HuMcK said:
"All of this seems to bother you for some reason"
It's been very interesting and enlightening to observe who yelps when Russia gets hit, or who starts up with meaningless calls for "talks" and cries of "World War 3" when Russia feels pressure.
Redbrickbear said:HuMcK said:
"All of this seems to bother you for some reason"
It's been very interesting and enlightening to observe who yelps when Russia gets hit, or who starts up with meaningless calls for "talks" and cries of "World War 3" when Russia feels pressure.
Very interesting and enlightening to observe who yelps about supporting/funding/directing a proxy war in the Eastern Europe against a nuclear armed state.
A war that could turn into a general world war if China gets involved.
A war that is destroying Ukraine (and that neither side is currently winning).
And all this support for the powers that be in D.C. who helped overthrow the last Ukrainian government....without the knowledge of the American people.
And after the USA has fought and lost two wars over the last 25 years and cost tax payers Trillions in dollars.
p.s.
HuMcK you are such a progressive liberal but you have come to love the Militarist Deep State....you have to wonder how that came about.
You have any non-Russian sources? Because many/most of the Russian sources say similar things.Sam Lowry said:Any non-Western sources?sombear said:Sam Lowry said:Where are you seeing this intel?sombear said:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:...and both sides are getting shellacked.....Sam Lowry said:
"Russian forces conducting offensive actions in Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Ukrainian military had 36 combat engagements with Russian forces west to Lyman Pershyy of Kharkiv region, west to Dibroba and east to Vesele of Luhansk region, near Minkivka, south-east to Orikhovo-Vasylivka, south-east to Bohdanivka and near Ivanivske of Donetsk region, Avdiyivka of Donetsk region, near Maryinka and near Krasnohorivka, General Staff of Armed Forces of Ukraine says in the morning report."
FTFY
Virtually all intel has Ukraine making steady progress, winning the skirmishes/battles, and losing a fraction of the soldiers and hardware Russia is. Our corp intel has been consistent on that for weeks.
International intel has been widely reported. Below is just one example from yesterday. I also review weekly corporate briefings that unfortunately, I cannot share. The reports definitely are not all positive, but they've consistently shown steady progress. Again, I emphasize that can change anytime, and it obviously does not guarantee victory as we define it.💪🏻 Ukraine liberated more territory in a month than Russia captured in a year − MI6 Chiefhttps://t.co/84SL7099dn
— Ukrainska Pravda in English (@pravda_eng) July 19, 2023
That in bold is the premise of the war critics, but it is a false dilemma. Russia doesn't have to line up and invade Nato to end up in a war with Nato. All it has to do to defeat Nato is cause the alliance to collapse, and the scenarios for that are numerous. Most worrisome of them would be to admit a nation which is not politically stable, with poor or no democratic traditions and territorial disputes with Russia or Russian clients, which is exactly where Ukraine would have been in 2008. Ex: imagine the puckering of western leaders had Ukraine been a Nato member during the Maidan revolution......... That is the type of scenario where Nato ends, which is why the Nato constitution contains requirements for democratic systems, stable borders, etc....FLBear5630 said:I don't think so. Russia is not now, nor been since the 1980's, been able to take on NATO. This is not the Fulda Gap era.whiterock said:Well, it certainly would have avoided the war we see today, and rendered moot some of Nato's constitutional "issues" with admitting Ukraine which has territorial disputes with a neighbor.FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:If you are over the age of 17, please seek immediate psychiatric care as you make zero sense 90% of the time.ron.reagan said:"By now most of them realize they have been manipulated into this nightmare. "KaiBear said:All true.Sam Lowry said:
With apologies to Jack Bauer...
Russia cannot win
We'll fight to the last Ukrainian
It's a stalemate - YOU ARE HERE
We didn't lose, we killed a lot of Russians
We only lost for lack of resolve
Let's try again, and if you don't agree you're a nazi
Wonder about the curent attitude of Ukranians toward Biden and the Umited States.
By now most of them realize they have been manipulated nto this nightmare.
Tens of thousands of Ukranians are dead. MILLIONS more have been forced to leave their homes and are scattered throughout Europe.
Now Ukranians need US financial suppoert more than ever.
Bitterness is only going to increase.
Coming from the guy willing to prostitute his family in exchange for national security.
You would have fit in a lot better on the UK side of the American revolution.
LOL 'prostitute his family in exchange for national security' Almost as bizarre as your earlier ' all Christians are evil '.
FYI almost 40% of colonists did support England during the American Revolution. Many were murdered, beaten and/or had their property stolen. Tens of thousands went further west to escape persecution.
Thousands of others left the country altogether going to Canada, Europe or the Caribbean.
If France and Spain had not supported the Continental armies with money, guns, uniforms, gunpowder and other supplies, it is highly unlikely England would have lost the war.
One could argue Americans would have been far better off remaining in the British empire for an additional century. At the very least the Civil War would have been averted.
Really? Then the Civil War would have been fought with machine guns, hand grenades, planes and tanks. Death and destruction would have been exponentially worse. It is never better to push off a fight for a later time, killing gets more efficient with time, not less. It was the right time for Colonies to leave, when other powers were able and willing to help. It takes help to break away...
The right answer was to let Ukraine in NATO in 2008. Deterrence through strength works.
But might not it have sown seeds of even worse conflict? A politically unstable Ukraine admitted so early might have prompted not a Euro-Maidan but a Russo-Maidan which would have had far greater odds of direct Nato-Russia conflict? and/or risk collapse of Nato in entirety?
IF Putin would have stayed on the track Gorbechov and Yeltsen set Russia is in a much better position today.
If they could have focused on cleaning up the corruption of the 90's and 00's and not try to recreate the USSR! Let's face it, when a Nation moves from an autocratic system (right or left) there will be a period of corruption. It is all they know and have known for generations. If there was one area that I believe the West was wrong and naive was the expectation that these former Soviet Nations would solve corruption quickly. It is a generational issue that would be solved by the exchange of education, training and economic incentives. The best way to solve the corruption issue is bring them closer to the economics of the west, not wait for them to prove they solved it.
If they followed that track, there was no need to take on NATO. What they couldn't seem to take was not being the big bully on the block.
whiterock said:That in bold is the premise of the war critics, but it is a false dilemma. Russia doesn't have to line up and invade Nato to end up in a war with Nato. All it has to do to defeat Nato is cause the alliance to collapse, and the scenarios for that are numerous. Most worrisome of them would be to admit a nation which is not politically stable, with poor or no democratic traditions and territorial disputes with Russia or Russian clients, which is exactly where Ukraine would have been in 2008. Ex: imagine the puckering of western leaders had Ukraine been a Nato member during the Maidan revolution......... That is the type of scenario where Nato ends, which is why the Nato constitution contains requirements for democratic systems, stable borders, etc....FLBear5630 said:I don't think so. Russia is not now, nor been since the 1980's, been able to take on NATO. This is not the Fulda Gap era.whiterock said:Well, it certainly would have avoided the war we see today, and rendered moot some of Nato's constitutional "issues" with admitting Ukraine which has territorial disputes with a neighbor.FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:If you are over the age of 17, please seek immediate psychiatric care as you make zero sense 90% of the time.ron.reagan said:"By now most of them realize they have been manipulated into this nightmare. "KaiBear said:All true.Sam Lowry said:
With apologies to Jack Bauer...
Russia cannot win
We'll fight to the last Ukrainian
It's a stalemate - YOU ARE HERE
We didn't lose, we killed a lot of Russians
We only lost for lack of resolve
Let's try again, and if you don't agree you're a nazi
Wonder about the curent attitude of Ukranians toward Biden and the Umited States.
By now most of them realize they have been manipulated nto this nightmare.
Tens of thousands of Ukranians are dead. MILLIONS more have been forced to leave their homes and are scattered throughout Europe.
Now Ukranians need US financial suppoert more than ever.
Bitterness is only going to increase.
Coming from the guy willing to prostitute his family in exchange for national security.
You would have fit in a lot better on the UK side of the American revolution.
LOL 'prostitute his family in exchange for national security' Almost as bizarre as your earlier ' all Christians are evil '.
FYI almost 40% of colonists did support England during the American Revolution. Many were murdered, beaten and/or had their property stolen. Tens of thousands went further west to escape persecution.
Thousands of others left the country altogether going to Canada, Europe or the Caribbean.
If France and Spain had not supported the Continental armies with money, guns, uniforms, gunpowder and other supplies, it is highly unlikely England would have lost the war.
One could argue Americans would have been far better off remaining in the British empire for an additional century. At the very least the Civil War would have been averted.
Really? Then the Civil War would have been fought with machine guns, hand grenades, planes and tanks. Death and destruction would have been exponentially worse. It is never better to push off a fight for a later time, killing gets more efficient with time, not less. It was the right time for Colonies to leave, when other powers were able and willing to help. It takes help to break away...
The right answer was to let Ukraine in NATO in 2008. Deterrence through strength works.
But might not it have sown seeds of even worse conflict? A politically unstable Ukraine admitted so early might have prompted not a Euro-Maidan but a Russo-Maidan which would have had far greater odds of direct Nato-Russia conflict? and/or risk collapse of Nato in entirety?
IF Putin would have stayed on the track Gorbechov and Yeltsen set Russia is in a much better position today.
If they could have focused on cleaning up the corruption of the 90's and 00's and not try to recreate the USSR! Let's face it, when a Nation moves from an autocratic system (right or left) there will be a period of corruption. It is all they know and have known for generations. If there was one area that I believe the West was wrong and naive was the expectation that these former Soviet Nations would solve corruption quickly. It is a generational issue that would be solved by the exchange of education, training and economic incentives. The best way to solve the corruption issue is bring them closer to the economics of the west, not wait for them to prove they solved it.
If they followed that track, there was no need to take on NATO. What they couldn't seem to take was not being the big bully on the block.
Nations lose wars because they drastically underestimated intentions and/or abilities of an adversary, and/or because one misunderstood the dynamics driving issues. Russian actions in Ukraine are instructive. They nibbled for the last 15 years (or so) away because they did not want to prompt a strong Nato response. Then they started a disastrous war over four primary miscalculations: 1) several weak Nato responses to Russian provocations, 2) significant Russian underestimation of the military ability and resolve of Ukraine, 3) significant Russian over-estimation of their own military capabilities, and 4) significant Russian under-estimation of Nato resolve to unite and act.
Res Ipsa Loquitur: Everything Russia did in the decade-plus lead-up to its invasion of Ukraine indicated they knew they could not line up and defeat Nato. Yet, here they are in a proxy war with Nato.
(and, predictably, despite all that, there is a caucus arguing the war is totally Nato's fault.....)
FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:That in bold is the premise of the war critics, but it is a false dilemma. Russia doesn't have to line up and invade Nato to end up in a war with Nato. All it has to do to defeat Nato is cause the alliance to collapse, and the scenarios for that are numerous. Most worrisome of them would be to admit a nation which is not politically stable, with poor or no democratic traditions and territorial disputes with Russia or Russian clients, which is exactly where Ukraine would have been in 2008. Ex: imagine the puckering of western leaders had Ukraine been a Nato member during the Maidan revolution......... That is the type of scenario where Nato ends, which is why the Nato constitution contains requirements for democratic systems, stable borders, etc....FLBear5630 said:I don't think so. Russia is not now, nor been since the 1980's, been able to take on NATO. This is not the Fulda Gap era.whiterock said:Well, it certainly would have avoided the war we see today, and rendered moot some of Nato's constitutional "issues" with admitting Ukraine which has territorial disputes with a neighbor.FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:If you are over the age of 17, please seek immediate psychiatric care as you make zero sense 90% of the time.ron.reagan said:"By now most of them realize they have been manipulated into this nightmare. "KaiBear said:All true.Sam Lowry said:
With apologies to Jack Bauer...
Russia cannot win
We'll fight to the last Ukrainian
It's a stalemate - YOU ARE HERE
We didn't lose, we killed a lot of Russians
We only lost for lack of resolve
Let's try again, and if you don't agree you're a nazi
Wonder about the curent attitude of Ukranians toward Biden and the Umited States.
By now most of them realize they have been manipulated nto this nightmare.
Tens of thousands of Ukranians are dead. MILLIONS more have been forced to leave their homes and are scattered throughout Europe.
Now Ukranians need US financial suppoert more than ever.
Bitterness is only going to increase.
Coming from the guy willing to prostitute his family in exchange for national security.
You would have fit in a lot better on the UK side of the American revolution.
LOL 'prostitute his family in exchange for national security' Almost as bizarre as your earlier ' all Christians are evil '.
FYI almost 40% of colonists did support England during the American Revolution. Many were murdered, beaten and/or had their property stolen. Tens of thousands went further west to escape persecution.
Thousands of others left the country altogether going to Canada, Europe or the Caribbean.
If France and Spain had not supported the Continental armies with money, guns, uniforms, gunpowder and other supplies, it is highly unlikely England would have lost the war.
One could argue Americans would have been far better off remaining in the British empire for an additional century. At the very least the Civil War would have been averted.
Really? Then the Civil War would have been fought with machine guns, hand grenades, planes and tanks. Death and destruction would have been exponentially worse. It is never better to push off a fight for a later time, killing gets more efficient with time, not less. It was the right time for Colonies to leave, when other powers were able and willing to help. It takes help to break away...
The right answer was to let Ukraine in NATO in 2008. Deterrence through strength works.
But might not it have sown seeds of even worse conflict? A politically unstable Ukraine admitted so early might have prompted not a Euro-Maidan but a Russo-Maidan which would have had far greater odds of direct Nato-Russia conflict? and/or risk collapse of Nato in entirety?
IF Putin would have stayed on the track Gorbechov and Yeltsen set Russia is in a much better position today.
If they could have focused on cleaning up the corruption of the 90's and 00's and not try to recreate the USSR! Let's face it, when a Nation moves from an autocratic system (right or left) there will be a period of corruption. It is all they know and have known for generations. If there was one area that I believe the West was wrong and naive was the expectation that these former Soviet Nations would solve corruption quickly. It is a generational issue that would be solved by the exchange of education, training and economic incentives. The best way to solve the corruption issue is bring them closer to the economics of the west, not wait for them to prove they solved it.
If they followed that track, there was no need to take on NATO. What they couldn't seem to take was not being the big bully on the block.
Nations lose wars because they drastically underestimated intentions and/or abilities of an adversary, and/or because one misunderstood the dynamics driving issues. Russian actions in Ukraine are instructive. They nibbled for the last 15 years (or so) away because they did not want to prompt a strong Nato response. Then they started a disastrous war over four primary miscalculations: 1) several weak Nato responses to Russian provocations, 2) significant Russian underestimation of the military ability and resolve of Ukraine, 3) significant Russian over-estimation of their own military capabilities, and 4) significant Russian under-estimation of Nato resolve to unite and act.
Res Ipsa Loquitur: Everything Russia did in the decade-plus lead-up to its invasion of Ukraine indicated they knew they could not line up and defeat Nato. Yet, here they are in a proxy war with Nato.
(and, predictably, despite all that, there is a caucus arguing the war is totally Nato's fault.....)
When has being able to win stopped aggressors? My point is Putin overestimated his abilities.
Let's face it, the Russians have never been proficient militarily. Look at their tactics
1 - General Winter....
2 - Quantity has a quality all its own
3 - Legendary Russian Artillery, pound the **** out of it with tons of artillery.
We are not talking Rommel, Napoleon and Patton here. There is no Marshall and Eisenhower logistics. Russian tactics are straight forward and blunt.
Let's
I thought all you liberals were screaming that Trump would get us into WWIII.HuMcK said:
"All of this seems to bother you for some reason"
It's been very interesting and enlightening to observe who yelps when Russia gets hit, or who starts up with meaningless calls for "talks" and cries of "World War 3" when Russia feels pressure.
HuMcK, and guys like him, hated Bush for getting us into the unwinnable middle eastern wars of the 2000sRawhide said:I thought all you liberals were screaming that Trump would get us into WWIII.HuMcK said:
"All of this seems to bother you for some reason"
It's been very interesting and enlightening to observe who yelps when Russia gets hit, or who starts up with meaningless calls for "talks" and cries of "World War 3" when Russia feels pressure.
Maybe the dems were just worried because they want to be the ones to get the credit for it.
He didn't say that anyone must prescribe to all or none. He merely pointed out the humckleberry there subscribes to all, from democrats, no matter what.FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:HuMcK said:
"All of this seems to bother you for some reason"
It's been very interesting and enlightening to observe who yelps when Russia gets hit, or who starts up with meaningless calls for "talks" and cries of "World War 3" when Russia feels pressure.
Very interesting and enlightening to observe who yelps about supporting/funding/directing a proxy war in the Eastern Europe against a nuclear armed state.
A war that could turn into a general world war if China gets involved.
A war that is destroying Ukraine (and that neither side is currently winning).
And all this support for the powers that be in D.C. who helped overthrow the last Ukrainian government....without the knowledge of the American people.
And after the USA has fought and lost two wars over the last 25 years and cost tax payers Trillions in dollars.
p.s.
HuMcK you are such a progressive liberal but you have come to love the Militarist Deep State....you have to wonder how that came about.
Labels, labels, labels.
There are progressive, conservative, Green, and Libertarian ideas and positions that I agree or would like to see if we could. A person does not have to prescribe to all or none!
Sure, I follow lots of sources from different parts of the world--Russia, Ukraine, Europe, America, Asia, Australia.trey3216 said:You have any non-Russian sources? Because many/most of the Russian sources say similar things.Sam Lowry said:Any non-Western sources?sombear said:Sam Lowry said:Where are you seeing this intel?sombear said:Redbrickbear said:whiterock said:...and both sides are getting shellacked.....Sam Lowry said:
"Russian forces conducting offensive actions in Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Ukrainian military had 36 combat engagements with Russian forces west to Lyman Pershyy of Kharkiv region, west to Dibroba and east to Vesele of Luhansk region, near Minkivka, south-east to Orikhovo-Vasylivka, south-east to Bohdanivka and near Ivanivske of Donetsk region, Avdiyivka of Donetsk region, near Maryinka and near Krasnohorivka, General Staff of Armed Forces of Ukraine says in the morning report."
FTFY
Virtually all intel has Ukraine making steady progress, winning the skirmishes/battles, and losing a fraction of the soldiers and hardware Russia is. Our corp intel has been consistent on that for weeks.
International intel has been widely reported. Below is just one example from yesterday. I also review weekly corporate briefings that unfortunately, I cannot share. The reports definitely are not all positive, but they've consistently shown steady progress. Again, I emphasize that can change anytime, and it obviously does not guarantee victory as we define it.💪🏻 Ukraine liberated more territory in a month than Russia captured in a year − MI6 Chiefhttps://t.co/84SL7099dn
— Ukrainska Pravda in English (@pravda_eng) July 19, 2023
He lost me with perhaps the biggest understatement in the history of "journalism."Redbrickbear said:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/if-ukraine-says-it-is-winning-what-does-losing-look-like/
A Counter-Counteroffensive
State of the Union: If Ukraine says it is winning, what does losing look like?
"Ukraine is winning," a June 21 headline from POLITICO read in part.
The author of the piece was none other than Denys Shmyhal, the prime minister of Ukraine. "More than a year after the big war began, it's obvious that Russia hasn't reached its strategic goals," Shmyhal writes, "which means Ukraine is winning."
Certainly, Russia has had a tougher go of it in Ukraine than expected, but nearly a fifth of Ukrainian territory lies in Russian hands; even when Shmyhal published this piece, it was clear Ukraine's counteroffensive was failing. The only basis that Shmyhal can claim Ukraine is winning the war is through blatantly misstating Russia's objectives, which he says is "to destroy Ukraine."
Shmyhal's framing allows Ukraine to proclaim victory as long as it remains on the map, even when settling the conflict with Russia will likely include forking over large portions of Ukrainian territory and the abandonment of any NATO or E.U. ambitions. Clever, but not clever enough, especially in light of the events in the month since.
In the last week, Ukraine has decided to pause its counteroffensive and adjust its tactics. The Ukrainian advance, if one can call it that, has come at the expense of heavy personnel and equipment losses, and has fallen far short of expectations.
American and European officials reportedly told the New York Times that, in the first two weeks of the six-week counteroffensive, a quarter of Ukraine's weaponry was damaged or destroyed. In the weeks that followed, the weaponry loss rate hovered around 10 percent....
It never ends. https://t.co/I03ZTCZ72X
— RAMZPAUL (@ramzpaul) July 21, 2023
Exactly. Just making an obvious assessment that Russia is no match for NATO does not mean that one should not prepare for Russia to attack Nato.FLBear5630 said:whiterock said:That in bold is the premise of the war critics, but it is a false dilemma. Russia doesn't have to line up and invade Nato to end up in a war with Nato. All it has to do to defeat Nato is cause the alliance to collapse, and the scenarios for that are numerous. Most worrisome of them would be to admit a nation which is not politically stable, with poor or no democratic traditions and territorial disputes with Russia or Russian clients, which is exactly where Ukraine would have been in 2008. Ex: imagine the puckering of western leaders had Ukraine been a Nato member during the Maidan revolution......... That is the type of scenario where Nato ends, which is why the Nato constitution contains requirements for democratic systems, stable borders, etc....FLBear5630 said:I don't think so. Russia is not now, nor been since the 1980's, been able to take on NATO. This is not the Fulda Gap era.whiterock said:Well, it certainly would have avoided the war we see today, and rendered moot some of Nato's constitutional "issues" with admitting Ukraine which has territorial disputes with a neighbor.FLBear5630 said:KaiBear said:If you are over the age of 17, please seek immediate psychiatric care as you make zero sense 90% of the time.ron.reagan said:"By now most of them realize they have been manipulated into this nightmare. "KaiBear said:All true.Sam Lowry said:
With apologies to Jack Bauer...
Russia cannot win
We'll fight to the last Ukrainian
It's a stalemate - YOU ARE HERE
We didn't lose, we killed a lot of Russians
We only lost for lack of resolve
Let's try again, and if you don't agree you're a nazi
Wonder about the curent attitude of Ukranians toward Biden and the Umited States.
By now most of them realize they have been manipulated nto this nightmare.
Tens of thousands of Ukranians are dead. MILLIONS more have been forced to leave their homes and are scattered throughout Europe.
Now Ukranians need US financial suppoert more than ever.
Bitterness is only going to increase.
Coming from the guy willing to prostitute his family in exchange for national security.
You would have fit in a lot better on the UK side of the American revolution.
LOL 'prostitute his family in exchange for national security' Almost as bizarre as your earlier ' all Christians are evil '.
FYI almost 40% of colonists did support England during the American Revolution. Many were murdered, beaten and/or had their property stolen. Tens of thousands went further west to escape persecution.
Thousands of others left the country altogether going to Canada, Europe or the Caribbean.
If France and Spain had not supported the Continental armies with money, guns, uniforms, gunpowder and other supplies, it is highly unlikely England would have lost the war.
One could argue Americans would have been far better off remaining in the British empire for an additional century. At the very least the Civil War would have been averted.
Really? Then the Civil War would have been fought with machine guns, hand grenades, planes and tanks. Death and destruction would have been exponentially worse. It is never better to push off a fight for a later time, killing gets more efficient with time, not less. It was the right time for Colonies to leave, when other powers were able and willing to help. It takes help to break away...
The right answer was to let Ukraine in NATO in 2008. Deterrence through strength works.
But might not it have sown seeds of even worse conflict? A politically unstable Ukraine admitted so early might have prompted not a Euro-Maidan but a Russo-Maidan which would have had far greater odds of direct Nato-Russia conflict? and/or risk collapse of Nato in entirety?
IF Putin would have stayed on the track Gorbechov and Yeltsen set Russia is in a much better position today.
If they could have focused on cleaning up the corruption of the 90's and 00's and not try to recreate the USSR! Let's face it, when a Nation moves from an autocratic system (right or left) there will be a period of corruption. It is all they know and have known for generations. If there was one area that I believe the West was wrong and naive was the expectation that these former Soviet Nations would solve corruption quickly. It is a generational issue that would be solved by the exchange of education, training and economic incentives. The best way to solve the corruption issue is bring them closer to the economics of the west, not wait for them to prove they solved it.
If they followed that track, there was no need to take on NATO. What they couldn't seem to take was not being the big bully on the block.
Nations lose wars because they drastically underestimated intentions and/or abilities of an adversary, and/or because one misunderstood the dynamics driving issues. Russian actions in Ukraine are instructive. They nibbled for the last 15 years (or so) away because they did not want to prompt a strong Nato response. Then they started a disastrous war over four primary miscalculations: 1) several weak Nato responses to Russian provocations, 2) significant Russian underestimation of the military ability and resolve of Ukraine, 3) significant Russian over-estimation of their own military capabilities, and 4) significant Russian under-estimation of Nato resolve to unite and act.
Res Ipsa Loquitur: Everything Russia did in the decade-plus lead-up to its invasion of Ukraine indicated they knew they could not line up and defeat Nato. Yet, here they are in a proxy war with Nato.
(and, predictably, despite all that, there is a caucus arguing the war is totally Nato's fault.....)
When has being able to win stopped aggressors? My point is Putin overestimated his abilities.
Let's face it, the Russians have never been proficient militarily. Look at their tactics
1 - General Winter....
2 - Quantity has a quality all its own
3 - Legendary Russian Artillery, pound the **** out of it with tons of artillery.
We are not talking Rommel, Napoleon and Patton here. There is no Marshall and Eisenhower logistics. Russian tactics are straight forward and blunt.
Let's
Most of those losses noted in the last paragraph were to damage, and a very high percentage of what has been damaged is already being repaired in Poland. More importantly, the Bradleys are performing as intended - vehicles are taking multiple direct hits, yet all soldiers inside survive. Also of note: Russia does not have a similar capability. Damages are equivalent to losses.Redbrickbear said:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/if-ukraine-says-it-is-winning-what-does-losing-look-like/
A Counter-Counteroffensive
State of the Union: If Ukraine says it is winning, what does losing look like?
"Ukraine is winning," a June 21 headline from POLITICO read in part.
The author of the piece was none other than Denys Shmyhal, the prime minister of Ukraine. "More than a year after the big war began, it's obvious that Russia hasn't reached its strategic goals," Shmyhal writes, "which means Ukraine is winning."
Certainly, Russia has had a tougher go of it in Ukraine than expected, but nearly a fifth of Ukrainian territory lies in Russian hands; even when Shmyhal published this piece, it was clear Ukraine's counteroffensive was failing. The only basis that Shmyhal can claim Ukraine is winning the war is through blatantly misstating Russia's objectives, which he says is "to destroy Ukraine."
Shmyhal's framing allows Ukraine to proclaim victory as long as it remains on the map, even when settling the conflict with Russia will likely include forking over large portions of Ukrainian territory and the abandonment of any NATO or E.U. ambitions. Clever, but not clever enough, especially in light of the events in the month since.
In the last week, Ukraine has decided to pause its counteroffensive and adjust its tactics. The Ukrainian advance, if one can call it that, has come at the expense of heavy personnel and equipment losses, and has fallen far short of expectations.
American and European officials reportedly told the New York Times that, in the first two weeks of the six-week counteroffensive, a quarter of Ukraine's weaponry was damaged or destroyed. In the weeks that followed, the weaponry loss rate hovered around 10 percent....
They expected Ukraine to surrender, which is quite a different thing. And the Donbas was far from uncontested. Kiev has been trying to subdue and secure it for almost ten years.sombear said:Russia (and many of the "experts" you cite) expected to conquer Ukraine in 2-3 days.Redbrickbear said:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/if-ukraine-says-it-is-winning-what-does-losing-look-like/
A Counter-Counteroffensive
State of the Union: If Ukraine says it is winning, what does losing look like?
"Ukraine is winning," a June 21 headline from POLITICO read in part.
The author of the piece was none other than Denys Shmyhal, the prime minister of Ukraine. "More than a year after the big war began, it's obvious that Russia hasn't reached its strategic goals," Shmyhal writes, "which means Ukraine is winning."
Certainly, Russia has had a tougher go of it in Ukraine than expected, but nearly a fifth of Ukrainian territory lies in Russian hands; even when Shmyhal published this piece, it was clear Ukraine's counteroffensive was failing. The only basis that Shmyhal can claim Ukraine is winning the war is through blatantly misstating Russia's objectives, which he says is "to destroy Ukraine."
Shmyhal's framing allows Ukraine to proclaim victory as long as it remains on the map, even when settling the conflict with Russia will likely include forking over large portions of Ukrainian territory and the abandonment of any NATO or E.U. ambitions. Clever, but not clever enough, especially in light of the events in the month since.
In the last week, Ukraine has decided to pause its counteroffensive and adjust its tactics. The Ukrainian advance, if one can call it that, has come at the expense of heavy personnel and equipment losses, and has fallen far short of expectations.
American and European officials reportedly told the New York Times that, in the first two weeks of the six-week counteroffensive, a quarter of Ukraine's weaponry was damaged or destroyed. In the weeks that followed, the weaponry loss rate hovered around 10 percent....
FIFYSam Lowry said:They expected Ukraine to surrender, which is quite a different thing. And the Donbas was far from uncontested. Kiev has been trying to subdue and secure it for almost ten years, from an insurgency fomented and supported by Russia, to include Russian national irregulars on the battlefield.sombear said:Russia (and many of the "experts" you cite) expected to conquer Ukraine in 2-3 days.Redbrickbear said:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/if-ukraine-says-it-is-winning-what-does-losing-look-like/
A Counter-Counteroffensive
State of the Union: If Ukraine says it is winning, what does losing look like?
"Ukraine is winning," a June 21 headline from POLITICO read in part.
The author of the piece was none other than Denys Shmyhal, the prime minister of Ukraine. "More than a year after the big war began, it's obvious that Russia hasn't reached its strategic goals," Shmyhal writes, "which means Ukraine is winning."
Certainly, Russia has had a tougher go of it in Ukraine than expected, but nearly a fifth of Ukrainian territory lies in Russian hands; even when Shmyhal published this piece, it was clear Ukraine's counteroffensive was failing. The only basis that Shmyhal can claim Ukraine is winning the war is through blatantly misstating Russia's objectives, which he says is "to destroy Ukraine."
Shmyhal's framing allows Ukraine to proclaim victory as long as it remains on the map, even when settling the conflict with Russia will likely include forking over large portions of Ukrainian territory and the abandonment of any NATO or E.U. ambitions. Clever, but not clever enough, especially in light of the events in the month since.
In the last week, Ukraine has decided to pause its counteroffensive and adjust its tactics. The Ukrainian advance, if one can call it that, has come at the expense of heavy personnel and equipment losses, and has fallen far short of expectations.
American and European officials reportedly told the New York Times that, in the first two weeks of the six-week counteroffensive, a quarter of Ukraine's weaponry was damaged or destroyed. In the weeks that followed, the weaponry loss rate hovered around 10 percent....
Well, they expected Ukraine to surrender, but only after annihilating their military, which, of course, never happened.Sam Lowry said:They expected Ukraine to surrender, which is quite a different thing. And the Donbas was far from uncontested. Kiev has been trying to subdue and secure it for almost ten years.sombear said:Russia (and many of the "experts" you cite) expected to conquer Ukraine in 2-3 days.Redbrickbear said:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/if-ukraine-says-it-is-winning-what-does-losing-look-like/
A Counter-Counteroffensive
State of the Union: If Ukraine says it is winning, what does losing look like?
"Ukraine is winning," a June 21 headline from POLITICO read in part.
The author of the piece was none other than Denys Shmyhal, the prime minister of Ukraine. "More than a year after the big war began, it's obvious that Russia hasn't reached its strategic goals," Shmyhal writes, "which means Ukraine is winning."
Certainly, Russia has had a tougher go of it in Ukraine than expected, but nearly a fifth of Ukrainian territory lies in Russian hands; even when Shmyhal published this piece, it was clear Ukraine's counteroffensive was failing. The only basis that Shmyhal can claim Ukraine is winning the war is through blatantly misstating Russia's objectives, which he says is "to destroy Ukraine."
Shmyhal's framing allows Ukraine to proclaim victory as long as it remains on the map, even when settling the conflict with Russia will likely include forking over large portions of Ukrainian territory and the abandonment of any NATO or E.U. ambitions. Clever, but not clever enough, especially in light of the events in the month since.
In the last week, Ukraine has decided to pause its counteroffensive and adjust its tactics. The Ukrainian advance, if one can call it that, has come at the expense of heavy personnel and equipment losses, and has fallen far short of expectations.
American and European officials reportedly told the New York Times that, in the first two weeks of the six-week counteroffensive, a quarter of Ukraine's weaponry was damaged or destroyed. In the weeks that followed, the weaponry loss rate hovered around 10 percent....
They've been very successful. I don't think they initially wanted to annihilate Ukraine's military, but they pretty much have at this point. There's certainly no realistic scenario where they'll be driven out.sombear said:Well, they expected Ukraine to surrender, but only after annihilating their military, which, of course, never happened.Sam Lowry said:They expected Ukraine to surrender, which is quite a different thing. And the Donbas was far from uncontested. Kiev has been trying to subdue and secure it for almost ten years.sombear said:Russia (and many of the "experts" you cite) expected to conquer Ukraine in 2-3 days.Redbrickbear said:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/if-ukraine-says-it-is-winning-what-does-losing-look-like/
A Counter-Counteroffensive
State of the Union: If Ukraine says it is winning, what does losing look like?
"Ukraine is winning," a June 21 headline from POLITICO read in part.
The author of the piece was none other than Denys Shmyhal, the prime minister of Ukraine. "More than a year after the big war began, it's obvious that Russia hasn't reached its strategic goals," Shmyhal writes, "which means Ukraine is winning."
Certainly, Russia has had a tougher go of it in Ukraine than expected, but nearly a fifth of Ukrainian territory lies in Russian hands; even when Shmyhal published this piece, it was clear Ukraine's counteroffensive was failing. The only basis that Shmyhal can claim Ukraine is winning the war is through blatantly misstating Russia's objectives, which he says is "to destroy Ukraine."
Shmyhal's framing allows Ukraine to proclaim victory as long as it remains on the map, even when settling the conflict with Russia will likely include forking over large portions of Ukrainian territory and the abandonment of any NATO or E.U. ambitions. Clever, but not clever enough, especially in light of the events in the month since.
In the last week, Ukraine has decided to pause its counteroffensive and adjust its tactics. The Ukrainian advance, if one can call it that, has come at the expense of heavy personnel and equipment losses, and has fallen far short of expectations.
American and European officials reportedly told the New York Times that, in the first two weeks of the six-week counteroffensive, a quarter of Ukraine's weaponry was damaged or destroyed. In the weeks that followed, the weaponry loss rate hovered around 10 percent....
As for Donbas. I was referring to the initial invasion in this war in 2022. Yes, U and R and have fought in Donbas for almost a decade. And there has of course been heavy fighting in this war, with ground changing hands. But, most of the what Russia controls there now was largely uncontested in early 2022 - mostly smaller cities.
Do you think Russia would say it has been successful in the Donbas?
Sam Lowry said:They've been very successful. I don't think they initially wanted to annihilate Ukraine's military, but they pretty much have at this point. There's certainly no realistic scenario where they'll be driven out.sombear said:Well, they expected Ukraine to surrender, but only after annihilating their military, which, of course, never happened.Sam Lowry said:They expected Ukraine to surrender, which is quite a different thing. And the Donbas was far from uncontested. Kiev has been trying to subdue and secure it for almost ten years.sombear said:Russia (and many of the "experts" you cite) expected to conquer Ukraine in 2-3 days.Redbrickbear said:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/if-ukraine-says-it-is-winning-what-does-losing-look-like/
A Counter-Counteroffensive
State of the Union: If Ukraine says it is winning, what does losing look like?
"Ukraine is winning," a June 21 headline from POLITICO read in part.
The author of the piece was none other than Denys Shmyhal, the prime minister of Ukraine. "More than a year after the big war began, it's obvious that Russia hasn't reached its strategic goals," Shmyhal writes, "which means Ukraine is winning."
Certainly, Russia has had a tougher go of it in Ukraine than expected, but nearly a fifth of Ukrainian territory lies in Russian hands; even when Shmyhal published this piece, it was clear Ukraine's counteroffensive was failing. The only basis that Shmyhal can claim Ukraine is winning the war is through blatantly misstating Russia's objectives, which he says is "to destroy Ukraine."
Shmyhal's framing allows Ukraine to proclaim victory as long as it remains on the map, even when settling the conflict with Russia will likely include forking over large portions of Ukrainian territory and the abandonment of any NATO or E.U. ambitions. Clever, but not clever enough, especially in light of the events in the month since.
In the last week, Ukraine has decided to pause its counteroffensive and adjust its tactics. The Ukrainian advance, if one can call it that, has come at the expense of heavy personnel and equipment losses, and has fallen far short of expectations.
American and European officials reportedly told the New York Times that, in the first two weeks of the six-week counteroffensive, a quarter of Ukraine's weaponry was damaged or destroyed. In the weeks that followed, the weaponry loss rate hovered around 10 percent....
As for Donbas. I was referring to the initial invasion in this war in 2022. Yes, U and R and have fought in Donbas for almost a decade. And there has of course been heavy fighting in this war, with ground changing hands. But, most of the what Russia controls there now was largely uncontested in early 2022 - mostly smaller cities.
Do you think Russia would say it has been successful in the Donbas?
You should have just said that in the first place. It would have told me everything I needed to know about the quality of your sources.sombear said:Sam Lowry said:They've been very successful. I don't think they initially wanted to annihilate Ukraine's military, but they pretty much have at this point. There's certainly no realistic scenario where they'll be driven out.sombear said:Well, they expected Ukraine to surrender, but only after annihilating their military, which, of course, never happened.Sam Lowry said:They expected Ukraine to surrender, which is quite a different thing. And the Donbas was far from uncontested. Kiev has been trying to subdue and secure it for almost ten years.sombear said:Russia (and many of the "experts" you cite) expected to conquer Ukraine in 2-3 days.Redbrickbear said:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/if-ukraine-says-it-is-winning-what-does-losing-look-like/
A Counter-Counteroffensive
State of the Union: If Ukraine says it is winning, what does losing look like?
"Ukraine is winning," a June 21 headline from POLITICO read in part.
The author of the piece was none other than Denys Shmyhal, the prime minister of Ukraine. "More than a year after the big war began, it's obvious that Russia hasn't reached its strategic goals," Shmyhal writes, "which means Ukraine is winning."
Certainly, Russia has had a tougher go of it in Ukraine than expected, but nearly a fifth of Ukrainian territory lies in Russian hands; even when Shmyhal published this piece, it was clear Ukraine's counteroffensive was failing. The only basis that Shmyhal can claim Ukraine is winning the war is through blatantly misstating Russia's objectives, which he says is "to destroy Ukraine."
Shmyhal's framing allows Ukraine to proclaim victory as long as it remains on the map, even when settling the conflict with Russia will likely include forking over large portions of Ukrainian territory and the abandonment of any NATO or E.U. ambitions. Clever, but not clever enough, especially in light of the events in the month since.
In the last week, Ukraine has decided to pause its counteroffensive and adjust its tactics. The Ukrainian advance, if one can call it that, has come at the expense of heavy personnel and equipment losses, and has fallen far short of expectations.
American and European officials reportedly told the New York Times that, in the first two weeks of the six-week counteroffensive, a quarter of Ukraine's weaponry was damaged or destroyed. In the weeks that followed, the weaponry loss rate hovered around 10 percent....
As for Donbas. I was referring to the initial invasion in this war in 2022. Yes, U and R and have fought in Donbas for almost a decade. And there has of course been heavy fighting in this war, with ground changing hands. But, most of the what Russia controls there now was largely uncontested in early 2022 - mostly smaller cities.
Do you think Russia would say it has been successful in the Donbas?
Then why are they sitting deep in their trenches giving up ground, men, and hardware?
I've not seen the worst of Putin puppets say Russia has been "very successful." Your the first.
How it started. How it’s going. pic.twitter.com/QQ58rHlwC9
— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) July 22, 2023
Sam Lowry said:You should have just said that in the first place. It would have told me everything I needed to know about the quality of your sources.sombear said:Sam Lowry said:They've been very successful. I don't think they initially wanted to annihilate Ukraine's military, but they pretty much have at this point. There's certainly no realistic scenario where they'll be driven out.sombear said:Well, they expected Ukraine to surrender, but only after annihilating their military, which, of course, never happened.Sam Lowry said:They expected Ukraine to surrender, which is quite a different thing. And the Donbas was far from uncontested. Kiev has been trying to subdue and secure it for almost ten years.sombear said:Russia (and many of the "experts" you cite) expected to conquer Ukraine in 2-3 days.Redbrickbear said:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/if-ukraine-says-it-is-winning-what-does-losing-look-like/
A Counter-Counteroffensive
State of the Union: If Ukraine says it is winning, what does losing look like?
"Ukraine is winning," a June 21 headline from POLITICO read in part.
The author of the piece was none other than Denys Shmyhal, the prime minister of Ukraine. "More than a year after the big war began, it's obvious that Russia hasn't reached its strategic goals," Shmyhal writes, "which means Ukraine is winning."
Certainly, Russia has had a tougher go of it in Ukraine than expected, but nearly a fifth of Ukrainian territory lies in Russian hands; even when Shmyhal published this piece, it was clear Ukraine's counteroffensive was failing. The only basis that Shmyhal can claim Ukraine is winning the war is through blatantly misstating Russia's objectives, which he says is "to destroy Ukraine."
Shmyhal's framing allows Ukraine to proclaim victory as long as it remains on the map, even when settling the conflict with Russia will likely include forking over large portions of Ukrainian territory and the abandonment of any NATO or E.U. ambitions. Clever, but not clever enough, especially in light of the events in the month since.
In the last week, Ukraine has decided to pause its counteroffensive and adjust its tactics. The Ukrainian advance, if one can call it that, has come at the expense of heavy personnel and equipment losses, and has fallen far short of expectations.
American and European officials reportedly told the New York Times that, in the first two weeks of the six-week counteroffensive, a quarter of Ukraine's weaponry was damaged or destroyed. In the weeks that followed, the weaponry loss rate hovered around 10 percent....
As for Donbas. I was referring to the initial invasion in this war in 2022. Yes, U and R and have fought in Donbas for almost a decade. And there has of course been heavy fighting in this war, with ground changing hands. But, most of the what Russia controls there now was largely uncontested in early 2022 - mostly smaller cities.
Do you think Russia would say it has been successful in the Donbas?
Then why are they sitting deep in their trenches giving up ground, men, and hardware?
I've not seen the worst of Putin puppets say Russia has been "very successful." Your the first.
Redbrickbear said:How it started. How it’s going. pic.twitter.com/QQ58rHlwC9
— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) July 22, 2023
sombear said:Redbrickbear said:How it started. How it’s going. pic.twitter.com/QQ58rHlwC9
— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) July 22, 2023
Paywall. Can you please summarize? Certainly appears to be a major about face.
I hope you are understanding the macro reality of this report/story. There are others that predate this that discuss the significant Russian meddling.Redbrickbear said:
Genociding The Deplorables Of Donbass?
Here's a great find from someone on Twitter: a 2014 London Review of Books report by the reporter Keith Gessen, about the genocidal views he heard among Kyiv liberals after the Maidan protests. Gessen begins with the story of Mikhail Mishin, a young, relatively poor Russian speaking city worker in Donetsk, in the Donbass region:Quote:
When the Maidan protests started in Kiev late last year, Mishin followed them with increasing anxiety. He watched as young men in masks and the insignia of old Ukrainian fascist movements attacked riot police some of them from the Donetsk area with Molotov cocktails. He saw governors in the western provinces pulled out of their offices and roughed up by furious crowds. It seemed that the country was descending into chaos. When he heard a rumour that some of the young men from Maidan were headed for Donetsk, he believed it. After work he started taking the bus to the centre of Donetsk to stand with the protesters who called themselves 'anti-Maidan'. Some of them waved Russian flags; others held up posters of Stalin. But they all wanted to express their disagreement with what was happening in Kiev. Mishin supported this. He was worried that he might get into trouble he was a city official, after all but he figured that he was doing it in his own time, and it was something he believed in. But he concealed his new political activity from his parents, who would have worried.
Things quickly went very bad in the city, as anti-Ukraine separatists took over. Later, Gessen writes:Quote:
In Donetsk I had expected to find a totalitarian proto-state, and I did. The Kremlin liked calling the government in Kiev a 'junta', but here you had a real one. Professional mercenaries in fatigues called the shots and even ministers of state felt compelled to cross the street at the sight of armed men, lest a misunderstanding occur. What I didn't expect to find were so many people who believed in all of it with such certainty, and with such hope.
Horrible. But then, the story takes a turn:Quote:
For Mishin and Bik, the signal events of the past year looked very different from the way they looked to my friends in Kiev or Moscow. When liberals in those places had seen young men on Maidan attacking the riot police, they thought, 'people power'; and when they saw men in Donetsk beating pro-Ukraine protesters, they thought, 'fascists'. But that wasn't how it looked from Donetsk. From Donetsk they saw fascists on Maidan and, on the streets of Donetsk, people power. Whether the actual fascists on Maidan made them more or less certain of this, I don't know, but hearing it gave body to something the sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko had said to me in Kiev: 'It was the liberals' tolerance of the nationalists on Maidan that led to this. If they had rejected them right away, things might have turned out differently. It might have led to the collapse of Maidan. It might even have meant that Yanukovych remained president. But at least there would have been peace.'
Mishin and Bik were what the sociologists call the 'losers' of the post-Soviet transition. In Soviet times Bik had been a coal miner with aspirations to join the KGB. 'They didn't take Party bosses' sons, you know,' he said (wrongly). 'They took working people like me.' And Mishin was a mighty athlete. He recalled playing in a tournament in Leningrad and being promised a trip to the United States. 'The USA!' he recalled thinking. And then the whole world collapsed. Industrial regions like Donbass were hardest hit by the changes: it was the region's industrial output that plummeted furthest in the 1990s; it was industrial plants over which the bloodiest turf wars revolved. And it was in these places that the loss of status was most extreme. Industrial work was championed by the Soviets, both in word and in deed: coal miners in Donbass earned on average two or three times what a software engineer like my father earned in Moscow. (In the early 1980s, Bik had been working as a miner for just a few months when he bought a motorbike. The girls went crazy for it.) When the Soviet Union ended, the entire country experienced what Nietzsche might have recognised as a transvaluation of all values: what had been good was now bad, and what had been bad was now good. Some people liked it and grew rich; other people were left behind. With the victory of protests that were still referred to by some of their supporters as Euromaidan, the people of this industrial region were being asked to endure yet another round of deindustrialisation of austerity, unemployment and social death. They had balked at this and, what was more, they had an out. Deindustrialisation had gone hand in hand, the first time, with the collapse of the empire. But what if the empire could be restored? Maybe the jobs would come back? If the Russians felt they had 'lost' something in Ukraine, many people in Eastern Ukraine felt as if they'd been stranded from their motherland. 'They call us traitors and separatists,' Bik said. 'But I don't feel like a traitor. I felt like a traitor before, when I had to call myself Ukrainian. I don't feel like a traitor now.'
Basically, then, the people of the Donbass are the Deplorables of Ukraine. And that's how the liberals of Kyiv saw them:Quote:
And so imagine if for two decades you have been trying to pull your country, bit by bit, into Europe. Imagine that it's been a bumpy road everything you accomplish seems to get sabotaged by the political forces from the east. Imagine that finally the contradictions within your country have come to a breaking point. Imagine that all the people who opposed your politics for twenty years all the most backward, poorest, least successful people in the country got together in one place, declared an independent republic, and took up arms? What would you do? You could let them go. But then you'd lose all that land and its industrial capacity and also what kind of country just lets chunks of itself fall off? Perhaps you could think of it as an opportunity. Something similar happened when the old Stalinists and nationalists took over the Supreme Soviet in Moscow in 1993. All the enemies of progress in one place, all the losers and has-beens: wouldn't it be better just to solve the problem once and for all? Wouldn't it be a better long-term solution just to kill as many as you could and scare the **** out of the rest of them, for ever? This is what I heard from respectable people in Kiev. Not from the nationalists, but from liberals, from professionals and journalists. All the bad people were in one place why not kill them all?
Read the whole thing. It's a remarkable document, the kind of thing you just don't see these days. Gessen published it eight years before the Russia-Ukraine war broke out, when it was still possible to see the emerging conflict as something complicated and tragic, with both sides having legitimate concerns and grievances. The Donbass is basically the Rust Belt and West Virginia, sounds like. Imagine if those people took up arms against the Boston-Washington corridor.
The nuanced and complex analysis we see in Gessen's piece is gone now. We in the West are 100 percent sure we understand this terrible war who the good guys are (and they are 100 percent good) and who the bad guys are (basically, they marched out of Mordor). To remind you: Russia, in my view, should not have invaded. The war is mostly Russia's fault. But not entirely. My view is that we in the West are in way over our heads, involved in somebody else's civil war, and stumbling quite possibly towards nuclear armageddon.
the twin headed god of "we're spending too much money" on one side, and "nuclear armageddon" on the other, rather than engagement in sober geopolitical analysis of "which outcome benefits us most."ATL Bear said:I hope you are understanding the macro reality of this report/story. There are others that predate this that discuss the significant Russian meddling.Redbrickbear said:
Genociding The Deplorables Of Donbass?
Here's a great find from someone on Twitter: a 2014 London Review of Books report by the reporter Keith Gessen, about the genocidal views he heard among Kyiv liberals after the Maidan protests. Gessen begins with the story of Mikhail Mishin, a young, relatively poor Russian speaking city worker in Donetsk, in the Donbass region:Quote:
When the Maidan protests started in Kiev late last year, Mishin followed them with increasing anxiety. He watched as young men in masks and the insignia of old Ukrainian fascist movements attacked riot police some of them from the Donetsk area with Molotov cocktails. He saw governors in the western provinces pulled out of their offices and roughed up by furious crowds. It seemed that the country was descending into chaos. When he heard a rumour that some of the young men from Maidan were headed for Donetsk, he believed it. After work he started taking the bus to the centre of Donetsk to stand with the protesters who called themselves 'anti-Maidan'. Some of them waved Russian flags; others held up posters of Stalin. But they all wanted to express their disagreement with what was happening in Kiev. Mishin supported this. He was worried that he might get into trouble he was a city official, after all but he figured that he was doing it in his own time, and it was something he believed in. But he concealed his new political activity from his parents, who would have worried.
Things quickly went very bad in the city, as anti-Ukraine separatists took over. Later, Gessen writes:Quote:
In Donetsk I had expected to find a totalitarian proto-state, and I did. The Kremlin liked calling the government in Kiev a 'junta', but here you had a real one. Professional mercenaries in fatigues called the shots and even ministers of state felt compelled to cross the street at the sight of armed men, lest a misunderstanding occur. What I didn't expect to find were so many people who believed in all of it with such certainty, and with such hope.
Horrible. But then, the story takes a turn:Quote:
For Mishin and Bik, the signal events of the past year looked very different from the way they looked to my friends in Kiev or Moscow. When liberals in those places had seen young men on Maidan attacking the riot police, they thought, 'people power'; and when they saw men in Donetsk beating pro-Ukraine protesters, they thought, 'fascists'. But that wasn't how it looked from Donetsk. From Donetsk they saw fascists on Maidan and, on the streets of Donetsk, people power. Whether the actual fascists on Maidan made them more or less certain of this, I don't know, but hearing it gave body to something the sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko had said to me in Kiev: 'It was the liberals' tolerance of the nationalists on Maidan that led to this. If they had rejected them right away, things might have turned out differently. It might have led to the collapse of Maidan. It might even have meant that Yanukovych remained president. But at least there would have been peace.'
Mishin and Bik were what the sociologists call the 'losers' of the post-Soviet transition. In Soviet times Bik had been a coal miner with aspirations to join the KGB. 'They didn't take Party bosses' sons, you know,' he said (wrongly). 'They took working people like me.' And Mishin was a mighty athlete. He recalled playing in a tournament in Leningrad and being promised a trip to the United States. 'The USA!' he recalled thinking. And then the whole world collapsed. Industrial regions like Donbass were hardest hit by the changes: it was the region's industrial output that plummeted furthest in the 1990s; it was industrial plants over which the bloodiest turf wars revolved. And it was in these places that the loss of status was most extreme. Industrial work was championed by the Soviets, both in word and in deed: coal miners in Donbass earned on average two or three times what a software engineer like my father earned in Moscow. (In the early 1980s, Bik had been working as a miner for just a few months when he bought a motorbike. The girls went crazy for it.) When the Soviet Union ended, the entire country experienced what Nietzsche might have recognised as a transvaluation of all values: what had been good was now bad, and what had been bad was now good. Some people liked it and grew rich; other people were left behind. With the victory of protests that were still referred to by some of their supporters as Euromaidan, the people of this industrial region were being asked to endure yet another round of deindustrialisation of austerity, unemployment and social death. They had balked at this and, what was more, they had an out. Deindustrialisation had gone hand in hand, the first time, with the collapse of the empire. But what if the empire could be restored? Maybe the jobs would come back? If the Russians felt they had 'lost' something in Ukraine, many people in Eastern Ukraine felt as if they'd been stranded from their motherland. 'They call us traitors and separatists,' Bik said. 'But I don't feel like a traitor. I felt like a traitor before, when I had to call myself Ukrainian. I don't feel like a traitor now.'
Basically, then, the people of the Donbass are the Deplorables of Ukraine. And that's how the liberals of Kyiv saw them:Quote:
And so imagine if for two decades you have been trying to pull your country, bit by bit, into Europe. Imagine that it's been a bumpy road everything you accomplish seems to get sabotaged by the political forces from the east. Imagine that finally the contradictions within your country have come to a breaking point. Imagine that all the people who opposed your politics for twenty years all the most backward, poorest, least successful people in the country got together in one place, declared an independent republic, and took up arms? What would you do? You could let them go. But then you'd lose all that land and its industrial capacity and also what kind of country just lets chunks of itself fall off? Perhaps you could think of it as an opportunity. Something similar happened when the old Stalinists and nationalists took over the Supreme Soviet in Moscow in 1993. All the enemies of progress in one place, all the losers and has-beens: wouldn't it be better just to solve the problem once and for all? Wouldn't it be a better long-term solution just to kill as many as you could and scare the **** out of the rest of them, for ever? This is what I heard from respectable people in Kiev. Not from the nationalists, but from liberals, from professionals and journalists. All the bad people were in one place why not kill them all?
Read the whole thing. It's a remarkable document, the kind of thing you just don't see these days. Gessen published it eight years before the Russia-Ukraine war broke out, when it was still possible to see the emerging conflict as something complicated and tragic, with both sides having legitimate concerns and grievances. The Donbass is basically the Rust Belt and West Virginia, sounds like. Imagine if those people took up arms against the Boston-Washington corridor.
The nuanced and complex analysis we see in Gessen's piece is gone now. We in the West are 100 percent sure we understand this terrible war who the good guys are (and they are 100 percent good) and who the bad guys are (basically, they marched out of Mordor). To remind you: Russia, in my view, should not have invaded. The war is mostly Russia's fault. But not entirely. My view is that we in the West are in way over our heads, involved in somebody else's civil war, and stumbling quite possibly towards nuclear armageddon.
And "sober geopolitical analysis" means equating foreign leaders with sword and sorcery villains.whiterock said:the twin headed god of "we're spending too much money" on one side, and "nuclear armageddon" on the other, rather than engagement in sober geopolitical analysis of "which outcome benefits us most."ATL Bear said:I hope you are understanding the macro reality of this report/story. There are others that predate this that discuss the significant Russian meddling.Redbrickbear said:
Genociding The Deplorables Of Donbass?
Here's a great find from someone on Twitter: a 2014 London Review of Books report by the reporter Keith Gessen, about the genocidal views he heard among Kyiv liberals after the Maidan protests. Gessen begins with the story of Mikhail Mishin, a young, relatively poor Russian speaking city worker in Donetsk, in the Donbass region:Quote:
When the Maidan protests started in Kiev late last year, Mishin followed them with increasing anxiety. He watched as young men in masks and the insignia of old Ukrainian fascist movements attacked riot police some of them from the Donetsk area with Molotov cocktails. He saw governors in the western provinces pulled out of their offices and roughed up by furious crowds. It seemed that the country was descending into chaos. When he heard a rumour that some of the young men from Maidan were headed for Donetsk, he believed it. After work he started taking the bus to the centre of Donetsk to stand with the protesters who called themselves 'anti-Maidan'. Some of them waved Russian flags; others held up posters of Stalin. But they all wanted to express their disagreement with what was happening in Kiev. Mishin supported this. He was worried that he might get into trouble he was a city official, after all but he figured that he was doing it in his own time, and it was something he believed in. But he concealed his new political activity from his parents, who would have worried.
Things quickly went very bad in the city, as anti-Ukraine separatists took over. Later, Gessen writes:Quote:
In Donetsk I had expected to find a totalitarian proto-state, and I did. The Kremlin liked calling the government in Kiev a 'junta', but here you had a real one. Professional mercenaries in fatigues called the shots and even ministers of state felt compelled to cross the street at the sight of armed men, lest a misunderstanding occur. What I didn't expect to find were so many people who believed in all of it with such certainty, and with such hope.
Horrible. But then, the story takes a turn:Quote:
For Mishin and Bik, the signal events of the past year looked very different from the way they looked to my friends in Kiev or Moscow. When liberals in those places had seen young men on Maidan attacking the riot police, they thought, 'people power'; and when they saw men in Donetsk beating pro-Ukraine protesters, they thought, 'fascists'. But that wasn't how it looked from Donetsk. From Donetsk they saw fascists on Maidan and, on the streets of Donetsk, people power. Whether the actual fascists on Maidan made them more or less certain of this, I don't know, but hearing it gave body to something the sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko had said to me in Kiev: 'It was the liberals' tolerance of the nationalists on Maidan that led to this. If they had rejected them right away, things might have turned out differently. It might have led to the collapse of Maidan. It might even have meant that Yanukovych remained president. But at least there would have been peace.'
Mishin and Bik were what the sociologists call the 'losers' of the post-Soviet transition. In Soviet times Bik had been a coal miner with aspirations to join the KGB. 'They didn't take Party bosses' sons, you know,' he said (wrongly). 'They took working people like me.' And Mishin was a mighty athlete. He recalled playing in a tournament in Leningrad and being promised a trip to the United States. 'The USA!' he recalled thinking. And then the whole world collapsed. Industrial regions like Donbass were hardest hit by the changes: it was the region's industrial output that plummeted furthest in the 1990s; it was industrial plants over which the bloodiest turf wars revolved. And it was in these places that the loss of status was most extreme. Industrial work was championed by the Soviets, both in word and in deed: coal miners in Donbass earned on average two or three times what a software engineer like my father earned in Moscow. (In the early 1980s, Bik had been working as a miner for just a few months when he bought a motorbike. The girls went crazy for it.) When the Soviet Union ended, the entire country experienced what Nietzsche might have recognised as a transvaluation of all values: what had been good was now bad, and what had been bad was now good. Some people liked it and grew rich; other people were left behind. With the victory of protests that were still referred to by some of their supporters as Euromaidan, the people of this industrial region were being asked to endure yet another round of deindustrialisation of austerity, unemployment and social death. They had balked at this and, what was more, they had an out. Deindustrialisation had gone hand in hand, the first time, with the collapse of the empire. But what if the empire could be restored? Maybe the jobs would come back? If the Russians felt they had 'lost' something in Ukraine, many people in Eastern Ukraine felt as if they'd been stranded from their motherland. 'They call us traitors and separatists,' Bik said. 'But I don't feel like a traitor. I felt like a traitor before, when I had to call myself Ukrainian. I don't feel like a traitor now.'
Basically, then, the people of the Donbass are the Deplorables of Ukraine. And that's how the liberals of Kyiv saw them:Quote:
And so imagine if for two decades you have been trying to pull your country, bit by bit, into Europe. Imagine that it's been a bumpy road everything you accomplish seems to get sabotaged by the political forces from the east. Imagine that finally the contradictions within your country have come to a breaking point. Imagine that all the people who opposed your politics for twenty years all the most backward, poorest, least successful people in the country got together in one place, declared an independent republic, and took up arms? What would you do? You could let them go. But then you'd lose all that land and its industrial capacity and also what kind of country just lets chunks of itself fall off? Perhaps you could think of it as an opportunity. Something similar happened when the old Stalinists and nationalists took over the Supreme Soviet in Moscow in 1993. All the enemies of progress in one place, all the losers and has-beens: wouldn't it be better just to solve the problem once and for all? Wouldn't it be a better long-term solution just to kill as many as you could and scare the **** out of the rest of them, for ever? This is what I heard from respectable people in Kiev. Not from the nationalists, but from liberals, from professionals and journalists. All the bad people were in one place why not kill them all?
Read the whole thing. It's a remarkable document, the kind of thing you just don't see these days. Gessen published it eight years before the Russia-Ukraine war broke out, when it was still possible to see the emerging conflict as something complicated and tragic, with both sides having legitimate concerns and grievances. The Donbass is basically the Rust Belt and West Virginia, sounds like. Imagine if those people took up arms against the Boston-Washington corridor.
The nuanced and complex analysis we see in Gessen's piece is gone now. We in the West are 100 percent sure we understand this terrible war who the good guys are (and they are 100 percent good) and who the bad guys are (basically, they marched out of Mordor). To remind you: Russia, in my view, should not have invaded. The war is mostly Russia's fault. But not entirely. My view is that we in the West are in way over our heads, involved in somebody else's civil war, and stumbling quite possibly towards nuclear armageddon.
The Mordor allegory is fitting. Often see Ukes calling Russian soldiers "Orcs" because of their battlefield tactics = mindless human wave assaults on behalf of an evil genius who......
Sam Lowry said:And "sober geopolitical analysis" means equating foreign leaders with sword and sorcery villains.whiterock said:the twin headed god of "we're spending too much money" on one side, and "nuclear armageddon" on the other, rather than engagement in sober geopolitical analysis of "which outcome benefits us most."ATL Bear said:I hope you are understanding the macro reality of this report/story. There are others that predate this that discuss the significant Russian meddling.Redbrickbear said:
Genociding The Deplorables Of Donbass?
Here's a great find from someone on Twitter: a 2014 London Review of Books report by the reporter Keith Gessen, about the genocidal views he heard among Kyiv liberals after the Maidan protests. Gessen begins with the story of Mikhail Mishin, a young, relatively poor Russian speaking city worker in Donetsk, in the Donbass region:Quote:
When the Maidan protests started in Kiev late last year, Mishin followed them with increasing anxiety. He watched as young men in masks and the insignia of old Ukrainian fascist movements attacked riot police some of them from the Donetsk area with Molotov cocktails. He saw governors in the western provinces pulled out of their offices and roughed up by furious crowds. It seemed that the country was descending into chaos. When he heard a rumour that some of the young men from Maidan were headed for Donetsk, he believed it. After work he started taking the bus to the centre of Donetsk to stand with the protesters who called themselves 'anti-Maidan'. Some of them waved Russian flags; others held up posters of Stalin. But they all wanted to express their disagreement with what was happening in Kiev. Mishin supported this. He was worried that he might get into trouble he was a city official, after all but he figured that he was doing it in his own time, and it was something he believed in. But he concealed his new political activity from his parents, who would have worried.
Things quickly went very bad in the city, as anti-Ukraine separatists took over. Later, Gessen writes:Quote:
In Donetsk I had expected to find a totalitarian proto-state, and I did. The Kremlin liked calling the government in Kiev a 'junta', but here you had a real one. Professional mercenaries in fatigues called the shots and even ministers of state felt compelled to cross the street at the sight of armed men, lest a misunderstanding occur. What I didn't expect to find were so many people who believed in all of it with such certainty, and with such hope.
Horrible. But then, the story takes a turn:Quote:
For Mishin and Bik, the signal events of the past year looked very different from the way they looked to my friends in Kiev or Moscow. When liberals in those places had seen young men on Maidan attacking the riot police, they thought, 'people power'; and when they saw men in Donetsk beating pro-Ukraine protesters, they thought, 'fascists'. But that wasn't how it looked from Donetsk. From Donetsk they saw fascists on Maidan and, on the streets of Donetsk, people power. Whether the actual fascists on Maidan made them more or less certain of this, I don't know, but hearing it gave body to something the sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko had said to me in Kiev: 'It was the liberals' tolerance of the nationalists on Maidan that led to this. If they had rejected them right away, things might have turned out differently. It might have led to the collapse of Maidan. It might even have meant that Yanukovych remained president. But at least there would have been peace.'
Mishin and Bik were what the sociologists call the 'losers' of the post-Soviet transition. In Soviet times Bik had been a coal miner with aspirations to join the KGB. 'They didn't take Party bosses' sons, you know,' he said (wrongly). 'They took working people like me.' And Mishin was a mighty athlete. He recalled playing in a tournament in Leningrad and being promised a trip to the United States. 'The USA!' he recalled thinking. And then the whole world collapsed. Industrial regions like Donbass were hardest hit by the changes: it was the region's industrial output that plummeted furthest in the 1990s; it was industrial plants over which the bloodiest turf wars revolved. And it was in these places that the loss of status was most extreme. Industrial work was championed by the Soviets, both in word and in deed: coal miners in Donbass earned on average two or three times what a software engineer like my father earned in Moscow. (In the early 1980s, Bik had been working as a miner for just a few months when he bought a motorbike. The girls went crazy for it.) When the Soviet Union ended, the entire country experienced what Nietzsche might have recognised as a transvaluation of all values: what had been good was now bad, and what had been bad was now good. Some people liked it and grew rich; other people were left behind. With the victory of protests that were still referred to by some of their supporters as Euromaidan, the people of this industrial region were being asked to endure yet another round of deindustrialisation of austerity, unemployment and social death. They had balked at this and, what was more, they had an out. Deindustrialisation had gone hand in hand, the first time, with the collapse of the empire. But what if the empire could be restored? Maybe the jobs would come back? If the Russians felt they had 'lost' something in Ukraine, many people in Eastern Ukraine felt as if they'd been stranded from their motherland. 'They call us traitors and separatists,' Bik said. 'But I don't feel like a traitor. I felt like a traitor before, when I had to call myself Ukrainian. I don't feel like a traitor now.'
Basically, then, the people of the Donbass are the Deplorables of Ukraine. And that's how the liberals of Kyiv saw them:Quote:
And so imagine if for two decades you have been trying to pull your country, bit by bit, into Europe. Imagine that it's been a bumpy road everything you accomplish seems to get sabotaged by the political forces from the east. Imagine that finally the contradictions within your country have come to a breaking point. Imagine that all the people who opposed your politics for twenty years all the most backward, poorest, least successful people in the country got together in one place, declared an independent republic, and took up arms? What would you do? You could let them go. But then you'd lose all that land and its industrial capacity and also what kind of country just lets chunks of itself fall off? Perhaps you could think of it as an opportunity. Something similar happened when the old Stalinists and nationalists took over the Supreme Soviet in Moscow in 1993. All the enemies of progress in one place, all the losers and has-beens: wouldn't it be better just to solve the problem once and for all? Wouldn't it be a better long-term solution just to kill as many as you could and scare the **** out of the rest of them, for ever? This is what I heard from respectable people in Kiev. Not from the nationalists, but from liberals, from professionals and journalists. All the bad people were in one place why not kill them all?
Read the whole thing. It's a remarkable document, the kind of thing you just don't see these days. Gessen published it eight years before the Russia-Ukraine war broke out, when it was still possible to see the emerging conflict as something complicated and tragic, with both sides having legitimate concerns and grievances. The Donbass is basically the Rust Belt and West Virginia, sounds like. Imagine if those people took up arms against the Boston-Washington corridor.
The nuanced and complex analysis we see in Gessen's piece is gone now. We in the West are 100 percent sure we understand this terrible war who the good guys are (and they are 100 percent good) and who the bad guys are (basically, they marched out of Mordor). To remind you: Russia, in my view, should not have invaded. The war is mostly Russia's fault. But not entirely. My view is that we in the West are in way over our heads, involved in somebody else's civil war, and stumbling quite possibly towards nuclear armageddon.
The Mordor allegory is fitting. Often see Ukes calling Russian soldiers "Orcs" because of their battlefield tactics = mindless human wave assaults on behalf of an evil genius who......
Priceless.
You two have already done that.....Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:And "sober geopolitical analysis" means equating foreign leaders with sword and sorcery villains.whiterock said:the twin headed god of "we're spending too much money" on one side, and "nuclear armageddon" on the other, rather than engagement in sober geopolitical analysis of "which outcome benefits us most."ATL Bear said:I hope you are understanding the macro reality of this report/story. There are others that predate this that discuss the significant Russian meddling.Redbrickbear said:
Genociding The Deplorables Of Donbass?
Here's a great find from someone on Twitter: a 2014 London Review of Books report by the reporter Keith Gessen, about the genocidal views he heard among Kyiv liberals after the Maidan protests. Gessen begins with the story of Mikhail Mishin, a young, relatively poor Russian speaking city worker in Donetsk, in the Donbass region:Quote:
When the Maidan protests started in Kiev late last year, Mishin followed them with increasing anxiety. He watched as young men in masks and the insignia of old Ukrainian fascist movements attacked riot police some of them from the Donetsk area with Molotov cocktails. He saw governors in the western provinces pulled out of their offices and roughed up by furious crowds. It seemed that the country was descending into chaos. When he heard a rumour that some of the young men from Maidan were headed for Donetsk, he believed it. After work he started taking the bus to the centre of Donetsk to stand with the protesters who called themselves 'anti-Maidan'. Some of them waved Russian flags; others held up posters of Stalin. But they all wanted to express their disagreement with what was happening in Kiev. Mishin supported this. He was worried that he might get into trouble he was a city official, after all but he figured that he was doing it in his own time, and it was something he believed in. But he concealed his new political activity from his parents, who would have worried.
Things quickly went very bad in the city, as anti-Ukraine separatists took over. Later, Gessen writes:Quote:
In Donetsk I had expected to find a totalitarian proto-state, and I did. The Kremlin liked calling the government in Kiev a 'junta', but here you had a real one. Professional mercenaries in fatigues called the shots and even ministers of state felt compelled to cross the street at the sight of armed men, lest a misunderstanding occur. What I didn't expect to find were so many people who believed in all of it with such certainty, and with such hope.
Horrible. But then, the story takes a turn:Quote:
For Mishin and Bik, the signal events of the past year looked very different from the way they looked to my friends in Kiev or Moscow. When liberals in those places had seen young men on Maidan attacking the riot police, they thought, 'people power'; and when they saw men in Donetsk beating pro-Ukraine protesters, they thought, 'fascists'. But that wasn't how it looked from Donetsk. From Donetsk they saw fascists on Maidan and, on the streets of Donetsk, people power. Whether the actual fascists on Maidan made them more or less certain of this, I don't know, but hearing it gave body to something the sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko had said to me in Kiev: 'It was the liberals' tolerance of the nationalists on Maidan that led to this. If they had rejected them right away, things might have turned out differently. It might have led to the collapse of Maidan. It might even have meant that Yanukovych remained president. But at least there would have been peace.'
Mishin and Bik were what the sociologists call the 'losers' of the post-Soviet transition. In Soviet times Bik had been a coal miner with aspirations to join the KGB. 'They didn't take Party bosses' sons, you know,' he said (wrongly). 'They took working people like me.' And Mishin was a mighty athlete. He recalled playing in a tournament in Leningrad and being promised a trip to the United States. 'The USA!' he recalled thinking. And then the whole world collapsed. Industrial regions like Donbass were hardest hit by the changes: it was the region's industrial output that plummeted furthest in the 1990s; it was industrial plants over which the bloodiest turf wars revolved. And it was in these places that the loss of status was most extreme. Industrial work was championed by the Soviets, both in word and in deed: coal miners in Donbass earned on average two or three times what a software engineer like my father earned in Moscow. (In the early 1980s, Bik had been working as a miner for just a few months when he bought a motorbike. The girls went crazy for it.) When the Soviet Union ended, the entire country experienced what Nietzsche might have recognised as a transvaluation of all values: what had been good was now bad, and what had been bad was now good. Some people liked it and grew rich; other people were left behind. With the victory of protests that were still referred to by some of their supporters as Euromaidan, the people of this industrial region were being asked to endure yet another round of deindustrialisation of austerity, unemployment and social death. They had balked at this and, what was more, they had an out. Deindustrialisation had gone hand in hand, the first time, with the collapse of the empire. But what if the empire could be restored? Maybe the jobs would come back? If the Russians felt they had 'lost' something in Ukraine, many people in Eastern Ukraine felt as if they'd been stranded from their motherland. 'They call us traitors and separatists,' Bik said. 'But I don't feel like a traitor. I felt like a traitor before, when I had to call myself Ukrainian. I don't feel like a traitor now.'
Basically, then, the people of the Donbass are the Deplorables of Ukraine. And that's how the liberals of Kyiv saw them:Quote:
And so imagine if for two decades you have been trying to pull your country, bit by bit, into Europe. Imagine that it's been a bumpy road everything you accomplish seems to get sabotaged by the political forces from the east. Imagine that finally the contradictions within your country have come to a breaking point. Imagine that all the people who opposed your politics for twenty years all the most backward, poorest, least successful people in the country got together in one place, declared an independent republic, and took up arms? What would you do? You could let them go. But then you'd lose all that land and its industrial capacity and also what kind of country just lets chunks of itself fall off? Perhaps you could think of it as an opportunity. Something similar happened when the old Stalinists and nationalists took over the Supreme Soviet in Moscow in 1993. All the enemies of progress in one place, all the losers and has-beens: wouldn't it be better just to solve the problem once and for all? Wouldn't it be a better long-term solution just to kill as many as you could and scare the **** out of the rest of them, for ever? This is what I heard from respectable people in Kiev. Not from the nationalists, but from liberals, from professionals and journalists. All the bad people were in one place why not kill them all?
Read the whole thing. It's a remarkable document, the kind of thing you just don't see these days. Gessen published it eight years before the Russia-Ukraine war broke out, when it was still possible to see the emerging conflict as something complicated and tragic, with both sides having legitimate concerns and grievances. The Donbass is basically the Rust Belt and West Virginia, sounds like. Imagine if those people took up arms against the Boston-Washington corridor.
The nuanced and complex analysis we see in Gessen's piece is gone now. We in the West are 100 percent sure we understand this terrible war who the good guys are (and they are 100 percent good) and who the bad guys are (basically, they marched out of Mordor). To remind you: Russia, in my view, should not have invaded. The war is mostly Russia's fault. But not entirely. My view is that we in the West are in way over our heads, involved in somebody else's civil war, and stumbling quite possibly towards nuclear armageddon.
The Mordor allegory is fitting. Often see Ukes calling Russian soldiers "Orcs" because of their battlefield tactics = mindless human wave assaults on behalf of an evil genius who......
Priceless.
This is unfortunately a problem at epidemic levels.
If I see one more "analysis" that uses Star Wars or Harry Potter as allegories for this war I'm gonna lose my mind.
Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:And "sober geopolitical analysis" means equating foreign leaders with sword and sorcery villains.whiterock said:the twin headed god of "we're spending too much money" on one side, and "nuclear armageddon" on the other, rather than engagement in sober geopolitical analysis of "which outcome benefits us most."ATL Bear said:I hope you are understanding the macro reality of this report/story. There are others that predate this that discuss the significant Russian meddling.Redbrickbear said:
Genociding The Deplorables Of Donbass?
Here's a great find from someone on Twitter: a 2014 London Review of Books report by the reporter Keith Gessen, about the genocidal views he heard among Kyiv liberals after the Maidan protests. Gessen begins with the story of Mikhail Mishin, a young, relatively poor Russian speaking city worker in Donetsk, in the Donbass region:Quote:
When the Maidan protests started in Kiev late last year, Mishin followed them with increasing anxiety. He watched as young men in masks and the insignia of old Ukrainian fascist movements attacked riot police some of them from the Donetsk area with Molotov cocktails. He saw governors in the western provinces pulled out of their offices and roughed up by furious crowds. It seemed that the country was descending into chaos. When he heard a rumour that some of the young men from Maidan were headed for Donetsk, he believed it. After work he started taking the bus to the centre of Donetsk to stand with the protesters who called themselves 'anti-Maidan'. Some of them waved Russian flags; others held up posters of Stalin. But they all wanted to express their disagreement with what was happening in Kiev. Mishin supported this. He was worried that he might get into trouble he was a city official, after all but he figured that he was doing it in his own time, and it was something he believed in. But he concealed his new political activity from his parents, who would have worried.
Things quickly went very bad in the city, as anti-Ukraine separatists took over. Later, Gessen writes:Quote:
In Donetsk I had expected to find a totalitarian proto-state, and I did. The Kremlin liked calling the government in Kiev a 'junta', but here you had a real one. Professional mercenaries in fatigues called the shots and even ministers of state felt compelled to cross the street at the sight of armed men, lest a misunderstanding occur. What I didn't expect to find were so many people who believed in all of it with such certainty, and with such hope.
Horrible. But then, the story takes a turn:Quote:
For Mishin and Bik, the signal events of the past year looked very different from the way they looked to my friends in Kiev or Moscow. When liberals in those places had seen young men on Maidan attacking the riot police, they thought, 'people power'; and when they saw men in Donetsk beating pro-Ukraine protesters, they thought, 'fascists'. But that wasn't how it looked from Donetsk. From Donetsk they saw fascists on Maidan and, on the streets of Donetsk, people power. Whether the actual fascists on Maidan made them more or less certain of this, I don't know, but hearing it gave body to something the sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko had said to me in Kiev: 'It was the liberals' tolerance of the nationalists on Maidan that led to this. If they had rejected them right away, things might have turned out differently. It might have led to the collapse of Maidan. It might even have meant that Yanukovych remained president. But at least there would have been peace.'
Mishin and Bik were what the sociologists call the 'losers' of the post-Soviet transition. In Soviet times Bik had been a coal miner with aspirations to join the KGB. 'They didn't take Party bosses' sons, you know,' he said (wrongly). 'They took working people like me.' And Mishin was a mighty athlete. He recalled playing in a tournament in Leningrad and being promised a trip to the United States. 'The USA!' he recalled thinking. And then the whole world collapsed. Industrial regions like Donbass were hardest hit by the changes: it was the region's industrial output that plummeted furthest in the 1990s; it was industrial plants over which the bloodiest turf wars revolved. And it was in these places that the loss of status was most extreme. Industrial work was championed by the Soviets, both in word and in deed: coal miners in Donbass earned on average two or three times what a software engineer like my father earned in Moscow. (In the early 1980s, Bik had been working as a miner for just a few months when he bought a motorbike. The girls went crazy for it.) When the Soviet Union ended, the entire country experienced what Nietzsche might have recognised as a transvaluation of all values: what had been good was now bad, and what had been bad was now good. Some people liked it and grew rich; other people were left behind. With the victory of protests that were still referred to by some of their supporters as Euromaidan, the people of this industrial region were being asked to endure yet another round of deindustrialisation of austerity, unemployment and social death. They had balked at this and, what was more, they had an out. Deindustrialisation had gone hand in hand, the first time, with the collapse of the empire. But what if the empire could be restored? Maybe the jobs would come back? If the Russians felt they had 'lost' something in Ukraine, many people in Eastern Ukraine felt as if they'd been stranded from their motherland. 'They call us traitors and separatists,' Bik said. 'But I don't feel like a traitor. I felt like a traitor before, when I had to call myself Ukrainian. I don't feel like a traitor now.'
Basically, then, the people of the Donbass are the Deplorables of Ukraine. And that's how the liberals of Kyiv saw them:Quote:
And so imagine if for two decades you have been trying to pull your country, bit by bit, into Europe. Imagine that it's been a bumpy road everything you accomplish seems to get sabotaged by the political forces from the east. Imagine that finally the contradictions within your country have come to a breaking point. Imagine that all the people who opposed your politics for twenty years all the most backward, poorest, least successful people in the country got together in one place, declared an independent republic, and took up arms? What would you do? You could let them go. But then you'd lose all that land and its industrial capacity and also what kind of country just lets chunks of itself fall off? Perhaps you could think of it as an opportunity. Something similar happened when the old Stalinists and nationalists took over the Supreme Soviet in Moscow in 1993. All the enemies of progress in one place, all the losers and has-beens: wouldn't it be better just to solve the problem once and for all? Wouldn't it be a better long-term solution just to kill as many as you could and scare the **** out of the rest of them, for ever? This is what I heard from respectable people in Kiev. Not from the nationalists, but from liberals, from professionals and journalists. All the bad people were in one place why not kill them all?
Read the whole thing. It's a remarkable document, the kind of thing you just don't see these days. Gessen published it eight years before the Russia-Ukraine war broke out, when it was still possible to see the emerging conflict as something complicated and tragic, with both sides having legitimate concerns and grievances. The Donbass is basically the Rust Belt and West Virginia, sounds like. Imagine if those people took up arms against the Boston-Washington corridor.
The nuanced and complex analysis we see in Gessen's piece is gone now. We in the West are 100 percent sure we understand this terrible war who the good guys are (and they are 100 percent good) and who the bad guys are (basically, they marched out of Mordor). To remind you: Russia, in my view, should not have invaded. The war is mostly Russia's fault. But not entirely. My view is that we in the West are in way over our heads, involved in somebody else's civil war, and stumbling quite possibly towards nuclear armageddon.
The Mordor allegory is fitting. Often see Ukes calling Russian soldiers "Orcs" because of their battlefield tactics = mindless human wave assaults on behalf of an evil genius who......
Priceless.
This is unfortunately a problem at epidemic levels.
If I see one more "analysis" that uses Star Wars or Harry Potter as allegories for this war I'm gonna lose my mind.
FLBear5630 said:Redbrickbear said:Sam Lowry said:And "sober geopolitical analysis" means equating foreign leaders with sword and sorcery villains.whiterock said:the twin headed god of "we're spending too much money" on one side, and "nuclear armageddon" on the other, rather than engagement in sober geopolitical analysis of "which outcome benefits us most."ATL Bear said:I hope you are understanding the macro reality of this report/story. There are others that predate this that discuss the significant Russian meddling.Redbrickbear said:
Genociding The Deplorables Of Donbass?
Here's a great find from someone on Twitter: a 2014 London Review of Books report by the reporter Keith Gessen, about the genocidal views he heard among Kyiv liberals after the Maidan protests. Gessen begins with the story of Mikhail Mishin, a young, relatively poor Russian speaking city worker in Donetsk, in the Donbass region:Quote:
When the Maidan protests started in Kiev late last year, Mishin followed them with increasing anxiety. He watched as young men in masks and the insignia of old Ukrainian fascist movements attacked riot police some of them from the Donetsk area with Molotov cocktails. He saw governors in the western provinces pulled out of their offices and roughed up by furious crowds. It seemed that the country was descending into chaos. When he heard a rumour that some of the young men from Maidan were headed for Donetsk, he believed it. After work he started taking the bus to the centre of Donetsk to stand with the protesters who called themselves 'anti-Maidan'. Some of them waved Russian flags; others held up posters of Stalin. But they all wanted to express their disagreement with what was happening in Kiev. Mishin supported this. He was worried that he might get into trouble he was a city official, after all but he figured that he was doing it in his own time, and it was something he believed in. But he concealed his new political activity from his parents, who would have worried.
Things quickly went very bad in the city, as anti-Ukraine separatists took over. Later, Gessen writes:Quote:
In Donetsk I had expected to find a totalitarian proto-state, and I did. The Kremlin liked calling the government in Kiev a 'junta', but here you had a real one. Professional mercenaries in fatigues called the shots and even ministers of state felt compelled to cross the street at the sight of armed men, lest a misunderstanding occur. What I didn't expect to find were so many people who believed in all of it with such certainty, and with such hope.
Horrible. But then, the story takes a turn:Quote:
For Mishin and Bik, the signal events of the past year looked very different from the way they looked to my friends in Kiev or Moscow. When liberals in those places had seen young men on Maidan attacking the riot police, they thought, 'people power'; and when they saw men in Donetsk beating pro-Ukraine protesters, they thought, 'fascists'. But that wasn't how it looked from Donetsk. From Donetsk they saw fascists on Maidan and, on the streets of Donetsk, people power. Whether the actual fascists on Maidan made them more or less certain of this, I don't know, but hearing it gave body to something the sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko had said to me in Kiev: 'It was the liberals' tolerance of the nationalists on Maidan that led to this. If they had rejected them right away, things might have turned out differently. It might have led to the collapse of Maidan. It might even have meant that Yanukovych remained president. But at least there would have been peace.'
Mishin and Bik were what the sociologists call the 'losers' of the post-Soviet transition. In Soviet times Bik had been a coal miner with aspirations to join the KGB. 'They didn't take Party bosses' sons, you know,' he said (wrongly). 'They took working people like me.' And Mishin was a mighty athlete. He recalled playing in a tournament in Leningrad and being promised a trip to the United States. 'The USA!' he recalled thinking. And then the whole world collapsed. Industrial regions like Donbass were hardest hit by the changes: it was the region's industrial output that plummeted furthest in the 1990s; it was industrial plants over which the bloodiest turf wars revolved. And it was in these places that the loss of status was most extreme. Industrial work was championed by the Soviets, both in word and in deed: coal miners in Donbass earned on average two or three times what a software engineer like my father earned in Moscow. (In the early 1980s, Bik had been working as a miner for just a few months when he bought a motorbike. The girls went crazy for it.) When the Soviet Union ended, the entire country experienced what Nietzsche might have recognised as a transvaluation of all values: what had been good was now bad, and what had been bad was now good. Some people liked it and grew rich; other people were left behind. With the victory of protests that were still referred to by some of their supporters as Euromaidan, the people of this industrial region were being asked to endure yet another round of deindustrialisation of austerity, unemployment and social death. They had balked at this and, what was more, they had an out. Deindustrialisation had gone hand in hand, the first time, with the collapse of the empire. But what if the empire could be restored? Maybe the jobs would come back? If the Russians felt they had 'lost' something in Ukraine, many people in Eastern Ukraine felt as if they'd been stranded from their motherland. 'They call us traitors and separatists,' Bik said. 'But I don't feel like a traitor. I felt like a traitor before, when I had to call myself Ukrainian. I don't feel like a traitor now.'
Basically, then, the people of the Donbass are the Deplorables of Ukraine. And that's how the liberals of Kyiv saw them:Quote:
And so imagine if for two decades you have been trying to pull your country, bit by bit, into Europe. Imagine that it's been a bumpy road everything you accomplish seems to get sabotaged by the political forces from the east. Imagine that finally the contradictions within your country have come to a breaking point. Imagine that all the people who opposed your politics for twenty years all the most backward, poorest, least successful people in the country got together in one place, declared an independent republic, and took up arms? What would you do? You could let them go. But then you'd lose all that land and its industrial capacity and also what kind of country just lets chunks of itself fall off? Perhaps you could think of it as an opportunity. Something similar happened when the old Stalinists and nationalists took over the Supreme Soviet in Moscow in 1993. All the enemies of progress in one place, all the losers and has-beens: wouldn't it be better just to solve the problem once and for all? Wouldn't it be a better long-term solution just to kill as many as you could and scare the **** out of the rest of them, for ever? This is what I heard from respectable people in Kiev. Not from the nationalists, but from liberals, from professionals and journalists. All the bad people were in one place why not kill them all?
Read the whole thing. It's a remarkable document, the kind of thing you just don't see these days. Gessen published it eight years before the Russia-Ukraine war broke out, when it was still possible to see the emerging conflict as something complicated and tragic, with both sides having legitimate concerns and grievances. The Donbass is basically the Rust Belt and West Virginia, sounds like. Imagine if those people took up arms against the Boston-Washington corridor.
The nuanced and complex analysis we see in Gessen's piece is gone now. We in the West are 100 percent sure we understand this terrible war who the good guys are (and they are 100 percent good) and who the bad guys are (basically, they marched out of Mordor). To remind you: Russia, in my view, should not have invaded. The war is mostly Russia's fault. But not entirely. My view is that we in the West are in way over our heads, involved in somebody else's civil war, and stumbling quite possibly towards nuclear armageddon.
The Mordor allegory is fitting. Often see Ukes calling Russian soldiers "Orcs" because of their battlefield tactics = mindless human wave assaults on behalf of an evil genius who......
Priceless.
This is unfortunately a problem at epidemic levels.
If I see one more "analysis" that uses Star Wars or Harry Potter as allegories for this war I'm gonna lose my mind.
Well, we have beat the Hitler/Nazi/WW2 to death. I guess we can start using Russian invasion of Afghanistan...
