western narrative at the time).

I explain why Russia would be trying to do so (tie-up troops and apply political pressure), and I also explain that Ukrainians will fight extremely hard to avoid total encirclement, as it would be a big strategic loss and so Russians maybe doing thing slowly and cautiously.

None of that were "predictions", just explaining a potential different plan that explains the convoy sitting on the road for example and the purposes of achieving said plan. I repeat several times that Ukrainians could potentially rout the Russians, just that I don't personally see how.

That being said:

Why it's arguably a siege (or then accomplished the intended purpose of a siege) anyways is:

And, key word "arguable"; I'm just pointing out the argument could be made anyways that there was a siege:

A. If all roads are cut off save one, and that can be covered by artillery, missile and air cover, maybe supplies are disrupted enough. As has already been mentioned, few sieges in history are perfect, so certainly Russia disrupted Ukrainian supply of Kiev, and with modern weapons and surveillance maybe a modern siege doesn't literally require a circle of guard and torches all the way around the city.

B. The media started reporting it as a siege once the West highway was taken, so maybe the definition of siege is changing to fit modern warfare (rather than medieval and ancient warfare).

But, whatever your definition of a siege, the operation may have been ended as the purposes were achieved before 100% encirclement was reached (whether the Russians could have advanced more or not): Mariupol seems essentially fallen, Ukraine accepts it won't join NATO, game changing moves like no-Fly zone are off the table, peace talks at least appear to be progressing (which, maybe disingenuous on Russia's part, Ukrainian part, or both, but the existence of the talks maybe one other purpose of the manoeuvre to lay siege).

Obviously, if purposes are achieved before an operation is fully complete ... there is no further reason to continue that operation. And, this is why I rephrased things as applying "pressure" to get these political concessions, of which total and complete encirclement may not be required; North, East and West maybe enough "pressure".

But then the mood changes. There is the expected rally-around-the-flag effect, as well as a realization that, like it or not, this is a new reality to which they will have to adapt. — SophistiCat

Thanks for the articles. Yes, I agree with you. And in the Russian way likely people will say one thing publicly and one thing in the kitchen with people they trust. When Putin veers the discourse into something equivalent of Soviet times (without the ideology), then Russians adapt.

And Russians do support they troops.

And Russians do support they troops. — ssu

Everyone support their troops There should be condition of enlistment that they will only fight wars sanctioned by the UN Security council. That will show them.

A. If all roads are cut off save one, and that can be covered by artillery, missile and air cover, maybe supplies are disrupted enough. As has already been mentioned, few sieges in history are perfect, so certainly Russia disrupted Ukrainian supply of Kiev, and with modern weapons and surveillance maybe a modern siege doesn't literally require a circle of guard and torches all the way around the city. — boethius

I don't think all roads save one were cut off. And I think the trains have been moving also.

(the Economist, March 18th) The trains are fast becoming the arteries of Ukraine’s wartime being, moving refugees and exports west, and critical humanitarian supplies back to the centre. Tickets have in effect become voluntary, and the system runs almost entirely on emergency state subsidies, which last month cost 18bn hryvnia ($612m).

If Russia would have disrupted the supplies going into Kyiv, you bet you would have reporters telling about it.

B. The media started reporting it as a siege once the West highway was taken, so maybe the definition of siege is changing to fit modern warfare (rather than medieval and ancient warfare). — boethius

I think here media reporting doesn't use the word accurately. It's more like if the advance stops and one side bombards a city, it is called a siege when it's not technically one. Basically it's only that the city (or part of it) has become the frontline.

Everyone support their troops There should be condition of enlistment that they will only fight wars sanctioned by the UN Security council. That will show them. — FreeEmotion

Did they in Afghanistan? Nobody supported them... the leaders just siphoned money with salaries of nonexistent servicemen and proved no support for the army to defend itself in the Taliban offensive. So it was easy for the Taleban to make the deal to the ANA soldiers that if they go home, they won't kill them. Many took that offer. The Afghan way of war.

I think here media reporting doesn't use the word accurately. — ssu

Seriously? You're quibbling about the correct terminology?

The only matter of substance with regards to the 'siege' is it's impact on the question of whether sending (more) arms to Ukraine is going to do more harm than good. In respect to that question, it hardly matters if the term is being used accurately. What matters is whether the action (whatever it was) was something successfully frustrated in its objective by the Ukrainians sufficient to increase the leverage at the negotiation table, or whether the degree of obstacle Ukraine presented was within the range of responses Russian plans anticipated.

It's to that question @boethius is applying his analysis. You pointing out that some of the terminology could be interpreted differently has no bearing on that question.

Do you have anything of substance to add?

I see no way for the good people of this world to control the trajectory of their nations be it in economy, foreign policy or the environment, maybe they never had a prayer, though revolutions keep occurring 360 degrees revolutions, these. Paradoxically, the unpredictability of war has the chance to disrupt the system. It is not ideal. — FreeEmotion

I'm not sure if it is so simply that the good things happen because of good people and bad ones because of the bad.

Things can improve even in Yemen or other places. Yet they improve in their own way with economic, social and political limitations of the society in question. Improvements can happen also in Russia, but in it's own pace and only with the agency of Russians themselves. Individuals can adapt to a new culture easily, but

Just to give an example, my country ranks the highest on the "best government list". This isn't because of our leader and politicians, but because of the society.

Let me give you a telling example. When a group of Finns find themselves in a new place together, they do two things. First they build a sauna (even if it's in the middle of the Sahara). Then they create an association. Finland has a lot of associations and a lot of Finns are active in associations. The need for various associations is obvious: if a club, a village or a group of friends decide to have anything owned collectively, they need an association. If let's say it's a rowing boat that some islanders need, it could be problematic is one person owns the boat. What if he dies? His or her heirs might just sell the boat. Hence the need for associations. And with associations comes the democracy as things are decided in associations by vote and representation.

Which then gives the society a whole way to organize itself. Things like that just don't happen with legislation and policies given by the leaders.

Seriously? You're quibbling about the correct terminology? — Isaac

Basically the situation in Kyiv and in Mariupol are quite different. One is under siege, one isn't.

Little things like that, yes, should be pointed out.

I'm asking you to find a better alternative, that exists today. Please present an alternative that actually counters my argument here, because I still haven't heard any actual and realistic alternative yet. — Christoffer

This has already been answered. That you refuse to engage with the answer is not something the rest of us are responsible for. Western capitalism entails, as an intrinsic part of it's approach, efforts to destroy or harm alternative systems. As such, systems compete, and are successful, not on a metric of human well-being, but on a metric of being able to survive that inter-system competition. The most sucessful systems are those which compete best in that fight. If that's a metric you're impressed by for some reason, that's your problem.

The 'solution' such as it is, is to bring down capitalism so that it is not one of the competitors. That way alternative systems can compete on the grounds of their impact on human well-being rather than on the grounds of their ability to withstand the onslaught capitalism directs toward them.

That solution is not brought about by making countries more capitalist.