Political Posts

[no_free_lunch]

1 hour ago, Xerxes said:

The Russian border were kept precisely open such that troublemakers, anti war folks, anti special military operations folks all leave. 
 

I think Kiev is trying its hand at propaganda, this time not so well.
 

I think Russia does not need more manpower (beyond the annual round up) but what it needs are munitions, artillery shells  etc. 

 

I have no evidence to back this up but I have heard that those fleeing are correlated with tech and other high skilled workers.  So the issue is more the loss to the Russian economy than to the recruiting pool and that will in time translate to your last point around military supply.

[Xerxes]

22 minutes ago, no_free_lunch said:

 

I have no evidence to back this up but I have heard that those fleeing are correlated with tech and other high skilled workers.  So the issue is more the loss to the Russian economy than to the recruiting pool and that will in time translate to your last point around military supply.

 

Completely agree. Your best and brightest (who can afford to have a future aboard) are leaving.

 

Samething with brains leaving Iran for the past 30 years. Drip by drip. I am always amazed how Iran can still punch above its weight, (not economically but geopolitical influence) with all the sanctions, all restrictions all the helps that it peers are getting. 

 

 

[ValueArb]

8 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

 

Completely agree. Your best and brightest (who can afford to have a future aboard) are leaving.

 

Samething with brains leaving Iran for the past 30 years. Drip by drip. I am always amazed how Iran can still punch above its weight, (not economically but geopolitical influence) with all the sanctions, all restrictions all the helps that it peers are getting. 

 

 

 

You of all people should understand that Iran has been coasting on that huge lead Cyrus the Great gave it 2,500 years ago.

[Spekulatius]

3 hours ago, Xerxes said:

The Russian border were kept precisely open such that troublemakers, anti war folks, anti special military operations folks all leave. 
 

I think Kiev is trying its hand at propaganda, this time not so well.
 

I think Russia does not need more manpower (beyond the annual round up) but what it needs are munitions, artillery shells  etc. 

we will see. maybe they are right and Russia closes the border to stop the bleeding.

 

As for mobilization, if Russia indeed mobilized 300,000 troops, then this cannon folder will last about a year, if estimates of the Russian losses are correct. These losses have been able to plug some holes, but they haven’t been able to do anything offensive with this manpower.

So I would expect an annual mobilization drive of about 300k troops to resupply the meat grinder. There are supposedly 40k conscripts alone in the Bakmuth area and if you want to see grizzly footage on how they are doing there , there plenty of it.

[UK]

2 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

There are supposedly 40k conscripts alone in the Bakmuth area and if you want to see grizzly footage on how they are doing there , there plenty of it.

 

This is not very pleasant video, but here you are, some managment lessons from Donbas: 

 

[Luke]

37 minutes ago, UK said:

 

This is not very pleasant video, but here you are, some managment lessons from Donbas: 

 

Good Lord! Its always a shock to see how retarded some people on this planet are. What a joke, clowns fighting a war they dont even completely understand themselves, getting beaten by some random commander in the middle of nowhere. What a waste...

[james22]

Looking for a fragging.

[Xerxes]

3 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

we will see. maybe they are right and Russia closes the border to stop the bleeding.

 

As for mobilization, if Russia indeed mobilized 300,000 troops, then this cannon folder will last about a year, if estimates of the Russian losses are correct. These losses have been able to plug some holes, but they haven’t been able to do anything offensive with this manpower.

So I would expect an annual mobilization drive of about 300k troops to resupply the meat grinder. There are supposedly 40k conscripts alone in the Bakmuth area and if you want to see grizzly footage on how they are doing there , there plenty of it.

the Ukrainian top general said it best: their action on Bakhmut is about “fixing” the Ukrainian position (capturing or not capturing not really that tangible to the war effort)

 

if Ukrainian are forces fixed at Bakhmut then they cannot re-deploy those forces on their own terms, where they should be going.
 

——

you want to see grizzly, check out the story of the Wagnor convict who deserted and was captured by Ukraine. He was interview by NY Times. His interview was “accidentally” published. (Whatever that means) He was returned by Ukraine to Russia in a prisoner swap.
 

The Russian mercenary outfit had his head taped to the a piece of concrete and made him confess on video, as they swung a sledgehammer into his skull. I didn’t see that part. 

[Xerxes]

4 hours ago, ValueArb said:

 

You of all people should understand that Iran has been coasting on that huge lead Cyrus the Great gave it 2,500 years ago.

The current rulers in Tehran would never admit this, but Qassem Suleimani’ Quds Revolutionary Guards was walking in the footsteps of Khusrow, Shahpur, and other Shahanshahs of the past.

 

The Sassanid fought the Romans in the plains of Syria. Their descendants, the Safavids fought the Ottomans in Syria and Mesopotamia.  
 

The enemy in the West always changed after few hundreds years, but Persian were always there.  

[UK]

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-01-01/victory-over-russia-in-ukraine-may-bring-world-war-3-niall-ferguson?srnd=premium

[Spekulatius]

I did a Google search for this title and incidentally found an article from a Georgian author with the same title. Seems very prescient what this author predicted in 2019.

https://neweasterneurope.eu/2019/08/26/all-is-not-quiet-on-the-eastern-front/

 

The more I think about this, the more it is clear that this attack on Ukraine is part of Putins long term plan.

[Xerxes]

1 hour ago, Spekulatius said:

I did a Google search for this title and incidentally found an article from a Georgian author with the same title. Seems very prescient what this author predicted in 2019.

https://neweasterneurope.eu/2019/08/26/all-is-not-quiet-on-the-eastern-front/

 

The more I think about this, the more it is clear that this attack on Ukraine is part of Putins long term plan.

very good article. It is one of those things where closer you are to the border, the more prescient you ll look to those afar, after the fact. 
 

Putin is the person we most refer to because his position. My view is that this was always bound to happen. Putin or not. But our Western need to associate narrative to a central figure is holding us. You can build a narrative around the persona of Saddam or Osama, but in Russia’ case it is very different. (Same with Iran) 
 

The transition from Empire to nationhood can take many forms. And it usually comes in three or four steps in my view:

1- disintegration as the centrifugal force holding the empire gives away. 
 

2- the fight to establish/cut a “nation” out of the wreckage of the empire by the former masters.  
 

3- DNA and the Imperial dream still there. 

4-became a “museum” nation 

 

Let’s take some examples. The Ottoman and Russian empires. In Turkish case, the Young Turks, the Attaturk, worked hard, broke many eggs, fought and died but they secured the border of the modern nation of Turkey, even as the empire collapsed around them.

 

In Russia’s case, there was no strong central figure to fight for Russian interest post-1989. And the post-1991 border became to be defined by USSR internal borders. So step (2) never got done in case of Russia. In short the disintegration was sudden, so the “inevitable” got frozen. 
 

step (3) is largely where Turkey is now. Decades later (a century really) it wants to become the paramount influencer in the Muslim world leveraging its imperial past. 
 

In Iran case, the disintegration of empire was very gradual. In fact over two centuries. The peak was the reign of Nader Shah, whose armies conquer vast swaths of territory lost to the Afghan, Ottomans and also went as far as Delhi. Iran’ Peacock Throne in fact was taken from India. Though the original is largely lost I believe. Hundred year after Nader Shah, as the British pushed their interest from the south and India, as the Russia pushed from North and Turks from the west. The empire just shrunk overtime and became the small nation that we know today. like how the passage of water curves into a stone over time. so in Iran case, I think they also in step (3) 

 

let take another example since I am in Portugal. The Portuguese dictator Salazar worked hard to preserve its vast colonial empire post 1945. The Portuguese fought wars of imperial preservation and still held Goa and other lands in India by the 1960s. Today Portugal is in stage (4). A “museum” nation. where UK is as well. European nations did not really have to do stage (2) as their colonies were geographically in distinct location.

 

same with the French as well. Though they dragged US into Vietnam but it was only decades after 1945 that the French bowed out of their imperial past. 

Edited January 1, 2023 by Xerxes

[Spekulatius]

I recommend checking out the documentary “Winter on Fire” about the Euromaiden revolution on Netflix. It also provides background and it is clear that the war in Ukraune started in February 2014 not 2022, it just went cold for a while.

 

Before Viktor Yanukovych was ousted , Ukraine was on its way to become a Russian vassals state like Belarus by means of a treaty with Putin that pivoted Ukraine away from its path to the EU toward Russia. When people revolted and ousted Yanukovych, Putin took military action and invaded the Crimea and also started a proxy war in Donbas that never really ended.

 

Now in 2022, Putin came to finish the jobs he started in 2014 but what while the West and the US did nothing in 2014, to Putins surprise the Western response was unified and impactful and that’s got us and Ukraine where we are right now.

 

Based on my read of the story line of history and and Putin, this will not end with Ukraine becoming neutral or anything of this sort, because Putin knows that the people in Ukraine tilt toward the west and sooner or later any Russian friendly regime might fall.

 

So in my opinion, the only way to end this is to help Ukraine to become part of Europe in the end and likely part of NATO or associated with it. Anything else will just make the conflict a temporary cold one and Putin will strike again at an opportune time for him to get what he thinks belongs to Russia. 
 

I have no idea if another Russian leader would look at this the same way. Possibly any Russian leader would, be skeptical towards the west, but I don’t think about anyone would start a war - that’s a choice not and inevitable thing.

 

 

Edited January 1, 2023 by Spekulatius

[UK]

9 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

I recommend checking out the documentary “Winter on Fire” about the Euromaiden revolution on Netflix. It also provides background and it is clear that the war in Ukraune started in February 2014 not 2022, it just went cold for a while.

 

Before Viktor Yanukovych was ousted , Ukraine was on its way to become a Russian vassals state like Belarus by means of a treaty with Putin that pivoted Ukraine away from its path to the EU toward Russia. When people revolted and ousted Yanukovych, Putin took military action and invaded the Crimea and also started a proxy war in Donbas that never really ended.

 

Now in 2022, Putin came to finish the jobs he started in 2014 but what while the West and the US did nothing in 2014, to Putins surprise the Western response was unified and impactful and that’s got us and Ukraine where we are right now.

 

Based on my read of the story line of history and and Putin, this will not end with Ukraine becoming neutral or anything of this sort, because Putin knows that the people in Ukraine tilt toward the west and sooner or later any Russian friendly regime might fall.

 

So in my opinion, the only way to end this is to help Ukraine to become part of Europe in the end and likely part of NATO or associated with it. Anything else will just make the conflict a temporary cold one and Putin will strike again at an opportune time for him to get what he thinks belongs to Russia. 
 

I have no idea if another Russian leader would look at this the same way. Possibly any Russian leader would, be skeptical towards the west, but I don’t think about anyone would start a war - that’s a choice not and inevitable thing.

 

 

 

I agree with your view, nothing to add. 

[Xerxes]

War started in 2014. There we agree. 

 

The outcome of the conflict is not inevitable. There we agree as that future is yet to be written. 
 

BUT the collision (step 2 and step 3) was inevitable. It happens to be centred around Putin and we in the west we all like a central figure for our narrative. but it would have happened eventually in other forms. More or less violent. Putin or no Putin.
 

 

think of it this way, if it took +2 decades past 1945 for wine-drinking, peace-loving Western European nations and governments to finally stop their wars of imperial preservation and bow out and become “museum” nations (step 4), do you really think that the Kremlin, the heir to the Soviet Union, a superpower, and the Romanov before it, and the Golden Horde of Subotai and Batu Khan before them, would just chose to become a “museum” nation attached with gas stations !! 
 

 

———-

World War 2 WAS inevitable. As that part 2 had to happen to finish off what it essentially was a German challenge to the Anglo/French supremacy. 
 

What was NOT inevitable was the way it happened, with the the rise of Hitler and all that baggage. Hitler happened because of the fertile ground created for Nazisim post-Versailles.
 

But Hitler or not there would have been that final contest. We just got the very worse version of it, as a reaction to seeds planted in Versailles. 
 

Hitler just rode the tailwind of what was inevitable and added his own demonic touch. 
 

We may have some control over the severity of conflicts, but we do not have any say on the massive general current of history. what needed to happen and would have happened. 

 

Edited January 2, 2023 by Xerxes

[Spekulatius]

@Xerxes You have a very different view of history in general than I do. Way back then, when I had history in school, our teacher presented two different views of history.

 

There is the one view that history centers around “great leaders” as anchor points. That’s the history written by Alexander the Great,  Charlemagne, Caesar, Churchill, Hitler, Napoleon. This is typically the history that was taught hundred of years ago.

 

Then there is the school that believes that great leaders don’t really matter all that much and that history works sort of like a mechanical clock that moves in somewhat predictable ways driven by long term forces.  The leaders only matter is over as they crystallize these forces and often accelerate their deployment. This is the history taught by Karl Marx and also Mearsheimer fall into this school of thought.

 

I don’t think any of these views are correct and history is just what people do and reflects the choices they make. There is free will and there are forces driving nations in certain direction for a long time. that’s why Britain is different than Germany and China is different than the US. But nothing is inevitable and sometimes great leaders break or redirect the longer term forces and sometimes the long term forces break the great leaders.

[Xerxes]

56 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

But nothing is inevitable and sometimes great leaders break or redirect the longer term forces and sometimes the long term forces break the great leaders.

 

That is actually very well said.

 

That said, for clarity, my "inevitable" comment was not about the "outcome". The outcome of the conflict will be a titanic test of wills between the two giant forces. And a great leader can more than compensate other shortcomings. Agreed with that.

 

My "inevitable" comment was specifically about the "collision" and the "onset of the conflict" that compounds those historical pressure points building over the long term.

 

That future and the outcome of the war is yet to be written ... and there is an empy blank page of all the things that could happen. Anything is possible.....

 

----------------------

Unrelated to this thought, on Churchill, i have a comment/observation that I ll write later today, as i have to leave the house.

 

 

[no_free_lunch]

I agree with Spek's view on Maidan protests being the point where Ukraine threw off the Russian yoke.  Russian influence is still there today, via religious leaders and political leaders, Ukraine continues to push that out.  The war validates the thesis that there is no room for that viewpoint.  How can you tolerate a side which will send in an army and use strategic bombing against you if you disagree.  When the other side is democracy and a more prosperous west, it seems a clear choice.

Edited January 2, 2023 by no_free_lunch

[james22]

The war in Ukraine seems permanent. Neither side appears capable of destroying the opposing force or articulating what it would take to reach a peace agreement.

 

The Russians are speaking to Belarus, India and anyone else they might find, but no one can help enough on the battlefield or in the munitions factory to turn the tide. The Ukrainians are speaking to the United States, NATO and anyone else who will listen so that they will continue to receive weapons – perhaps even some new ones.

 

But Ukraine hasn’t broken Russia yet, concerned as it is with preventing the collapse of the country, and doing so may prove difficult. On the battlefield, there is movement on both sides, but movement doesn’t carry with it the taste of victory. When, then, do wars end if the leadership will not concede?

 

History shows there are several answers to that question.

 

1. A war ends when one side lacks the material to continue. Germany’s campaign in World War II ended when it was unable to produce and field the weapons needed to fend off the Allied powers.

 

2. A war ends when one side’s morale is exhausted – when soldiers and civilians are simply unwilling to bear the burden of war, even if victory is possible. This was the case for the United States in the Vietnam War.

 

3. A war ends when there is no hope of a radical increase in military power, and when foreign intervention is impossible. In WWII, Britain persevered knowing it could not defeat Germany but reasonably expecting an American intervention.

 

4. A war ends when the consequences of defeat seem tolerable to civilians. In World War II, the Italian public saw Allied occupation as a preferable alternative. (Conversely, nations will continue to fight when the cost of defeat is catastrophic.)

 

...

 

But so long as Ukraine fears a defeat by Russia, capitulation is practically impossible. The same cannot be said of Russia.

 

https://geopoliticalfutures.com/the-state-of-play-in-ukraine/

[UK]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-03/bodies-pile-up-in-china-as-covid-surge-overwhelms-crematoriums

 

“Bodies are overflowing everywhere,” said the employee, who asked not be named. “You’ll have to wait a month if not.” While funeral homes warn against trusting brokerage services, some middlemen are using creative ways to reach anguished families. On Douyin, China’s version of TikTok, videos featuring colorful visuals and stirring music advertise Mercedes-Benz hearses, elaborate burial clothes and Babaoshan cremation slots. “We couldn’t afford to live under lockdown,” wrote a person on Weibo, sharing a view commonly expressed on the social-media platform over the past few weeks. “And now we can’t afford to die.”

[Luke]

 

Quite the refreshing and positive speach, not so hostile, enjoyed the watch. 

[zippy1]

6 hours ago, Luca said:

 

Quite the refreshing and positive speach, not so hostile, enjoyed the watch. 

Speech itself may be refreshing.    We will need to see their deeds to know whether these are empty words. 

[Luke]

30 minutes ago, zippy1 said:

Speech itself may be refreshing.    We will need to see their deeds to know whether these are empty words. 

Its definitely refreshing. We will see :))

[Luke]

35 minutes ago, zippy1 said:

Speech itself may be refreshing.    We will need to see their deeds to know whether these are empty words. 

Also notice the pictures in the video, pictures of hu jintao and also the previous head of ccp. Seems like he respects them still and the old policies grew the country well. Good to see. There has been a good twitter thread about it.

Edited January 3, 2023 by Luca

[backtothebeach]

3 minutes ago, Luca said:

Its definitely refreshing. We will see :))

Uncle dictator ate some chalk for a day.