What I find amazing about modern wars is how immensely complex they are. In the good ol' days pre-globalization, there was a clear boundary between belligerents, they were self-contained units so to speak.

Compare that to the Ukraine war: Moscow is invading Ukraine, the rest of Europe is anti-Russia, but are also buying Russian gas for their homes. This is just the tip of the iceberg as regards the complexity I was referring to. Gone are the days when telling friend from foe was easy peasy.

That's probably an illusion. With Ukraine, in contrast with the wars of the past, it's just too early for simple narratives to have developed, or to have become credible. And anyway, if you really look into past wars, you soon see how endlessly complex they are.

On the other hand, I guess it's plausible that as the world becomes more interconnected, clear narratives become more difficult to establish.

:up:

Compare that to the Ukraine war: Moscow is invading Ukraine, the rest of Europe is anti-Russia, but are also buying Russian gas for their homes. This is just the tip of the iceberg as regards the complexity I was referring to. Gone are the days when telling friend from foe was easy peasy. — Agent Smith

aka. "business as usual" :smile:

Another example:
war in Syria, Turkey shot down Russian plane - Turkey and Russia sign gas deal.

Some events in Putin's Russia's ☢ thing ...

^{Feb 03: Russian missile systems arrived in Belarus, allegedly for exercises
Feb 18: Russia (publically) announced strategic ☢ forces drills, Putin oversaw, included launches of ICBMs and cruise missiles
Feb 19: Russian strategic ☢ forces ran exercises near Ukraine border, Putin oversaw
Feb 24: Russia invaded Ukraine :fire: ("special military operation" :eyes:)
Feb 24: In public speech, Putin raised ominous ☢ threat (also referring to the USSR by the way), warning anyone interfering with "consequences they have never seen", mentioned "several cutting-edge weapons"
Feb 27: Televised, Putin ordered Russia's ☢ deterrence forces on alert ("a special mode of combat service")
Mar 02: Lavrov said a third world war would be ☢
Apr 14: Rogozin ("the Roscosmos troll") said on TV that he and Putin met regarding construction of superior missile systems
Apr 20: Russian military notified of successful tests of new ICBM, Putin congratulated military, warns of weapon's superiority
Apr 23: Rogozin said construction of 46 ICBMs (large, ☢-capable) on schedule, ETA fall
Apr 25: Lavrov warned of serious ☢ third world war possibility
Apr 27: Solovyov sort of threatened (or trolled) the UK with erasure by ☢ strike
Apr 27: Putin threatened more or less whole world with swift and capable response to intervention, mentioned it's already been decided (like "set in stone")
Apr 28: Simonyan (state TV) made a feature of Putin's resolve, other TV anchors threatened with ☢ destruction (boasting superiority), a bit echo chamber'y
• Throughout, Russian forces have attacked/destroyed some Ukrainian ☢ power plants/sites, including Chernobyl}

Whatever they're thinking and/or planning, it's rather clear that Putin wants everyone to know, wants to deter/threaten/scare/bully everyone, like "Russia can and ain't shy of first ☢ strike".

Timeline: The events leading up to Russia's invasion of Ukraine (Reuters; Mar 1, 2022)

Regarding organized risk reduction:
Putin just tested a new long-range missile. What does that mean? (Brookings; Apr 26, 2022)
Kind of puts China in a bad light.

More rattling:
Kim jong Un warns North Korea would 'preemptively' use nuclear weapons (CTV News; Apr 30, 2022)

(edited to add Reuters timeline, CTV article)

Streetlight is a far left, it can be a burden if taken to far. — Punshhh

I think "far left" is an actual political perspective.

Anyone thinking it's therefore the only possible narrative is either struggling with their ego or their imagination.

Agreed. I never said it was the only possible analysis. It is possible that, had NATO explicitly told Ukraine it would do nothing to help them, they may have laid down their arms. Or it could have gone a step further and actively sanctioned Ukraine and pressured them to surrender, cutting it off from other sources of military and humanitarian aid.

Maybe the second would work; like I said, it is unclear the former would do much except make Ukraine rely more on its defense in depth strategy. I haven't seen a deep analysis of the politics of Ukraine to suggest that a rapid collapse was in the cards without NATO support. While the argument has been made, I've only seen it made in broad brush strokes: e.g., "the Russian military advantage is so large that without NATO aid there is no way the Ukrainians would have fought."

This argument just doesn't seem that good to me, largely because there is no historical precedent for this type of thinking driving homefront defense decisions. The military Ukraine started the war with was, compared to the Russian military, significantly stronger, larger, and better armed than:

Finland vs the USSR
The VC and NV forces vs the USA
The Taliban vs the USA
The Afghan mujahideen vs the USSR
Vietnam vs China
Vietnam vs France
Various Palestinian groups vs Israel (in later conflicts not involving the Arab states)
The Peshmerga vs Saddam's Iraq
The Tamil Tigers vs Sri Lanka
Various Syrian rebels vs the SAA, Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia (and other Syrian rebels, e.g., ISIS attacking even other Jihadi groups)
Proto-Israeli defense groups vs all of Israel's would-be neighbors (on paper at least, the Arab states were more concerned with boxing each other out of control for land than fighting Israel half the time, coordinating with Israel at times, so this might not count)
The KMT and Chinese Red Army vs Japan (arguably, this might be the best comparison because Japan had a huge firepower advantage, but also lacked the logistics and manpower to actually conquer China just as Russia did not send nearly enough troops to conquer a 40 million person nation the size of Texas).

In all these cases, despite larger disadvantages, groups with the political will to resist chose to resist better armed forces, in some cases quite successfully.

If someone put together an argument for a collapse of Ukrainian morale based on less NATO support based on better evidence, e.g., opinion data, interviews with Ukrainian decision-makers, internal documents, reports of the general staff, etc. I'd buy that. Unfortunately, that sort of information won't be around until the history books come out.

Anyhow, that ship has sailed. Ukraine did resist. They did get extra shipments of food, small arms, anti-tank weapons, radars, MANPADs, infantry armor, medical supplies, coms equipment, etc. early on. This was enough to cause the Russian advance to collapse. They are just now receiving heavier equipment (IFVs, APCs, tanks, artillery) and that hasn't been deployed to any great extent yet in theater, so it remains to be seen how it changes things.

The point I'd make here is that NATO cutting off aid now is almost certainly far less likely to stop Ukraine from resisting. First, because they have already defeated Russia's main effort and drastically sapped Russia's ability to mass combat power across a wide axis. Second, because Russian massacres, organized gang rapes of women and girls, widespread looting, attacks on residential blocks, and mining of settlements as they left the north, were all strategic blunders that appear to have hardened resistance and increased support for the war. Not that I think Russian leaders planned for most of those (the use of shelling for collective punishment and mining must have been approved at higher levels, the looting and killings is probably due to terrible discipline), but they are responsible for them to the extent that they didn't professionalize their armed forces.

If I'm repeatedly punching you in the face and you ask me to stop, it is not a reasonable counter-argument for me to say "well, what exactly do you think should happen instead?"

What is this analogy supposed to be? The "West" is repeatedly punching a passive Russia in the face? Seems to me the more appropriate analogy would be a bunch of guys with assault rifles and RPGs showed up at some guys house to take it over, and the West threw him a bolt action rifle and a shotgun when he asked for them to help even up the odds.

I imagine that what should be done is one of the literally dozens of other strategies that other experts are considering, which is why there's not one united opinion about everything.

Such as?

You are correct on the point about alternatives. I'm not sure if giving Ukraine the capabilities to retake Crimea, let alone encouraging them to do so, as the UK is doing, is a good idea. NATO can certainly lean on Ukraine to make a concessions for peace by threatening to withold aid and intelligence support.

My guess is that they are indeed doing this through diplomatic channels. If I had to guess, the much larger size of the new aid package from the US, which will take far longer to distribute, is aimed at dissuading Russia from embarking on a wider mobilization effort and a shift to large scale conscription to continue the war. We're seeing the stick side of negotiations publiclly because the funds have to be authorized by a public body, and the actual delivery of equipment is a strong signal that there will be high costs for a expanded effort by Russia.

It's also a way for people who want to support Ukraine to get funding authorized now, while support is popular politically. Once the war ends, public sentiment against foreign aid will likely flare back up. Money is fungible; if US funds cover defense, other revenues can fund rebuilding (and a good deal of the funding is humanitarian aid anyhow).

A good parallel here is the Yom Kippur War. Nickel Grass and the corresponding large Soviet shipment of arms to Syria and Egypt were public at the time. They were signals that continued fighting would be costly for either side.

You also had the Soviets ratcheting up their nuclear readiness, and the US following suit. (Aside: this might actually be a case where nuclear proliferation helped security, because Soviet willingness for any first strike was almost certainly reduced by the fact that, even if the US balked at defending Israel when push came to shove, Israel's own nuclear response could destroy the USSR's major cities).

What we now know, as documents have been declassified on both sides, memoirs written, dissertations on the war produced, etc. was that both the Soviets and the US where putting significant pressure on their allies to make a ceasefire agreement. Obviously there were also internal disagreements on how much pressure to put on each side's allies. The US DoD wanted Israel to make concessions for a ceasefire as soon as they had repulsed the main advances into Israel, the State side was more amenable to Israel's efforts to stall for time as they gained ground. Ultimately, the IDF's push into Damascus and encirclement of a large bulk of the Egyptian army in the Sinai, with Cairo left totally open, settled the issue, but even here the US put pressure on Israel to offer concessions to Egypt, which it did, paving the way for peace between the two.


None of this was public at the time. Both sides were attempting to credibly signal that they'd back their allies, although efforts at de-escalation continued through back channels.

Pressure for a ceasefire is going to occur in negotiations. The threat of Ukraine being well armed enough to retake Crimea, a political disaster for Putin, puts pressure on Russia for a peace where Russian troops evacuate at least some of the land they have taken. Negotiators likely want to leverage the return of Kherson, which has seen very significant protests against Russian occupation, and so isn't palatable to abandon. Mariupol might be another sticking point, as access to the Sea of Azov is economically important.

Giving Ukrainians the ability to keep hold of the rest of Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts is essential here in that it gives them something to trade for these more pro-Ukrainian areas, which also let's Putin come off with a win (along with a treaty keeping Ukraine out of NATO).

Building up Ukraine's military capacity also should make them more willing to give up NATO lobbying efforts.

What I'm interested in here is why everybody has taken this (to me) completely absurd line of simply assuming everything the government says and does is, this time, completely sensible and the only good choice, despite the fact that we've been subjected to exactly the same media manipulation, lies, and blatant profiteering that has been the hallmark of literally all the other occasions when corporation and governments have screwed the working class to further engorge themselves.

Who here is taking their talking points from government press releases? The best analysis of the situation has tended to come from OSINT organizations, think tanks, academics, and former Soviet/Russian/Warsaw Pact/NATO military officers and diplomats opining on what they see. Not everything is reducable to class struggle. The world saw a large number of large and destructive wars before an urban working class ever existed on any large scale. Indeed, war, and the percentage of populations killed by wars, as well as homicide rates in general, have been falling dramatically throughout history.

Pillage, looting, and genocide used to be done as a matter of course during wars. No one tried to hide it. Cassius Dio writes unflinchingly about the Roman tactic of butchering villages in modern-day Scotland to bait Pict insurgents out of hiding. Soldiers used to be paid explicitly in loot and their ability to take slaves from conquered peoples. If anything, both forensic anthropology and studies of existent hunter gatherer tribes that survived into the 20th century suggest that deaths in conflicts were even more common before the dawn of civilization. Wars were certainly smaller, but they were far more common, to the extent that one in every five men who made it to adulthood may have died in conflict.

Certainly we see higher death rates in earlier wars. The Thirty Years War killed a larger share of Europe than both World Wars combined, and was significantly more deadly in Germany than both the later wars. Battles also tended to be more deadly. The Romans, with a population a small fraction of the US in the 1960s, lost more men in a few hours at Cannae then the US lost in Vietnam or Korea. The most deadly single days of battle almost all date to pre-modern periods. Scaled up for population, the American Revolution would have killed about 2.5-9 million Americans today (depending on if you count excess deaths conservatively or not, military deaths alone would be 2.3 million).

Capitalism might be unjust and stoke wars, but it certainly isn't a necessary condition for wars. Technological development, better education, greater degrees of political and economic freedom, etc. have all coincided with far fewer deaths from conflict over time. This does also happen to also be the period during which the fusion of modern market economies, socialist welfare policies, and elected government emerge. Hard to say what caused what, but it's definitely a robust trend that liberal democracies don't go to war with one another.



Yeah, this is the hard part. Particularly if it's, "find a someone realistic, politically feasible alternative."

Dictatorial power. See unitary theory of government and any time prez is backed by majority in both houses.

Ah yes, I recall when Barak Obama had a super majority in the Senate and the House and was able to get through a massive raft of major bills, or how, when Donald Trump's party held both chambers, the White House, and the Court, we saw the repeal of Obamacare and sweeping changes to immigration law, the two things the GOP had run on. No way they failed to repeal Obamacare and then failed to hold a single vote on immigration.

Joe Biden has both chambers right now, ask him how his agenda is going.

Not to mention that increasingly diametrically.opposwd parties trading off power every 4-8 years doesn't exactly sound like a dictatorship.

Joe Biden has both chambers right now, ask him how his agenda is going. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Oh no. A politician lied about what he would do and what he actually does! My God, what a terrible surprise. If you're so naive as to think anything was going to change in favour of normal people under Joe (just as it didn't under Barack Obama) then I don't know what to say.

It simply takes the EU to be firm in it's requirements and Ukraine willing to make a new start. They aspire to be taken as Europeans. I think we should slam the door in front of them. — ssu

I think we should slam the door on every additional country. Europe isn't ready for further expansion and if you think it is, you're not reading the mood when Le Pen gets 42% and we have Orban and whatever idiots are in power in Poland right now.

Naive would be thinking politics is actually just window dressing to distract from a giant manichean struggle between well organized elites, who agree on most everything, and "regular" people.

Biden has certainly tried to get his agenda passed, he just lacks the votes to do so. Likewise, it was Obama's genuine conviction that he could be the "compromise" President, a new type of pragmatic unifier, that made him squander his time with a supermajority. Had Ted Kennedy lived longer, you'd likely have a public option in Obamacare, something that was jettisoned for votes. I'll agree that Trump didn't actually want to kill Obamacare due to expected blowback, but every indication is he did very much want to do immigration reform, it's just that members of his party knew shutting off a supply of cheap labor and a strong upward pressure on real estate would hurt their most important supporters.

Likewise, Bush II really did want to privatize Social Security and pass cap and trade for carbon emissions. He got towards the end of his Presidency and realized he didn't have much in terms of a big domestic legacy (not forseeing the Great Recession obviously), and decided to go for two of his big policy ideas. Privatizing Social Security would be a huge ideological win, and cap and trade would head off Democrats dictating climate change policy. There was also some real conviction behind the latter, as, despite his long list of failings, W. Bush does at least believe in climate change.

That's a nice story you can tell yourself to sleep better. Meanwhile, actual research already shows that there is no relationship between what a majority of people actually want and what laws get passed. Of course, there's a clear correlation between what the rich 10% want and what gets passed. More importantly, there's a 1 on 1 correlation between what a majority of rich people don't want and what then doesn't happen. But don't let facts bother you why you go off on wild interpretation of how you think American politics appears to you.

That's nothing Manichean by the way but systemic. It's a shit system that only values money and not people.

I assume you're referring to Page and Gilen's work, since that is the big piece claims like that tend to come from? It's great research. It is also, as the authors have to frequently note, blown pretty far out of context.

First, the study is on the preferences of the highest earning 10% of the US, not the preferences of elites. Reason being that there is no polling data on the specific policy preferences of people with huge networths.

Second, policies that at least 80% of the top 10% distribution didn't like still got passed 18% of the time versus 45% of the time if 80% were in favor of a policy. That's a large amount of influence, but not a finding denoting some sort of absolute control by the wealthy.

Third, as the authors have to stress when reporting on their work, the wealthy don't all agree on policies. There are very liberal and very conservative wealthy people, so the effects plays out mostly where the wealthy have divergent interests from the median voters, rather than across all policies.

Fourth, the same research shows that interest groups (the NRA, Planned Parenthood, etc.) also wield a large amount of influence on policy adoption. Membership in these groups cuts across income levels. Both advocates for gay rights and religious conservatives have had policies they prefer passed in different states at different times, and neither group is defined by income level.

Anyhow, I thought America was a fascist dictatorship. Why doesn't Biden send rich people who disagree with him to a concentration camp?

Interesting.

I think "far left" is an actual political perspective.

If one views the world from a far left position, rather like the far right. All you see is failure, or things getting worse. While what you would want to happen, will never happen because it’s to idealistic, theoretical to be successfully applied. This powerlessness can be frustrating.

The end of states and the reign of private property. But this is not quite the thread for that.

Well, in an ideal world….

One might begin modestly by calling for the US to fuck right off outta Ukraine.

And to be fair, also asking Russia to fuck right off outta Ukraine.

But this wouldn’t resolve the issue (on the assumption that sanctions would be eased on Russia). Russia and the West are on a collision course since the collapse of the USSR and the breakdown of the Cold War. Either the Cold War is resumed and an iron curtain erected again, or these proxy wars will continue in a different place each time. The later is expensive, gratuitously destructive and risks wider escalation, Armageddon.

There is a third option, progressive change in Russia. This is what many hoped for after the end of the Cold War. But something turned sour.

There is a third option, progressive change in Russia. This is what many hoped for after the end of the Cold War. But something turned sour. — Punshhh

The Western calls for, and attempts to institute "progressive change in Russia" is the direct reason why Putin exists, and why people are dying in Ukraine today. No, the West has caused every single problem whose "change" it now so conveniently calls for. It simply ought to fuck off, if only for it's own good. If there is a new cold war coming - if it isn't already here - it will be thanks to a West who cannot fathom the idea of it's being unable to intervene and shape the world at it's will and whim. The slow death of Western empire - and we are living through it now - will be littered with continued events like Ukraine.

The so-called "progressive change" you want is nothing but a regressive change to the days in which Western intervention could simply call the shots as and when it likes. Those days are over. And thank God.

Russia and the West are on a collision course since the collapse of the USSR and the breakdown of the Cold War. — Punshhh

I think the collision course goes back long before that. Don't forget Napoleon, England's Great Game strategy, etc. The West has always wanted to get its hands on Russia's natural resources in the same way it seized resources in Africa, India, and many other parts of the world.

Incidentally, I think it is now clear that the West wants not only to push Russia out of Ukraine and incorporate the region into its growing empire, but to destroy Russia economically, militarily, and politically.

The question that arises is whether this is a new strategy or has always been the plan. Considering that Russia has been an obstacle to EU and NATO’s expansionist ambitions for some time, it seems likely that its destruction has been on the West’s agenda, if not as plan A, at least as plan B.

This is supported by the fact that the West has been secretly arming and training Ukrainian forces since 2014. In any case, though the West initially claimed that it doesn’t want a WWIII, it now seems hellbent to start one by constantly escalating in Ukraine.

Obviously, there is no way Russia can retreat or surrender, so Western escalation can only result in more Russian escalation. A logical thing for the Russians to do would be to take out a few military bases in Britain and Poland, for example. If that doesn’t temper Western belligerence, then all-out nuclear war seems the only way forward.

Meantime, China, India, and others are watching and learning their lessons. They will make sure not to be defeated by Western imperialists without a fight.

The third world, including Arab and other Muslim countries, are already drawing lessons. They have seen how white Ukrainians are received with open arms by the West and funded to the tune of billions of dollars, while non-white Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans are being stopped at the borders or deported.

They aren't going to forget this in a hurry and it definitely isn't going to go well in terms of relations with the West. NATO’s jihad on Russia may or may not lead to a military and economic defeat of Russia, but it may equally be the beginning of the end for America and Europe.

But the main fallacy of the pro-NATO camp is that they seem to believe that monopolistic international capitalism doesn’t exist, that banking, energy, and defense corporations and lobbies have nothing to do with anything, and that Western politicians never have agendas that are incompatible with the interests of ordinary people.

In any case, no matter how bad the Ukraine situation (or any other situation) is, it shouldn’t be used to cover up what is happening in the West. IMO the worst enemy is always the enemy within ...

The Western calls for, and attempts to institute "progressive change in Russia" is the direct reason why Putin exists, and why people are dying in Ukraine today — StreetlightX

The 'west' did not require the failed state of the USSR to transfer it's wealth into fungible goods and Capital secured in global markets. That is on them. That is why Russia is called a kleptocracy.

It can be argued that such practices are not much different from what is happening elsewhere but to do so deflates the idea that there is something different or even interesting about the Russian capitalists. If the logic of money explains 'western' interest, how is that different from 'Russian' interests? To insist upon a difference will put you in bed with Apollodorus who says that:

NATO’s jihad on Russia may or may not lead to a military and economic defeat of Russia, but it may equally be the beginning of the end for America and Europe. — Apollodorus

Are you on board with that program?

If one views the world from a far left position, rather like the far right. All you see is failure, or things getting worse. While what you would want to happen, will never happen because it’s to idealistic, theoretical to be successfully applied. This powerlessness can be frustrating. — Punshhh

You may be right.

The 'west' did not require the failed state of the USSR to transfer it's wealth into fungible goods and Capital secured in global markets. That is on them. That is why Russia is called a kleptocracy. — Paine

Oh my sweet summer child. You actually have no idea what happened after the dissolution of the USSR do you? Here's a hint. It was called, famously, shock therapy.

Are you on board with that program? — Paine

I would like to see America sink beneath the sea more or less, but Europe can probably stay once they burn Brussels to the ground. Mostly metaphorically. So, er, I'd have to ask Apollo of he's on board with that.

I know some of the nefarious happenings after the fall of the wall.

Your derision does not clarify the difference between capitalists I asked about.

I'm not sure what the question has to do with anything. I have no doubt that Russia is being driven by a defense of it's own murderously extarctive model of capitalism.

So, what makes it special enough to oppose the 'west' as anything different from what they are up to?

Because Western imperialism exists on an infinitely wider scale obviously. And as it so happens, I don't think I'm arguing with any Russian imperialists, last I checked. Mostly just propagandized Westerners who like to repeat state department memos back to me like they stumbled upon them first.

Russian Imperialists have bank accounts in Western Banks. The system does not work without that Capital. You seem to be the summer child of unfortunate winter.

Um, yes? This is obvious? One could add that Europe continues to fund Ukrainian death day in, day out? What exactly is the point you are trying to make?

The point is that the separation you have made between the interests of the Russians and the 'west' do not amount to a fundamental disagreement about 'world order'.

The point is that the separation you have made between the interests of the Russians and the 'west' — Paine

... could you quote (me) what you are referring to?

Are you asking me to quote what you have said to show that I have read you carefully enough?

No, I still have no idea what you are talking about.

Oh.
I will try again tomorrow. Time for bed.