Tux

Saw this on the Guardian when I woke up this morning ... I genuinely thought the reporting was about the US state, not the nation in the Caucasus. All the elements of the story - corruption, protests, right-wing wet-ons for Putin, fvckery with laws and legislation - fit either place, and for whatever reason the Caucasus didn't pop top of mind.

So this post and the one above it are what we like to call “losing the bubble”.  You have let your passion for Ukraine cloud objective strategic thinking to the point that you are proposing a denial of reality to insert one of your own that matches that passion.  In blunt terms, if you were on my staff I would be thinking you need a vacation and maybe a posting away for awhile.
1.  We cannot simply discount/avoid/wave away the risks of a full on Russian political and social collapse.  First off it is not “impossible” or even improbable given we have a rigid autocratic political mechanism that has been under significant strain for some time now.  Russia has collapsed in the past (twice in the past century and a bit) and can do so again.  
2.  The consequences of a Russian collapse cannot simply be waived away either.  At best we get a stable regime quickly grabbing power so that the centralized control apparatus stays in place.  That regime will need to 1) have clean enough hands to do an honest deal with, and 2) be supportive in stopping this war.  That is a tall order. Follow on scenarios of a Russian collapse and its impacts get worse from there and we have gone into them many times.  You are essentially so gripped with the Ukrainian cause that you have simply stated “ignore them” with neither proof or logic on why to do so beyond “well it hasn’t happened yet, so it will never happen”.
3.  By your metrics Ukrainian security is not guaranteed outside of a full Russian collapse and regime change.  Nothing would stop Russia from lobbing missiles even if it was forced back to 2014 lines.  So we are back to “we need a full Russian collapse to ‘win’ but ignore the consequences of that collapse because = ‘love Ukraine’.” That makes no sense nor does it address the scenarios where a collapsed Russia poses as greater risk to Ukraine than what they are dealing with now. 
4.  There are plenty examples of frozen conflict where an enduring peace and security were guaranteed: Korea, Cyprus and Former Yugoslavia, to name a few.  Like Israel right now, there is always risk of reemergence of warfare but we can manage that.  So immediately writing off any and all other peace scenarios is not only extremist narrative, it is dangerously reductive thinking.  This is not how high levels of diplomacy, defence and security or economics think about the world, it is how college students on a campus do.
5.  Your position and thesis essentially start with a conclusion and then build a logic model theory of success that only supports that conclusion.  Ukraine must have total victory, all other outcomes are defeats.  Further the West must support Ukraine in this venture to the point that it will risk the total political and social collapse of a nuclear power.  We are to sidestep all that risk for Ukraine.  What happens if we get to 2014 lines and Russia does not quit?  Do we need to go into Russia proper?  This nearly happened in Korea/China in 1950, this was how MacArther talked himself into nuclear weapons and a massive Chinese reaction.
6. We all support Ukraine and want a victory here.  But..and you really need to sit down and think about this…Ukraine is damned important, but it is not that important.  We are not going to start WW3 over Ukraine - even as we skirt around it.  We would be talking hundreds of millions of deaths, even if the thing stayed conventional.  We have 8 billion people on this planet and keeping them all alive takes a lot of energy and resources.  We built a highly complex and integrated system to keep the whole dance going.  One war breaks out between Ukraine and Russia and we already have people starving to death in Africa. Imagine a full on conflagration that drags in NATO. Iran and possibly China.  I am sorry but we could easily go with plan A, which was likely the plan on 24 Feb 22: continue to support Ukrainian resistance, fall back to NATO lines, drop a new Iron Curtain, and fund the hell out of NATO - in fact there are likely big winners in this scenario who know it.  We won the First Cold War, we can take our chances on a Second.
So, no, total 2014 lines are not the only victory in this war by a long shot.  In fact those territorial lines might not even mean victory if they were attainable.  We are very likely looking at a stop line, like in 2014, somewhere in the middle.  Then we will get some sort of shaky ceasefire that we will need to exploit, quickly.  We need to set the conditions to strategically deny Ukraine from Russia.  We know Russia can be deterred, this is why we do not have deep strikes into Poland happening.  We will need to move that deterrence line.  We will likely have to pound Russia until it drops its ridiculous negotiating position and we can land on something more reasonable.  Whether that will take a full on collapse is unknown, we can only hope if it does that we are looking at a soft collapse of political position and not social controls within Russia.
Finally, framing the war the way you have supports Russia.  You are making this war nearly unwinnable via these maximalist rhetoric.  As such, a reader of this thread could easily walk away agreeing with you but arriving at a very different conclusion - unwinnable war = GTFO, because we have already seen this movie twice in the last 20 years.  Which is exactly what Russia wants.
You have narrowed down the acceptable narrative only to those ardent extremist viewpoints that agree with you.  By leaving no middle ground you violate a core component of war: negotiation.  There is no negotiation in your position and that immediately sets off warning bells.  We hear this everyday now coming from all sorts of corners over so many issues.  I vehemently disagree with your analysis, narrative and conclusions based on this fact alone.

Nope, no straddling involved, that's firmly on the insane side of the line.
Now, a robot dog that cleans up after your live dog, that would be genius.

Well if the pattern is consistent we should get a troll through here in the next week or so, shedding wolf's tears about the "inhumanity of this terrible war" and how we need to stop it now.  Of course the way to stop it is to cut off funding to Ukraine and force them to the negotiation table.  To which we will ask - just like last time - "What f@cking table?!"

On the topic of democracy (democracy indexes, democratic backsliding and the like) I can actually contribute with more than my typical "expert amateur's" opinion since poli sci is my academic background.
The Economist Democracy Index appears to be from 2021 (based on Norway's and Sweden's scores of 9.75 and 9.26 respectively). That year Switzerland dipped down below 9.00, which changed its colour in the map @The_Capt posted. It might be a colour vision thing @kimbosbread? Personally I know that my red-green colour vision is in the dumps, and I cannot make out any distinction what so ever between the colours assigned to 8, 7 and 6 in that map. That still places it as a full democracy though.
It should be noted for the Economist Democracy Index's use of the term "Flawed democracy" doesn't mean that it's not a democracy, undemocratic or the like:
In the case of the USA, this likely refers to issues such as voter turnout, gerrymandering, first-past-the-post and the virtual two party system, civil rights, etc. Emphasis on "likely" though, because the Economist Democracy Index is based on anonymous scoring from undisclosed experts, so no one can say with certainty what particular aspects influenced a state's scoring.
 
V-dem is in my experience the preferred democracy index, notwithstanding any personal bias (it's from my alma mater). What makes the most difference (going by the examples cited here) though is how you measure democracy: Visual Capitalist choses to measure shares of the global poluation as opposed to number of states. This leads to statistical oddities/misrepresentations of the scale of democratic backsliding, since states are entities: if say State A and State B have become democracies whereas State Z has become an autocracy, that's a net increase in democracy, regardless of the fact that State A & B only have a combined population of say 20 million whereas State Z has a population of 1 billion. That's how Visual Capitalist arrives at the dire conclusion of "2010 Democracy: 50.4% vs 2021 Democracy: 29.3%".
India alone being reclassed from "electoral democracy" to "electoral autocracy" is behind a not insignificant portion of that change: the number of people living in electoral autocracies increased by 1.76 billion between 2010 and 2021 (India's population today reaching 1.41 billion). The remaining net global population which has shifted from "liberal/electoral democracy" to "electoral/closed autocracy" is "only" 0.7 billion. I.e., one single country falling back into autocracy is behind a smidge over 2/3 of that shift.
 
If we were to look at states instead (the typical poli sci method and arguably the more accurate measurement), we get this more positive picture:

Between the end of the Cold War and 2022, liberal democracies have remained virtually the same, more than half the world's closed autocracies have gone the way of the dodo, and electoral democracies and electoral autocracies are tied at 32.58%: back in 1990, electoral autocracies were almost 30% ahead of electoral democracies, and a staggering 36.84% of the world's states were closed autocracies. Closed autocracies were by far the most common form of government in the world when the Cold War ended: today its the opposite, it's the least common.
 
That was an argument against Visual Capitalist's measurement of democracy. Democratic backsliding is accepted among most experts, but there's not much certainty as to whether or not this will turn out to be a lasting development or if it's simply a symptom of many politically and socially underdeveloped/unprepared states which were democratised when the Cold War wrapped up simply having reverted to forms of government which are more in line for what could be expected of them.
 
 
Edit: I was going to write a brief reply. Instead I wrote more here than I've gotten done on my thesis during the last two months combined. FFS...

This is true of absolutely everything.  If you want to you can argue against trying to control any hazardous substance or unethical weapon based on the argument that ‘the North Koreans won’t listen’.  It gets the rest of the world nowhere. 

I'm not disconnecting physiological and psychological evolution. We aren't changing biologically on politically relevant timescales. The biological changes that can be traced to within the last 10,000 years are minor and have no way of effecting which political systems would work (I don't think the ability to digest milk as an adult has much effect on the efficacy of democracy). Where did you hear that our brains have gotten smaller within the last 10,000 years? I have heard that homo-sapien brains are probably smaller than homo-neanderthalensis brains. But Neandertals died out 30,000 years ago. Homo-sapiens haven't visibly changed in the last 100,000 years.
As to social evolution, that's the same as technological development. We are developing better methods of organizing ourselves socially just as we develop better tools for any other task. It has nothing to do with biological evolution. I'll admit that social evolution does behave a bit like biological evolution. Ideas go through a similar natural selection process as genes. This is actually why the word "meme" was coined. A meme is an idea that undergoes a natural selection process similar to a gene. An important difference is that memes evolve far more rapidly than genes.

I remain optimistic. Regardless of how fast our genes are evolving, I think our memes are evolving plenty fast enough to allow us to tackle the challenges ahead. I'll say nothing further on evolution, except to recommend A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived, by Adam Rutherford (I just finished the audiobook, narrated by Adam Rutherford, on my commutes to work). It gives an excellent overview of the current state of the field of human genomics. He explains things in a way that is easy to understand, without falling into the all too common trap of oversimplifying things to the point of being misleading.

The study was done in the Netherlands, and another in Germany, so this criterium applied. I don't know if they extrapolated anything to another latitude.
But the panels were bi-facial and adjusted to face towards east and west, not south (and north).
The idea is that they have their output maxima in the morning and the evening. The idea is to augment, not to supplant traditional solar farms, and reduce the need for batteries.
That means it would work in the equatorial region as well, where the sun also rises and settles in east and west. But bi-facial panels are more expensive. 
https://undecidedmf.com/have-we-been-doing-solar-wrong-all-along/
(@admins my apologies for the distraction I brought in - I will respond via DMs if anything else is to be said about solar panels)

I appreciate the challenge but their utility doesn't have to be in question any more than any other weapon system.  It's their deterministic necessity that undeniably will, one day, be questioned.  Not all unmanned systems - I am not saying we try to "go back to the way things were" - but the most egregiously dangerous and offensive ones.
My very first point was a reflection of the fact that C-UAS will absolutely be highly competitive, dynamic, and ever changing.  So I mentioned that it might be an idea for forward-thinking nations to focus on autonomous C-UAS now, even more than on autonomous ground-attack drones.  Get ahead of the game.  Establish and then try to maintain C-UAS superiority.  Lead everyone to question the deterministic necessity of these things as soon as possible.  Once you do that the imperative to develop and use them is weakened and maybe people will fear the systems more than they will the consequences of not having them.  Because, let's be honest, fear is always the arbiter of this kind of thing.
 
I understand that this has been and still occasionally is challenged, even on this thread.  It is not the target of my argument, though.  Please, yes, let's navigate this new reality.  As a starter for 10, how about we give absolute priority to autonomous C-UAS?

This is true of absolutely everything.  If you want to you can argue against trying to control any hazardous substance or unethical weapon based on the argument that ‘the North Koreans won’t listen’.  It gets the rest of the world nowhere. 

This is true of absolutely everything.  If you want to you can argue against trying to control any hazardous substance or unethical weapon based on the argument that ‘the North Koreans won’t listen’.  It gets the rest of the world nowhere. 

But my point is that not only liberal democracies should be allies against a country which uses a war of aggression as means of policy and wants to upset the political balance. First things first - let's fight the aggressor together with everyone who wants to protect the status quo and principle of peaceful resolution of international disputes, and then the EU can drag the Ukraine over the coals over fulfillment of accession criteria.  They are different things.

Here's the thing though - generally - at its best - the West as part of its advantages over more totalitarian  places -  has come to represent toleration  of a whole lot of things which are not necessarily the end of Human Civilization as many  who oppose such toleration seem to think . The West is not going to fall because of trans gender rights or any other sub group of people wanting to express themselves how they feel . Its going to be because of war ,   resource scarcity and global changes to our economic systems due to our continued mis use of the planet .

As a lawyer you should know better that it's much more than just an 'attitude'. It's an entire legal framework underpinning the political ideology of liberal democracy.

Yes the west can sponsor whomever they like, the enemy of my enemy and all that, but there is much more going on here with the particular case of Ukraine because Ukraine has made it no secret that it aspires to joining the EU. As a matter of straightforward facts:-
Ukraine will never join the EU if it does not uphold EU law - indeed it has to adopt EU law in order to be a member. Membership means compliance with the ECHR and its rulings. The ECHR enforces the core principles laid out and agreed upon by the union of liberal democratic states. Some of those principles cover the protection of minority groups and protection of individual freedoms etc.. This is just the way it is. You cannot cherry-pick the core ideas of liberal democracy anymore than you can cherry-pick the legal framework and membership of the EU.          

That attitude is a huge mistake - this is what keeps the ranks of the West's enemies are always full. If the only ones who are worthy of support are those who share the - rather unique-  views of the West on social issues such as homosexualism, religion, ethnic minorities etc. then it is no wonder that finding allies in places such as Africa and Asia is difficult. Kabul University tweets about graduation of the gender studies class a couple of months before the Taliban stormed Kabul come to mind. It is an unforced own goal on part of the West.
If the aim is to defend the post-Cold War order against an attempt to change borders by force of arms, then every victim of aggression deserves to be supported, regardless of his social policy. Think Kuwait 1990-1991.
 
 

Well, that's - sadly - true.
However, Ukraine doesn't merely strive to be an ally but to actually become part of the West, the EU in particular. And since joining EU means submitting to EU jurisdiction, Ukrainian society will have to adapt at least some.

Well not sure what you are upset about. Haiduk’s attitude seems to be pretty much mainstream in Ukraine. The Ukrainian LGBT community has few of the rights enjoyed in North America, but that has been known for a long time so hardly news. For example, as I understand it, Trans sexuality is still classified as a psychiatric disorder in Ukraine.
The West supports Ukraine because of Russian aggression which means we have a mutual enemy. The West does not choose allies based on shared values, i.e. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey, etc.

Haiduk if you don't like Western values then return all the Western help you've got. Maybe some country that doesn't have the LBGT and genders will help.
Let me think of some of those for you:
- Russia
- China
- Hungary (currently blocking EU aid)
- USA with Republicans in charge (currently blocking US aid)
- Hamas
- Iran
well seems you're out of luck. The people with your values do seem to be on the other side of the war. Maybe you should listen to you buddies Musk and Trump and Orban (who hate LBGT and genders as much as you) and just surrender.

Real life is very different from what you read in social media. Those things you mentioned do exist, but they are few and far between. It is blown out of proportion by the media. Take it with a grain of salt and don't fall for the propaganda. Live in general changes very little and very slow.

Do you really think people in Europe don't use the word "woman" anymore? Dunno what right-wing nonsense you are consuming, but I would stop, otherwise people might come to the conclusion that more aid to Ukraine is not necessary since they apparently already got bombed back into the stone age anyway.

You do realize that this is basically the same propaganda that Putin uses?
And that is the seed of how war crimes happen.

Children are always innocent. Simple.
Not their fault where they are born.
I strongly suggest you pause your posts on this topic.. 
I have deep respect for you and understand your pov but IMO it's not something for this thread.
I will PM you tomorrow.
 

I suggest it's not a good idea.
A targeted response against those responsible rather than creating any more terrorists by killing innocent people. 
Bombing people to the stone age has already escalated this to a level that was uncalled for..

Mick Ryan's take on the war after returning from Ukraine.
https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/ukraine-war-how-check-russia-s-momentum
Russia is now a more dangerous adversary than it was two years ago. This calls for change in how the war is fought.
There is a compelling and urgent need for NATO to change from a “defend Ukraine” policy to one of “defeat Russia in Ukraine”. At the same time, Ukraine needs to develop and share with its supporters its theory of victory. One official in Kyiv told me there is no clear vision of how Ukraine will win. A new Ukrainian theory of victory must be a foundational element of any revised Western strategy.