The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Unborking the [Ukraine] discussion
Posts
Yeah, the worst case projections I recall before hostilities started was a massive Ukrainian ulcer. And that assumed the opening thunderruns were a flawless victory.
trying to game out a more competent Russian invasion kind of quickly falls into the "but what if the nazis never turned on the soviets" territory, well then they wouldn't be the nazis - the bottom line is that a competent Russia would have seen that the best case would be a protracted Afghanistan style occupation and called it off - because its important to remember that regardless of how much suffering Russia has inflicted on Ukraine, they can't win this and never could on a strategic level. It's either this shit show or Putin's Vietnam, take your pick. There was no way this played out that ended with a net gain for Russia unless the Ukrainian government simply dissolved immediately and the country more or less surrendered
I think that was the plan. Russia pushes hard, the legit Ukrainian government goes into exile, and Russia’s bought politicians fold and hand over the country.
This “plan” (hope? delusion?) ignores that the Ukrainian government was far more accepted and legitimate among the populace and likely far less willing to do what they’re told than people that have been beaten into passivity like much of Russia.
The early war had a number of things that broke Ukraine’s way and prevented the worst from happening, many of them magnified by the incompetence of Russian leadership/command. It could have been much worse if you start theorizing about a different, more competent invading military before you reach the point where that military is able to push back on Putin meaningfully.
Is there a point in the competence continuum where they get to a captured country + insurgency before they get to correctly analyzing that it isn’t worth it? Maybe.
And for all the fantastic bits about the Russian army now being the second most powerful/effective fighting force in Russia, the sheer trail of carnage and waste for both nations is going to take generations to recover from.
As always, with recognition that Putin's crimes against Russia are second only to his crimes against Ukraine, in my eyes. I cheer on the destruction of troop convoys and military hardware because we've seen what the alternative is, and it's those weapons and troops being used to kill and torture Ukrainians.
Not to veer into shadowboxing points that nobody here is making, consider it a bit of musing and self reflection, tied to some occasional forays into other threads where 'the Ukraine thread is full of bloodthirsty warmongers' type rhetoric comes up on occasion, and I felt it was worth noting in the moment.
I'm fine with being described as a bloodthirsty warmonger given that It also means beating the russian military into an amorphous blob and that the West will not tolerate fascist power grabs.
And I know that this isn't an uncommon sentiment. When the topic has come up before, a bunch of folks have said similar things.
But leaving things unsaid but understood doesn't always work well with lurkers and uncommon participants. Not saying we need a small novel appended to every post, because Fuck Putin is evergreen.
I just thought in the moment it was worthy of recognition, and likely will be again down the road, because even if things go well with US elections, I don't think we'll see this come to an actual close for a while yet, short of someone deciding Putin needs to explore all these rave windows people in his orbit keep screaming about.
Last 10 years taught me that no, it was all truth, and people ruling Russia are incomprehensibly evil.
So yeah, count me in as a warmonger that sincerely hopes that Russia gets utterly humiliated on every level.
There are significant numbers who are not, however. And power and wealth tend to select for those who are not.
(or vice-versa, there's a certain amount of chicken-egg/nature-nurture going on.)
Russia continues to be the Russian people's greatest enemy.
And I am very glad he can, and does, continue to participate and offer his unique perspective.
(Stay safe, CrazyP.)
See I'd argue this.
The Russian people aren't evil, they're more a case of a society that has spent pretty much their entire existance under the thumb of a brutal autocratic regime that Deludes itself and it's people into thinking that they're a great and powerful empire oppressed by the effeminate decadent west. As such, a lot of Russian's have the same sense of Exceptionalism baked into their cultural identity that you'd see in america.
And Beyond that, when you talk to a lot of russian's they're not really enthused about the war or buying into it so much as just complying with the edicts of their demented leader since he can and will throw you in prison or out a window if you irritate him.
So no: They're not evil.
That having been said though watching this war obliterate their military, economy, infrastructure and political standing to the point where recovery will take generations does make me giggle.
The 5-10 year span around the end of Yeltsin and the beginning of Putin was arguably not autocratic. Neither had absolute power and had to cooperate with the legislative branch to get stuff done. Mid to end 2000s is when Putin solidifies his power and basically controls all aspects of the government including the legislative branch.
Pretty much.
It's also why I can't say the russian people are evil because for the overwhelming majority of their history they haven't had any real ability to control or influence it and during the one time when they briefly were able to do so too much power had wound up in the hands of the oligarchs and Yeltsin couldn't really bring them in line before Putin rose to power.
Alexander II was seemingly a decent guy. Still autocratic, but not so brutal.
Although one of Russia's problems is that it's very big. If you were a serf in 1861 (the year of the emancipation), then Alexander could be 5000km away (ie, week at least. Even if you were living right next to the transibirian railroad) while your local Pomeshchik (lowest level of land-owning nobility) would be right there. The brutality depended more on that Pomeshchik than the Tsar.
Until 1862 said Pomeshchiks were also the local government and until 1864 they elected the local equivalent of sheriffs.
That said. Under Alexander II the russian nobility were rapidly losing power in Russia in favor of local (and Tsar appointed) governors.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Russians, like if we're talking just the population as a whole, are people just like us.
They're just people who have lived under such controlling governments that have lied to them, and obviously so, and for so long, that they expect to be lied to. It's just a fact of life and since people seriously pushing back against that ends in being shipped off to a remote prison or just disappearing entirely? Yeah, you smile and nod and if someone you don't consider the closest of confidants talks to about the lies you try and remember what the current set of lies are and repeat them in hopes that you don't get disappeared.
The Russian people aren't evil. They're generationally traumatized. And I don't mean the bullshit version of that term where your great grandpa's trauma was imprinted on his DNA and thus you too are traumatized as his descendant. I mean that Russians going back literally generations have had to survive under truly brutally oppressive conditions.
Now the Russian government on the other hand? Yeah, evil. Not in the mustache twirling "Ha-HA! Now I shall be a villain and do evil!" sense but in the more real "Have power/want power, will do anything to consolidate it, and it's not evil it's necessary" sense which frankly is where almost every truly evil thing I can think of originates.
From an article in Politico.
Ironically, on the issue of Ukraine it's the State Department which is the most "hawkish" in the sense that they are the ones pushing within the administration for more aid and fewer restrictions.
On the topic of resetting relations, that also likely comes from Biden himself as well. My guess is that he thinks that there are "bigger", longer-term things to consider like nuclear disarmament that the U.S. will want to negotiate in the future, and he is trying to maintain some kind of mutual accord where Russia recognizes that we have worked to keep the situation from escalating as much as possible and therefore that will make them more amenable to some kind of diplomatic, negotiated settlement for everything, including Ukraine.
I think it's stupid because Putin and anyone who replaces him only recognize the language of applied power. In the past Russia agreed to nuclear disarmament because we paid them and because they recognized that they weren't going to win an arms race anyway. They moved away from nuclear disarmament the second we let off the gas and showed them it was profitable to rattle the nuclear saber. Showing restraint up front and expecting them to understand, "We could've made it worse but we didn't!" is like asking a blind man to recognize the color red so he will avoid fire. You burn him so he feels the heat. That's how he learns to avoid it in the future.
Probably the easiest morsel will be Hungary through a political agreement, akin to Belarus.
Ditto for Serbia and then he has Romania surrounded.
I seem to recall their reporting being untrustworthy, in the past.
In this scenario I feel like Poland won't just be sitting around to wait until it's their turn.
Also Indian PM Modi visited Ukraine on August 23rd just before its independence day.
Seems to me that Modi's attitude towards the war has been purely pragmatic following money and national interests.
Notably: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Hopefully this leads to Putin cracking sooner.
Politico is now owned by the German Springer group. Murdock light, more or less. So the article might be correct but a second source would be better
I think the whole thing is much simpler and more basic then that. And you'll hear it all the time if you listen to people in the foreign policy space getting interviewed. You need lines of communication with people. Especially the big players. You need to be able to deal with Russia.
It's only the really hawkish people in that space who think otherwise. And those are the people who think the US's Iran policy has been good. Your John Bolton types. And that's really a good illustrative example here because the US can't even really cow Iran. They aren't gonna be able to cow Russia. No more then you can cow China. You are just gonna have to deal with those assholes. And talk to them. Keeping lines of communication open and keeping the larger powers talking is really important.
I don't think tying the Ukrainians hands here is going to aid in that though. It's obvious at this point imo that Putin is not gonna come around on the Ukraine conflict and jump straight to talking. There's no way to politely bring this conflict to an end so Russia isn't too mad at you to chat. It's gonna take some fundamental changes to the situation to get to the point where a reset is possible. But it's also foolish to act like the US or really anyone can just strongarm their way past needing to deal with the Russian government.
Sullivan could be the one spearheading this viewpoint or he could be arguing against it privately but publicly doing his job and giving the organization's current stance.
Summary:
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Modi is a lot of things but he isn't stupid enough to think the current balance of power in Asia favors india; Russia's proving to be too weak to be a worthwhile ally and counterbalance China so he's going to need to find more worthwhile allies.
As a bonus, building a relationship with Ukraine would mean he'd be able to have an intermediary for dealing with the west.
Meanwhile, Ukraine gets a trading partner with a potentially massive economy.
I don't think they'd drop Russia until they're 100% sure that it's necessary.
Russia has been a steadfast ally to India when other nations (*coughUSA&EUcough*) decided to court China during the 90s-2010s when China was "westernizing" under Hu Jintao&Jiang Zemin and had a much better economic development than India.
Or during the war on terror when everyone went "Why hello Pakistan. We really like your border with Afghanistan and would like the dubious help of ISI, your highly corrupt, powerful and often Taliban-sympathizing intelligence service".
Even if Russia is a weak ally, it's an ally that has shown that it will not drop India like a hot potato whenever India's enemies conduct a charm offensive.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden