Russia/Ukraine conflict

[CorneliusXX]

Russia's history is written in the blood of the 10's of millions that were sent to the slaughter.

True, I must have convinced myself that it was a different age.

 

[wdolson]

Typically Russia does not quit fighting because they are low on ammo or guns. They tend to fight to the end. That is their personality and strategy.

They will not quit shelling because they are low on ammo and guns. They will only quit fighting when they are OUT of Ammo and Guns.

Even after losing Wars, they tend to hold grudges for generations. They will trade with you, but always want to get their revenge.

Kind of like how terrorists fight with a vengeance, but get very passive and appologetic when they are discovered and thwarted.

This War is not being fought to eliminate Russia, but to defang them. Take them out of the World Domination game.Reduce them as a threat.

Everybody still wants to buy their cheap oil/gas/food.

Agreed. I have read accounts of units that have lost all their artillery so they are giving the artillery crews shovels and sending them out on assaults. Six months ago there were artillery units complaining that they were trained for artillery, but when they arrived in Ukraine they were handed ancient rifles and thrown in a trench because their unit had no guns.

One thing I see western analysts do over any over again is estimate how many missiles the Russians have held back or how much artillery ammunition they have held back, but people with experience inside the Russian military have said the Russians don't tend to think about tomorrow's needs. If they have something, they will use it and when that runs out, they will worry about it then.

It's routine for western militaries to always have a reserve of everything in case something unexpected happens. That's one reason the US has not been sending everything to Ukraine because its keeping a reserve stockpile of everything it needs to conduct a war if something happens. The US doesn't want China to start feeling bold because the US is out of ammunition. Even when there were temporary shortages in past wars, the US always husbanded its supplies so if the enemy did a counter offensive or something, there would be enough supply to stop them.

It's likely that the missiles they are firing at Ukraine now are only a couple months old at the oldest. As soon as they can put together enough missiles for an attack, they use everything they have. It's probably the case with a lot of other Russian supplies too. They are using their artillery ammunition as quickly as they can get it from factory to frontline.

As an aside, there was a video last week that some Russian artillery shells are arriving at the front empty. When the end cap was removed, there was nothing in them. The factory probably ran out of explosive, so shipped empty shells.

If the Russians run out of artillery guns but shell production continues, they will start using the shells to make IEDs. It will be a lot less effective, but they will use what they have in whatever way they can.

True, I must have convinced myself that it was a different age.

The bulk of the world is living in a different age. Russia is still living in the age of the Great Game and don't really grok that the great powers are now playing a different game that is a lot less violent.

 

[lolachampcar]

Seems like we all might be heading back to more violent times. If you believe 5% of Peter Z's end of Globalization rants, the forces that push people and nations to do things are changing. Add that to climate change which will definitely be pushing people/nations to act differently and we are in for very interesting times.

Having something like this invasion to focus on is good for both sides of the Atlantic in my opinion. I hope it helps people remember the important things that have brought about fairly peaceful prosperity for a lot of the world.

 

[MC3OZ]

Seems like we all might be heading back to more violent times. If you believe 5% of Peter Z's end of Globalization rants, the forces that push people and nations to do things are changing. Add that to climate change which will definitely be pushing people/nations to act differently and we are in for very interesting times.

Having something like this invasion to focus on is good for both sides of the Atlantic in my opinion. I hope it helps people remember the important things that have brought about fairly peaceful prosperity for a lot of the world.

I think we need to focus on the key questions...

1) Why did the war start?

Putin has had a long standing ambition to rebuilt the former USSR starting with Ukraine. Putin might not have told us about it, but that was always what he wanted. He choose the war and picked the timing.

2) Are their similar situations that might start wars?

China / Taiwan is the obvious candidate. China has long standing ambitions here that are not secret.

3) Did we do anything to encourage Putin?

Not giving Ukraine more assistance earlier contributed. Mixed messaging from NATO countries with defence spending not always being a high priority helped.

The UN has been revealed to be impotent when dealing with this type of major conflict, that was always the case, it just wasn't so apparent.

In the modern era anything a country can achieve by war, they can achieve more efficiently by trade. In the end most wars become an economic contest, an economy strong enough to war a war is strong enough to win a trade dispute.

Russia has also tried espionage and manipulation via political interference and social media campaigns.

Social media has help spread distrust and division in many countries. The threat to the Fossil Fuel industry, including the threat to countries dependent on Fossil Fuel exports is a factor.

This war is the one we need to deal with, it would be good to improve our social unity, strengthen democracy, fight crime, corruption and inequality, provide the community with better sources of knowledge and try to manage the more harmful aspects of social media.

Al countries need to consider the deterrent value of military spending...

Wars only end when everyone on the planet agrees that they are a bad idea, this war ending badly for Putin is one small step towards that end goal.

 

[wdolson]

Seems like we all might be heading back to more violent times. If you believe 5% of Peter Z's end of Globalization rants, the forces that push people and nations to do things are changing. Add that to climate change which will definitely be pushing people/nations to act differently and we are in for very interesting times.

Having something like this invasion to focus on is good for both sides of the Atlantic in my opinion. I hope it helps people remember the important things that have brought about fairly peaceful prosperity for a lot of the world.

Climate may be a contributing factor, but there are other factors that IMO are bigger. The biggest problem is population pressures. The developed world has had a declining native population for the last few decades. The decline is sharper in some places than others, but it's pretty consistent that without immigration, population is declining.

On the other hand while birthrates have leveled out in most of the developing world, the population in most of those countries is above the carrying capacity of the environment. Coastal countries have stripped the seas around their country, they have taken down forests and jungle to grow food in many of these places, many developing countries are completely dependent on exported food from the few countries that can grow excess just to prevent famine.

As the birthrate in these countries drops, they will eventually see things stabilize, but it will probably be too late. Many of these countries have the largest cohort of their population under 15, which is a generation who will come of age in the next decades and most of them will have 1-2 children. these countries will see some further growth before the population stabilizes and probably starts to decline like it has in developed countries.

With such a population imbalance, the more ambitious people in the developing countries are trying to move to the developed countries. If the developed countries just threw open the doors and let anybody in it would put a big burden on the culture and the economy absorbing all those new immigrants. The only time it has worked in the past was when the US was expanding westward as fast as it could and it was taking in anyone who could get here. But the US was mostly an empty continent then. There is still a lot of open space in the US, but all the land has been claimed by someone for some purpose at this point, even if it's just by the federal government for a land reserve (which is the case in much of the west where there is nothing to sustain someone trying to live off the land anyway).

Most developed countries are already crowded and can't physically take in anyone who wants to show up.

With the declining native born populations in the developed countries, they should be taking in some people to balance out the population pyramid, but human's xenophobia starts to get in the way. Inevitably the people moving in look different from the people who are the dominant population in these countries.

The US and to some extent Canada have histories of taking in immigrants and even though there are still anti-immigrant sentiment in both countries at the end of the day, almost everyone in those two countries have family that came from somewhere else. There are native born people who don't want to acknowledge that and are still prejudiced against immigrants, but there are also a lot of people who are willing to admit their ancestors came here too.

In countries with a long established mono-culture and an ethnic identity that goes back before written history, there are deeper seated ethnic identities that are going to be diluted by people from other cultures moving in.

Some American politicians like to talk about "American exceptionalism" like Americans are the top kids in the class or something. What it really means is that the United States was founded in a different way than most countries. Sweden is a country for the people who identify as Swedish. They may be genetically pretty similar to the people next door who identify as Norwegian, but the Norwegians have their own ethnic identity that's different.

The United States doesn't have an ethnic identity like most countries do. It's common for Americans to describe themselves based on their ethnic roots. If an American says they're German, that doesn't mean they've ever set foot in Germany, it means their ancestry is German and they still recognize that. Identifying as German and American is completely natural to Americans but weird to most other nationalities. The exception with the US's founding is about it being founded on an ideal rather than around any kind of ethnic identity.

Xenophobia still makes some white Americans wary of non-white people moving in, but they no longer care where another white person's ancestors came from. That wasn't always the case, my father grew up in an all white town in Michigan that was full of xenophobia about the other white groups in town.

For the people of Germany to have non-white people move in may help the economy long term, but it's threatening their long standing ethnic identity. An extreme example is what the Nazis went on about, but a weaker version is there in German culture. It's culturally confusing to think of someone who might have dark skin also being ethnically German.

The more American idea of being both of the country of your birth, but also identifying with the place your ancestors came from is taking hold among non-white people in Europe, but it's alien to the indigenous Europeans who are living where their ancestors have for millennia.

In any case, most of the developed countries have nationalists who want to bar the people who look different trying to get in from getting into the country. These have become political movements and they have gotten traction in recent years. These political groups are ultimately harming their country because the economies of these countries need the immigrants to do the work an increasingly large portion of the native born population is getting too old to do.

But just throwing open the doors and allowing anyone in is the unhealthy opposite extreme. Even a large economy like the United States could not absorb millions of immigrants all at once. Back when there was a lot of unskilled labor needed, it could, but now a lot of the work requires skills these immigrants don't have. There is some unskilled work still. For example immigrants pick a lot of the produce in the US. But a much larger percentage of the available work requires skills. And as I said above, the US doesn't have the space to house vast numbers of immigrants anymore. At least not in conditions that the health authorities would accept.

The population imbalance between the developed and developing world and the massive stress the populations in the developing world are putting on their environment are bigger problems than climate change IMO. Climate change is driving a little bit of this where rainfall patterns have changed or such, and it may get more severe if the climate changes in a major way, but it's population pressure right now.

Ironically Russia is one of the most underpopulated countries on Earth. In the list of countries by population density, they are in the bottom 20. A lot of their land is not a very comfortable place to live. If the Earth warms up Siberia will become a lot more habitable. They have decided to invade their neighbor for reasons that have little to do with the reasons people are migrating around the world. It really is insane that the largest country on Earth with huge areas with nobody living in it feels the need to expand their territory.

 

[lolachampcar]

I posted the above following a lunch with a friend. Being in the US, the conversation centered around our current issues but one of the take aways was that it seems people, as a group, need something to worry/concern/dislike and maybe even hate to be happy. If they do not have something that focus that energy as a group, they can focus that angst inwards and turn on themselves (infighting).

There is a type of person throughout time that preys on this and uses it to their advantage. I believe Putin is one of those (duh) who specializes in appealing to our worse angles. I was just curious how that group energy can be naturally focused on a less dangerous outlet without something like a WWII to get everyone on the same side and pulling on the rope in the same direction.

 

[iPlug]

Ukraine’s summer counteroffensive is often reported as having made only small territorial gains to this point. But that is not so.

Their very large littoral territory recapture does not get enough attention. Ukraine has severely degraded the Russian Black Sea Fleet and single handedly is re-opening their grain shipment corridor.

https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1709513495102795963?s=20

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

I posted the above following a lunch with a friend. Being in the US, the conversation centered around our current issues but one of the take aways was that it seems people, as a group, need something to worry/concern/dislike and maybe even hate to be happy. If they do not have something that focus that energy as a group, they can focus that angst inwards and turn on themselves (infighting).

There is a type of person throughout time that preys on this and uses it to their advantage. I believe Putin is one of those (duh) who specializes in appealing to our worse angles. I was just curious how that group energy can be naturally focused on a less dangerous outlet without something like a WWII to get everyone on the same side and pulling on the rope in the same direction.

I can't see how there could have been a war if Russia was a Democracy. So that seem to be one obvious thing here. And this also seems to be a 'not so small' problem with regards to China – rated at 9/100(!) by Freedom House.

China: Freedom in the World 2023 Country Report | Freedom House

See the Freedom in the World 2023 score and learn about democracy and freedom in China.

freedomhouse.org

And India has been moving considerably in the wrong direction. Freedom House started using this X/100 rating in 2017. So it's very easy to see the change that has occurred between 2017 and 2013. In 2017 India was ranked at 77/100. Today in 2023 they have fallen to 66/100. That no longer earns them the label "FREE". Instead they get "PARTLY FREE".

India: Freedom in the World 2023 Country Report | Freedom House

See the Freedom in the World 2023 score and learn about democracy and freedom in India.

freedomhouse.org

India: Freedom in the World 2017 Country Report | Freedom House

See the Freedom in the World 2017 score and learn about democracy and freedom in India.

freedomhouse.org

 

[bhzmark]

how that group energy can be naturally focused on a less dangerous outlet without something like a WWII to get everyone on the same side and pulling on the rope in the same direction.

Definitely an alien invasion would be good for that. Not sure what else.

I can't see how there could have been a war if Russia was a Democracy. So that seem to be one obvious thing here. And this also seems to be a 'not so small' problem with regards to China – rated at 9/100(!) by Freedom House.

Yes exactly. The very good book, Superabundance, makes this point, cutting and pasting from my kindle version:

“ Inclusive [i.e., democratic] governments tend to be more circumspect before engaging in conflict because the cost of war falls on a much wider group of citizens, including those who make the decision to go to war. Conversely, despotic governments are more effective at insulating themselves from the cost of war. Under despotic regimes, the cost of war tends to be borne by the voiceless and the powerless. . . . democratic countries, to give inclusive governments of today their proper name, do not go to war against one another.“

and quoting Steve Pinker: “The world’s nations have committed themselves to not waging war except in self-defense or with the approval of the United Nations Security Council.… Any country that indulges in a war of conquest can expect opprobrium, not acquiescence, from the rest.”

“ countries that do engage in nefarious activities abroad such as Russia in Ukraine and Iran in Syria tend to eschew outright declarations of war and seek to justify their actions as acts of “self-defense.””

 

[cusetownusa]

Another day above 100. Looks like it dropped at the open and jumped a bit at the close.

 

[mtndrew1]

Climate may be a contributing factor, but there are other factors that IMO are bigger. The biggest problem is population pressures. The developed world has had a declining native population for the last few decades. The decline is sharper in some places than others, but it's pretty consistent that without immigration, population is declining.

On the other hand while birthrates have leveled out in most of the developing world, the population in most of those countries is above the carrying capacity of the environment. Coastal countries have stripped the seas around their country, they have taken down forests and jungle to grow food in many of these places, many developing countries are completely dependent on exported food from the few countries that can grow excess just to prevent famine.

As the birthrate in these countries drops, they will eventually see things stabilize, but it will probably be too late. Many of these countries have the largest cohort of their population under 15, which is a generation who will come of age in the next decades and most of them will have 1-2 children. these countries will see some further growth before the population stabilizes and probably starts to decline like it has in developed countries.

With such a population imbalance, the more ambitious people in the developing countries are trying to move to the developed countries. If the developed countries just threw open the doors and let anybody in it would put a big burden on the culture and the economy absorbing all those new immigrants. The only time it has worked in the past was when the US was expanding westward as fast as it could and it was taking in anyone who could get here. But the US was mostly an empty continent then. There is still a lot of open space in the US, but all the land has been claimed by someone for some purpose at this point, even if it's just by the federal government for a land reserve (which is the case in much of the west where there is nothing to sustain someone trying to live off the land anyway).

Most developed countries are already crowded and can't physically take in anyone who wants to show up.

With the declining native born populations in the developed countries, they should be taking in some people to balance out the population pyramid, but human's xenophobia starts to get in the way. Inevitably the people moving in look different from the people who are the dominant population in these countries.

The US and to some extent Canada have histories of taking in immigrants and even though there are still anti-immigrant sentiment in both countries at the end of the day, almost everyone in those two countries have family that came from somewhere else. There are native born people who don't want to acknowledge that and are still prejudiced against immigrants, but there are also a lot of people who are willing to admit their ancestors came here too.

In countries with a long established mono-culture and an ethnic identity that goes back before written history, there are deeper seated ethnic identities that are going to be diluted by people from other cultures moving in.

Some American politicians like to talk about "American exceptionalism" like Americans are the top kids in the class or something. What it really means is that the United States was founded in a different way than most countries. Sweden is a country for the people who identify as Swedish. They may be genetically pretty similar to the people next door who identify as Norwegian, but the Norwegians have their own ethnic identity that's different.

The United States doesn't have an ethnic identity like most countries do. It's common for Americans to describe themselves based on their ethnic roots. If an American says they're German, that doesn't mean they've ever set foot in Germany, it means their ancestry is German and they still recognize that. Identifying as German and American is completely natural to Americans but weird to most other nationalities. The exception with the US's founding is about it being founded on an ideal rather than around any kind of ethnic identity.

Xenophobia still makes some white Americans wary of non-white people moving in, but they no longer care where another white person's ancestors came from. That wasn't always the case, my father grew up in an all white town in Michigan that was full of xenophobia about the other white groups in town.

For the people of Germany to have non-white people move in may help the economy long term, but it's threatening their long standing ethnic identity. An extreme example is what the Nazis went on about, but a weaker version is there in German culture. It's culturally confusing to think of someone who might have dark skin also being ethnically German.

The more American idea of being both of the country of your birth, but also identifying with the place your ancestors came from is taking hold among non-white people in Europe, but it's alien to the indigenous Europeans who are living where their ancestors have for millennia.

In any case, most of the developed countries have nationalists who want to bar the people who look different trying to get in from getting into the country. These have become political movements and they have gotten traction in recent years. These political groups are ultimately harming their country because the economies of these countries need the immigrants to do the work an increasingly large portion of the native born population is getting too old to do.

But just throwing open the doors and allowing anyone in is the unhealthy opposite extreme. Even a large economy like the United States could not absorb millions of immigrants all at once. Back when there was a lot of unskilled labor needed, it could, but now a lot of the work requires skills these immigrants don't have. There is some unskilled work still. For example immigrants pick a lot of the produce in the US. But a much larger percentage of the available work requires skills. And as I said above, the US doesn't have the space to house vast numbers of immigrants anymore. At least not in conditions that the health authorities would accept.

The population imbalance between the developed and developing world and the massive stress the populations in the developing world are putting on their environment are bigger problems than climate change IMO. Climate change is driving a little bit of this where rainfall patterns have changed or such, and it may get more severe if the climate changes in a major way, but it's population pressure right now.

Ironically Russia is one of the most underpopulated countries on Earth. In the list of countries by population density, they are in the bottom 20. A lot of their land is not a very comfortable place to live. If the Earth warms up Siberia will become a lot more habitable. They have decided to invade their neighbor for reasons that have little to do with the reasons people are migrating around the world. It really is insane that the largest country on Earth with huge areas with nobody living in it feels the need to expand their territory.

I truly enjoy your commentary.

 

[BitJam]

Pro-Ukrainian, former members of the Obama administration from Pod Save the World paint a bleak picture about future aid to Ukraine. This wades into the political mire but I haven't seen another source for all of this information. Aid to Ukraine depends on politics but please, let's stay away from partisan bickering or ad hominem attacks and focus on facts about the war in Ukraine. I've summarized their main points about Ukraine below. If their video is going to upset you then please don't watch it.

• There is $5B of aid to Ukraine left in the (US) pipeline
• Another $25B should/could pass but after that, don't expect more US aid for Ukraine until after the 2024 election [according to the CFR the US has given about $75B and Europe has given much more as of July 2023 but the majority of military aid has come from the US]
• The formidable combination of China, Russia, and the owner of X (formerly Twitter) are trying to get someone who is pro-Russia and anti-Ukraine elected as president of the United States
• Aid from Europe will not be enough and that too is facing obstacles as members of the EU, like Slovakia, swing to the right
• Support for Ukraine was helped by a warm winter last year (less need for Russian fossil fuels)
• Overall, support for aid to Ukraine is falling in both the US and in Europe
• Ukraine will not be able to take back all of their land next year
• Overoptimistic hopes about a quick Ukrainian victory have made the aid to Ukraine situation more difficult

I feel less confident about a Ukrainian victory before the November 2024 elections in the US. I still hope that Ukraine will be able to cut off Crimea (which may upset the power structure inside of Russia) but that may only happen if the worst of the Russian defenses are behind them. Now more than ever Zelensky is going to need ammunition, not a ride.

In some ways the war in Ukraine seems to have become the central partisan left/right issue in the US and in Europe.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

• Overall, support for aid to Ukraine is falling [...] in Europe

I've now listened to 20:22 into that podcast.

They point to two(!) examples here: Slovakia and a fringe(?) right-wing party in Poland. They also point to AfD in Germany, but I have a hard time seeing that the other ~80% in the German parliament is going to agree to cutting support to UKR.

ALSO:

They BOTH clearly state that they are against supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes, claiming that such support would be equal to another "forever war". They want the US to formulate some kind of end to the war(!)...

Ok... So why should I listen to these two then?

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

• Ukraine will not be able to take back all of their land next year

I can of course not say that they are wrong on this. Unfortunately this may be where it stands when next year ends. But can we really know this for certain? We are after all talking about almost 15 months into the future... If I've understood Ben Hodges correctly UKR could take back Crimea if the West supplied 4th gen fighters and ATACAMS. The West has now agreed to do this, and the jets will be ready when? Beginning of May next year or will it take longer? If UKR gets Crimea back, then that would still leave the Donbas, but it would be a good 'start'.

Ben Hodges - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

According to polls made in Russia - even if you cannot believe them in the absolute you can see trends - support for Putin and the war is increasing, not the opposite. [...

Ok...

So there are no free and fair elections.
There is no free press. Not even one single little obscure newspaper.
There is no freedom of speech. You can not even hold up a blank piece of paper in public. If you do the Fascist police will grab you within a very short period of time and take you away.
There is no Rule of Law. N o n e.

We are talking about one of the absolute worst Military Dictatorships on the planet!...

And you seriously want me to believe that there are somehow polls that "you can see trends" from(!)...

Fat [beeeep] chance!

 

[BitJam]

I've now listened to 20:22

They point to two(!) examples here: Slovakia and a fringe(?) right-wing party in Poland. They also point to AfD in Germany, but I have a hard time seeing that the other ~80% in the German parliament is going to agree to cutting support to UKR.

This does not contradict what they said which is that support for aid to Ukraine is falling in both the US and Europe. The guys in the video are political boffins. Looking at trends is what they do.

They BOTH clearly state that they are against supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes. The want the US to formulate some kind of end to the war.

Ok... So why should I listen to those two?

Of course you should listen to whoever you want. But IMO you completely misinterpreted what they said. They are very pro-Ukraine. They think it is essential for Ukraine to win this war, but they think it was a political mistake for Biden to say "we are with Ukraine for as long as it takes" because it makes the war in Ukraine look like a "forever war" especially when combined with disappointment in the West over the speed of the Ukrainian counteroffensive. The people in the video want more aid to Ukraine and they think Biden's words were a blunder that make it more difficult to get aid to Ukraine in 2024 before the election.

Western aid to Ukraine is a really big deal. Success or failure of the war may depend on it. Aid from the US depends crucially on US politics. If you want to know how this is going and what to expect in the next year then you should listen to political boffins from the US like these two. Just as casualty figures depend on who you listen to, so do political predictions. Warnings that aid to Ukraine may be short, coming from knowledgeable and very pro-Ukrainian voices is IMO a big deal. Just like high Russian casualty figures coming from Russia would be a big deal.

Ben and Tommy were young idealists back in the Obama administration which started well over 20 years ago. They were to the left of Obama and are far to the left of Biden. You can find out more about Ben Rhodes in his recent book: After the Fall: The Rise of Authoritarianism in the World We've Made. Just to be clear, Ben is very much against authoritarianism.

As a European you probably already have a more global view of the world then most Americans but as an American I find this weekly podcast by Ben and Tommy, Pod Save the World, to be essential for keeping up with current events around the world. For example, a week or two ago they covered the indictment of US senator Bob Menendez. This seemed like US news, not global news, but it turns out Menendez had to step down from being Chairman of the powerful US Senate Foreign Relations Committee. While there he was responsible for (IMO) terrible US policies including those in Latin America that created the immigration crisis in the US. So, with a little luck, we should expect more reasonable foreign policies coming from the US soon.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

...] ALSO:

They BOTH clearly state that they are against supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes, claiming that such support would be equal to another "forever war". They want the US to formulate some kind of end to the war(!)...

Ok... So why should I listen to these two then?

This does not contradict what they said which is that support for aid to Ukraine is falling in both the US and Europe. The guys in the video are political boffins. Looking at trends is what they do.

The "trend" here basically consists of Slovakia. And I agree that what's happening in Slovakia is really, really bad, utterly absurd and surreal, but it does seem to be isolated to that country as far as Europe goes (this far).

Of course you should listen to whoever you want. But IMO you completely misinterpreted what they said. They are very pro-Ukraine. They think it is essential for Ukraine to win this war, but they think it was a political mistake for Biden to say "we are with Ukraine for as long as it takes" because it makes the war in Ukraine look like a "forever war" especially when combined with disappointment in the West over the speed of the Ukrainian counteroffensive. The people in the video want more aid to Ukraine and they think Biden's words were a blunder that make it more difficult to get aid to Ukraine in 2024 before the election. [...

That's not what they are saying. Listen again between 17.01-18.34. Again: They are saying that...

They want the US to formulate some kind of end to the war.

 

[wdolson]

I posted the above following a lunch with a friend. Being in the US, the conversation centered around our current issues but one of the take aways was that it seems people, as a group, need something to worry/concern/dislike and maybe even hate to be happy. If they do not have something that focus that energy as a group, they can focus that angst inwards and turn on themselves (infighting).

There is a type of person throughout time that preys on this and uses it to their advantage. I believe Putin is one of those (duh) who specializes in appealing to our worse angles. I was just curious how that group energy can be naturally focused on a less dangerous outlet without something like a WWII to get everyone on the same side and pulling on the rope in the same direction.

Unfortunately this is true. Dictators and would be dictators appeal to these instincts. "There is an existential threat to our existence and only I can save you..."

I have noted when people are more worldly, they become immune to this sort of sales pitch. People who understand the broader world beyond the little corner they were born into, the more they understand that people are just people all over the world. People from another culture may have some odd practices from the perspective of a person's native culture, but at the end of the day those people from the other culture are really more like people of other cultures than different.

This is very evident in countries made up of a lot of immigrants. Singapore broke away from Malaysia and became it's own country because it was multi-ethnic and the rest of Malaysia was more of a mono-culture. Singapore had some difficulty, but it's stable now. The place is almost all descendants of immigrants from different places (mostly China, India, and Indonesia).

Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were mostly white immigrants for a very long time, but now Australia and Canada have opened their doors to non-white immigrants and they are doing OK. The US has had its problems with racism through time. At one time it was the current native born vs whatever European immigrant group was coming in at the time and there have always been tensions between the whites in the US and non-white Americans.

It isn't perfect, but I grew up in an area that was very non-white. It was a suburb of Los Angeles on the border of East LA. My ancestry is 100% northern European, but I never went to a school before college that was more than 15% white. In my area the population was heavily Hispanic and east Asian. People got along OK.

There were cultural traditions that were alien to the other cultures, but we all just rolled with it and it was all good. And the food was fantastic. People are just people. We had all the same human dramas and events seen in mono-cultures.

I can intellectually understand white supremacy, but I can't begin to grok it.

Ukraine’s summer counteroffensive is often reported as having made only small territorial gains to this point. But that is not so.

Their very large littoral territory recapture does not get enough attention. Ukraine has severely degraded the Russian Black Sea Fleet and single handedly is re-opening their grain shipment corridor.

https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1709513495102795963?s=20

The western Allies armies were completely absent from the mainland European continent from April of 1941 when Greece fell and the British army supporting the Greeks had to retreat to Crete (which they lost in May 1941) to September 1943 (invasion of Italy). That's close to 2 1/2 years. The only land campaigns between the western allies and Germany during that time was the battle for North Africa which was small scale compared to the overall war. Germany only committed one corps to that campaign.

But the western allies were not idle during that time. The US entered the war in December 1941 and started building up forces as soon as it could. The British were active bombing Germany and occupied Europe from the start of the war and built up Bomber Command steadily during that time. The first US air raid on occupied Europe was a small affair on July 4, 1942 and built up into 1000 plane raids by the end of 1943.

The amount of continental territory gained by the western allies during that 2 1/2 years was 0, but a lot was going on and both Germany and Italy were taking severe losses. By late 1943 the daylight raids on Germany by the US 8th AF was doing some damage to German industry, but more telling was the damage it was doing to the German fighter arm. American fighter pilots were reporting that the quality of German fighter pilots they were encountering was dropping fast. On and under the waves the tide turned in the Battle of the Atlantic with German u-boat losses going steadily up and more allied convoys getting through without being attacked.

Progress was being made in the war, but except for the battles for North Africa little was happening on the ground for most of that period. The war in the east was a completely different situation. The eastern front was almost all land battles and a lot of territory changed hands during that time.

Because so much other stuff was going on, there was only minimal hand wringing about the lack of land combat in continental Europe on the part of the western allies, but it was a pretty static war from that perspective.

Just because Ukraine has not gained a lot of ground this summer does not mean the offensive has been a failure. Sometimes in war things go slowly and sometimes they go quickly. Russia has succeeded in slowing down the war. This phase won't last. Ukraine is making progress, it's just slow.

I can't see how there could have been a war if Russia was a Democracy. So that seem to be one obvious thing here. And this also seems to be a 'not so small' problem with regards to China – rated at 9/100(!) by Freedom House.

China: Freedom in the World 2023 Country Report | Freedom House

See the Freedom in the World 2023 score and learn about democracy and freedom in China.

freedomhouse.org

And India has been moving considerably in the wrong direction. Freedom House started using this X/100 rating in 2017. So it's very easy to see the change that has occurred between 2017 and 2013. In 2017 India was ranked at 77/100. Today in 2023 they have fallen to 66/100. That no longer earns them the label "FREE". Instead they get "PARTLY FREE".

India: Freedom in the World 2023 Country Report | Freedom House

See the Freedom in the World 2023 score and learn about democracy and freedom in India.

freedomhouse.org

India: Freedom in the World 2017 Country Report | Freedom House

See the Freedom in the World 2017 score and learn about democracy and freedom in India.

freedomhouse.org

I only know of one democracy that has had a civil war (the US) and the part that tried to break away did have some anti-democratic institutions (slavery). But democracies don't tend to go to war with one another. If the world was all healthy democracies, people might be frustrated at the slow pace of governments (democracies do tend to move more slowly when it comes to changing things), and there would still be disputes between countries, but there probably would not be many armed conflicts.

I truly enjoy your commentary.

Thanks. I've described the inside of my head as being like a blender full of ping pong balls. That's just mapping out the travels of one ping pong ball.

Pro-Ukrainian, former members of the Obama administration from Pod Save the World paint a bleak picture about future aid to Ukraine. This wades into the political mire but I haven't seen another source for all of this information. Aid to Ukraine depends on politics but please, let's stay away from partisan bickering or ad hominem attacks and focus on facts about the war in Ukraine. I've summarized their main points about Ukraine below. If their video is going to upset you then please don't watch it.

• There is $5B of aid to Ukraine left in the (US) pipeline
• Another $25B should/could pass but after that, don't expect more US aid for Ukraine until after the 2024 election [according to the CFR the US has given about $75B and Europe has given much more as of July 2023 but the majority of military aid has come from the US]
• The formidable combination of China, Russia, and the owner of X (formerly Twitter) are trying to get someone who is pro-Russia and anti-Ukraine elected as president of the United States
• Aid from Europe will not be enough and that too is facing obstacles as members of the EU, like Slovakia, swing to the right
• Support for Ukraine was helped by a warm winter last year (less need for Russian fossil fuels)
• Overall, support for aid to Ukraine is falling in both the US and in Europe
• Ukraine will not be able to take back all of their land next year
• Overoptimistic hopes about a quick Ukrainian victory have made the aid to Ukraine situation more difficult

I feel less confident about a Ukrainian victory before the November 2024 elections in the US. I still hope that Ukraine will be able to cut off Crimea (which may upset the power structure inside of Russia) but that may only happen if the worst of the Russian defenses are behind them. Now more than ever Zelensky is going to need ammunition, not a ride.

In some ways the war in Ukraine seems to have become the central partisan left/right issue in the US and in Europe.

Russia no longer has the ability to win this war. They would need over 2 million troops to conquer and hold Ukraine and they don't have the means to raise an army that big. They don't have the uniforms, boots, infantry weapons, or anything else and they can't make that many while at war. The exigent needs of the war are consuming everything they make too quickly and they are unable to get ahead of the curve to build up the stockpile of stuff they need.

Ukraine is bound and determined not to let Russia win, even if the west quits supporting them. They see this as a war of existential existence. Losing equals genocide of the Ukrainian people. They would rather die fighting the Russians on the battlefield than in a concentration camp like Auschwitz. If the choice is between two deaths they will choose the one with more agency.

Cutting off aid won't end the war, it will drag it out and result in more Ukrainian casualties. If people really want a quick end to the war, it's to drop a brick on the accelerator and supply Ukraine with more of what it needs. F-16s will help, but Ukraine is going to hit a shortage of pilots sooner rather than later. It's going to take 2 years to train more from scratch. Modern tanks are nice bling, but Russia's tank force has degraded and is not much of a threat. Russian tanks are usually knocked out before reaching the Ukrainians when they try to go on the offensive.

Ukraine does need vehicles with some armor to defend against Russian AT weapons with good sized guns to defeat Russian fortifications, but that can be pretty much any tank. The French AMX proved too vulnerable but the Leopard I is just fine. Sending M60s would be good too.

This does not contradict what they said which is that support for aid to Ukraine is falling in both the US and Europe. The guys in the video are political boffins. Looking at trends is what they do.


Of course you should listen to whoever you want. But IMO you completely misinterpreted what they said. They are very pro-Ukraine. They think it is essential for Ukraine to win this war, but they think it was a political mistake for Biden to say "we are with Ukraine for as long as it takes" because it makes the war in Ukraine look like a "forever war" especially when combined with disappointment in the West over the speed of the Ukrainian counteroffensive. The people in the video want more aid to Ukraine and they think Biden's words were a blunder that make it more difficult to get aid to Ukraine in 2024 before the election.

Western aid to Ukraine is a really big deal. Success or failure of the war may depend on it. Aid from the US depends crucially on US politics. If you want to know how this is going and what to expect in the next year then you should listen to political boffins from the US like these two. Just as casualty figures depend on who you listen to, so do political predictions. Warnings that aid to Ukraine may be short, coming from knowledgeable and very pro-Ukrainian voices is IMO a big deal. Just like high Russian casualty figures coming from Russia would be a big deal.

Ben and Tommy were young idealists back in the Obama administration which started well over 20 years ago. They were to the left of Obama and are far to the left of Biden. You can find out more about Ben Rhodes in his recent book: After the Fall: The Rise of Authoritarianism in the World We've Made. Just to be clear, Ben is very much against authoritarianism.

As a European you probably already have a more global view of the world then most Americans but as an American I find this weekly podcast by Ben and Tommy, Pod Save the World, to be essential for keeping up with current events around the world. For example, a week or two ago they covered the indictment of US senator Bob Menendez. This seemed like US news, not global news, but it turns out Menendez had to step down from being Chairman of the powerful US Senate Foreign Relations Committee. While there he was responsible for (IMO) terrible US policies including those in Latin America that created the immigration crisis in the US. So, with a little luck, we should expect more reasonable foreign policies coming from the US soon.

I don't know that much about Ben Rhodes, but not wanting to pick nits, the Obama administration started 14 years ago in 2009. Obama had some misses on foreign policy.

Hmmm. I don’t know. Look at the US. The more the prime republican candidate gets charged with crimes, calls for executions of military generals and a dismantling of the judicial system the higher his ratings go. If he is convicted of even one thing he will own the election.

That same candidate has also called for ending the constitution and essentially ending democracy in the US. The Nazis were able to take over Germany because they won the 1933 elections in Germany. Democracies can end with someone who is very anti-democratic winning an election.

I wouldn't trust the election polls in the US right now. About 1/3 of those who will vote in the 2024 election actively avoid thinking about politics until about a month before a major election. Asking them who they are going to vote for in a year will likely result in more random chance than anything else. Since the advent of cell phones and younger people pretty much not talking on the phone at all, polling populations have skewed towards much older people which is a problem that pollsters haven't solved yet. The polls do get more reliable as the election looms, but this far out the noise is stronger then the signal.

The "trend" here basically consists of Slovakia. And I agree that what's happening in Slovakia is really, really bad, utterly absurd and surreal, it does seem to be isolated to that country as far as Europe goes (this far)
.


That's not what they are saying. Listen again between 17.01-18.34. Again: They are saying that...

Short of loaning Ukraine the use of the USAF for a couple of months, there are some problems the US can't solve.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

...] Short of loaning Ukraine the use of the USAF for a couple of months, there are some problems the US can't solve.

I guess I'm not really sure what you mean by that...

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

...] Cutting off aid won't end the war, it will drag it out and result in more Ukrainian casualties. If people really want a quick end to the war, it's to drop a brick on the accelerator and supply Ukraine with more of what it needs. F-16s will help, but Ukraine is going to hit a shortage of pilots sooner rather than later. It's going to take 2 years to train more from scratch. Modern tanks are nice bling, but Russia's tank force has degraded and is not much of a threat. Russian tanks are usually knocked out before reaching the Ukrainians when they try to go on the offensive. [My u.] [...

This war has been going on now for more than one year and 7 months. If I had any say at all in what the Armed Forces of Ukraine should do, then I would have started planning for the contingency of the UKR Air Force getting Western 4th gen fighter jets pretty darn soon after the war began (at the latest).

As I understand it, training for UKR pilots on the F-16 begins this month.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/24/politics/us-ukraine-f-16-training/index.html

Can we really know that UKR doesn't have a sufficient amount of pilots that at this stage are now basically ready to start training on the F-16?...