How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Beleg85]

27 minutes ago, dan/california said:

But Russia currently has at least as much potential for severe domestic discontent as it did in 1917. Putin is trying to fundamentally change the deal he offers the Russian people in the middle of a losing war. The old deal was pretty simple. There will be economic growth and stability. You will not dare to think about politics, and the FSB will not feel the need to think about you. 

The new deal is that you must think about Putin and his imperial dream all the time. You must work twice as hard for half as much, until next year, which will be worse. Oh and any male between 15 and 60 can be drafted at random through various back door schemes and sent to the front inn a losing war. Complainers get an instantaneous one way trip to Siberia. 

This would be a difficult shift for virtually any government in human history, much less the decrepit mafia state that is Putin's Russia.

I am frankly not sure if Putin's right to rule can even be viewed as a "deal" as we frame it. "Social contract" and its political consequences is Western concept inherently connected to liberalism; as we know, this intellectual position never had much root in Russian history. As far as I am aware, Putin "deal" was never publicly announced, verbalized or even conceptualized as such. So there was never "Abenomics", 'Peronism" or similar package of ideas that could be connected to Putin.

I am curious what Russian speakers in this forum think of it.

3 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So what ideology does Russia have beyond paranoia and a general zeitgeist of revelling in misery?  Maybe that will be enough but I think it is weak glue in the absence of an existential crisis.  Putin has, and will continue to make the argument that this is an existential crisis but it is a weak argument.  As the social lattice in Russia comes under increasing stress I have to wonder how long the social contract will hold.  Russians have proven they can take a lot, under the right circumstances; however, without a crystalline idea to hold them together outside the bonds of their intimate communities and micro-social spaces, I think they are in fact more vulnerable than many think.

True, if we keep "social contract" as a very broad anthropoligical term.

 

Edited July 15, 2022 by Beleg85

[akd]

9 hours ago, sburke said:

we already had this guy for that role

Major Dmitri Semenov, chief of staff / deputy commander of ?? Spetsnaz Detachment, 16th Separate Spetsnaz Brigade

The Brigade has multiple Detachments (i.e. battalions).  I think Maj. Kalmykov was also a detachment Deputy Commander - Chief of Staff.

[The_Capt]

10 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

True, if we keep "social contract" as a very broad anthropoligical term

Absolutely.  It is the contract of warlords throughout history - “I will abuse and terrorize you but they will do much worse”.  Certainty beats uncertainty almost every time.  

In Putin’s case it appears as though the deal was “I will keep you safe, fairly well off -compared to the post communist crisis of the 90s- and you slowly give me ultimate power, and totally dismantle any chance of democracy.”  It is funny, in Max Brooks’ “World War Z”, he has the Russians re-installing a monarchy (the Czar) after the zombie war.  Made me wonder if it is possible for a nation/culture to become addicted to autocracy?  

History has shown that democracy is rarely lost, it is simply more often abandoned.  Often due it failing to yield results in context, but perhaps some cultures are simply allergic to the idea - takes me back to Afghanistan and our failures there. 

Edited July 15, 2022 by The_Capt

[Bearstronaut]

4 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

History has shown that democracy is rarely lost, it is simply more often abandoned.  Often do it failing to yield results in context, but perhaps some cultures are simply allergic to the idea - takes me back to Afghanistan and our failures there. 

Maybe I'm an optimist but I would say never count a society out. Look at the Koreans. They had a highly stratified feudal society up until the Japanese colonization. After the defeat of Imperial Japan and the partition both the north and the south were autocracies. The Republic of Korea was a republic in name only until about 1988 when General Chun Doo-Hwan was deposed and they finally had free elections. The election of 1997 was the first peaceful transfer of power to an opposing political party in Korean history. Since then the South Koreans have been vigorous in the defense of their democracy (IMHO more so than in my own country). Two of the former Presidents of South Korea are currently in jail on political corruption charges. Now who's to say that will continue as I personally met several older Koreans during my time living there who said that their country was better off under a military dictatorship. I believe in them though.

[Beleg85]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Absolutely.  It is the contract of warlords throughout history - “I will abuse and terrorize you but they will do much worse”.  Certainty beats uncertainty almost every time.  

In Putin’s case it appears as though the deal was “I will keep you safe, fairly well off -compared to the post communist crisis of the 90s- and you slowly give me ultimate power, and totally dismantle any chance of democracy.”  It is funny, in Max Brooks WWZ, he has the Russians re-installing a monarchy (the Czar) after the zombie war.  Made me wonder if it is possible for a nation/culture to become addicted to autocracy?  

History has shown that democracy is rarely lost, it is simply more often abandoned.  Often do it failing to yield results in context, but perhaps some cultures are simply allergic to the idea - takes me back to Afghanistan and our failures there. 

Million dollar question. I think not only it is possible to be addicted- it is actually pretty common around the world and in history. Russia case is special, as variation of Byzantine culture (who had its own way of legitimazing ruler) mixed with Mongol barbarity (effective power and bureaucracy) and this born Ivan III and IV. Basic concepts of relations between power and Russian people lies unfortunatelly there, very deep in history. For example L.Bazylow, one of venerable Polish historians of Russia, was convinced that clue to understand it is actually Time of Troubles (Smutnoye vremya).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_Troubles

For him all Russian history from that point was underlined by fear of "Great Emptiness", when world literally stopped making sense. So the only form of "social contract" (in non-liberal meaning) majority of Russian people ever knew came from this experience. Romanovs, who inherited the throne and ruled up to 1917, builded on this notion that Tzar is only figure standing between people and mythical chaos.  Even Soviet Union was to be viewed in very similar metaphysical terms, despite being theoretically agnostic (seems absurd, but remember these RU soldiers with St.George ribbons crossed with Red Flags...). Unimaginable destruction in Civil War, during Bolshevism, Stalinism and WWII actually supposedly reinforced this "fear of hollowness" scars as basis for power legitimization.

Also in this view (mind you, we talk about unconcious, common culture) Ukrainians would serve as figures of anomaly, something "headless", "formless" or "pointless"- simple rustic people living without cause, statehood and form. Non-society even...perhaps that is one of the reason for such viciousness against them?

This "deep anthropology" theory omitts many modern events in Russian history and is simplistic in my view, but has some notion. It is not simple "gangsta warlord" deal, but something much deeply rooted.

Edited July 15, 2022 by Beleg85

[The_Capt]

36 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Million dollar question. I think not only it is possible to be addicted- it is actually pretty common around the world and in history. Russia case is special, as variation of Byzantine culture (who had its own way of legitimazing ruler) mixed with Mongol barbarity (effective power and bureaucracy) and this born Ivan III and IV. Basic concepts of relations between power and Russian people lies unfortunatelly there, very deep in history. For example L.Bazylow, one of great Polish historians of Russia, was convinced that clue to understand it is actually Time of Troubles (Smutnoye vremya).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_Troubles

For him all Russian history from that point was underlined by this fear of "Great Emptiness", when world literally stopped making sense. So the only form of "social contract" (in non-liberal meaning) majority of Russian people ever knew came from this experience. Romanovs, who ruled up to 1917, builded on this notion that Tzar is only figure standing between people and chaos.  Even Soviet Union was to be viewed in very similar terms, despite being theoretically agnostic (seems absurd, but remember these RU soldiers with St.George ribbons crossed with Red Flags...). Unimaginable destruction in WWI, during Communism and WWII actually supposedly reinforced this "fear of hollowness" as basis for power legitimization.

Also in this view (mind you, we talk about unconcious, common culture) Ukrainians would serve as figures of anomaly, something "headless", "formless" or "pointless"- simple rustic people living without cause, statehood and form. Non-society even...perhaps that is one of the reason for such viciousness against them?

This "deep anthropology" theory omitts many modern events in Russian history and is simplistic in my view, but has some notion.

 

Very interesting, but I agree with you it is perhaps a bit simplistic.  The idea of a trans generational trauma that has become inculcated into a cultural foundation is not new and does hold water.  However, it is inconsistent as well.  Why have the Russians gone this way, while other cultures that have suffered great crisis have not (Irish, Indigenous peoples of NA, or pretty much all of Europe for that matter)?

Perhaps it was the combination of trauma and “bad boyfriend” monarchy that solidified it as you note.  Perhaps liberal freedoms do equate to “hollowness” in the Russia psyche, it does line up.  

I also think there is a level of “outsiderness” at play as well.  Russia has always been “in-between”, not fully Asia, not fully European, never Persian.  So a condition of collective paranoia in what is an unstable state molecule (radioactive apparently) may also be a factor. This combined with trans generational trauma leading to a predilection towards strongmen that lean on all that to stay in power, starts to make sense.

So we are basically in a proxy war with a nuclear nation whose starting point is “don’t try and fix me, I like me broken”….great.

 

 

Edited July 15, 2022 by The_Capt

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

It is funny, in Max Brooks’ “World War Z”, he has the Russians re-installing a monarchy (the Czar) after the zombie war.  Made me wonder if it is possible for a nation/culture to become addicted to autocracy?  

If Putin had a minimally capable son who was 30 or older he would have already had himself crowned as the first Czar of a new Dynasty. Or he would have been "discovered" to be a lost heir of the old one, with free beatings for anyone who dared to so much as blink at the announcement.

Edited July 15, 2022 by dan/california
spelling

[Beleg85]

40 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Very interesting, but I agree with you it is perhaps a bit simplistic.  The idea of a trans generational trauma that has become inculcated into a cultural foundation is not new and does hold water.  However, it is inconsistent as well.  Why have the Russians gone this way, while other cultures that have suffered great crisis have not (Irish, Indigenous peoples of NA, or Europe for that matter)?

Perhaps it was the combination of trauma and “bad boyfriend” monarchy that solidified it as you note.  Perhaps liberal freedoms do equate to “hollowness” in the Russia psyche, it does line up.  

I also think there is a level of “outsiderness” at play as well.  Russia has always been “in-between”, not fully Asia, not fully European, never Persian.  So a condition of collective paranoia in what is an unstable state molecule (radioactive apparently) may also be a factor. This combined with trans generational trauma leading to a predilection towards strongmen that lean on all that to stay in power, starts to make sense.

Very good points, unfortunately I cannot even try to answer as tools of modern anthropology ends here, and we are in the realm of conjenctures. I would argue that nations touched by such trauma do have problems with themselves even today. Poles for example still have scars from Deluge and fall in XVIIth century (there are some sociological works  that actually search for it). Germans also can still bear, let's say, "darkness" in their societal fabric coming from Thirty Years War that could bear fruits 300 years later. I don't know about Indians in USA, Kurds or Irish, but those groups were never in "power" so could react differently- with nostalgia, humour, imagination or in myriad other ways. It is different with societies that have "memory of the lost glorious past", i.e. functioning statehood that collapsed.

Note that such traumas often must repeat to "self-prove" itself. So chain of wars, hunger or state partitions should follow in succession. In my country it is "messianism" that formed as a consequence of this; we formed what one sociologist called "community of suffering" (Israelis have something very similar) as basis for social fabric. It's phenomenon completelly alien to, for example, Swedes or Swiss, it's even hard to explain them as they have nothing to compare.

What is fascinating in Russia is that their traumas are massive, repeating itself over and over, very often because of their own making, and the fact that reaction is always despoty and imperialism. Thus they seem to always get back to cause of their problems, after which whole circle repeats itself.

40 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So we are basically in a proxy war with a nuclear nation whose starting point is “don’t try and fix me, I like me broken”….great.

What I try to figure out here is why Putin- normally extremelly opportunistic, machiavellic player- really decided for this war. And I find no other explanation than echo chamber, actual paranoia and real, true belief in this manicheic worldview that started to manifest in him somewhere around 2020. But it was brewing for much longer, even before his birth- it is strongly embedded in Russian culture as such.

And note I don't think history is determined and Russia must stay despotic and aggressive; but it will be proportionally much more difficult to build something resembling normal civil society than in other places. Imperialism is too great narcotic for them to just put it off, and this is just one of many issues here.

Edited July 15, 2022 by Beleg85

[G.I. Joe]

1 hour ago, Beleg85 said:

I am frankly not sure if Putin's right to rule can even be viewed as a "deal" as we frame it. "Social contract" and its political consequences is Western concept inherently connected to liberalism;

Agreed... although I have always felt, though I stand ready to be corrected on this, that the modern classical liberal concept of a social contract bears at least some similarity to the old Chinese concept of the Mandate of Heaven. There are differences, of course, but in both cases the legitimacy of a ruler or government stems from their ability to look after the welfare of those under their governance.

[Beleg85]

5 minutes ago, G.I. Joe said:

Agreed... although I have always felt, though I stand ready to be corrected on this, that the modern classical liberal concept of a social contract bears at least some similarity to the old Chinese concept of the Mandate of Heaven. There are differences, of course, but in both cases the legitimacy of a ruler or government stems from their ability to look after the welfare of those under their governance.

Well, there are massive differences. Mandate of heaven (or older confucianism) was created mainly  at the courts as legitimacy for already existing power structures. While in early modern Europe Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and others constructed those ideas from "chaos" (especially first two) and did not generally wrote to appease some King.

[G.I. Joe]

2 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Well, there are massive differences. Mandate of heaven (or older confucianism) was created mainly  at the courts as legitimacy for already existing power structures. While in early modern Europe Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and others constructed those ideas from "chaos" (especially first two) and did not generally wrote to appease some King.

True, I am definitely looking at it in terms of very broad strokes parallels. Another obvious difference of course is that the Mandate of Heaven, being a product of its time, had overtly religious elements baked in (e.g. natural disasters being taken as a judgment on an unfit ruler).

[The_Capt]

8 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

What I try to figure out here is why Putin- normally extremelly opportunistic, machiavellic player- really decided for this war. And I find no other explanation than echo chamber, actual paranoia and real, true belief in this manicheic worldview that started to manifest in him somewhere around 2020. But it was brewing for much longer, even before his birth- it is strongly embedded in Russian culture as such.

You and me both; it is a riddle that I cannot solve either.  I cannot see the crisis that forced the hand.  Russia under Putin had demonstrated deliberate actions and nuance in its strategies up until now, it is one of the major reasons they kept getting away with it.  We remained in a null decision space on Russia, it was undecidable.  In many circles people were openly talking about “simply accepting Crimea and moving on”.  Russia looked to be the masters of the chess game.  Subversive warfare, hybrid warfare and “grey zone” had led them to a string of strategic coups that we were all admiring and referring to as “Gerasimov Doctrine” and such.  Some forays into the near abroad that were pretty scary examples of reflexive control.  We scared ourselves with wargames that saw Russia tearing through the Baltics in hours.

And then a major conventional action against a sovereign nation that went pear shape in the first 72 hours…sure why not.  An invasion that looks like its primary fuel was hubris and progressive unreality - far too few forces, zero operational pre-conditions and an joint warfare cautionary tale that will be in the history books for at least a century.

Why?  Why now?  Why not stick with the A-game?  Why throw it all away on as poorly weighted dice throw as we have seen since Saddam’s Kuwait gambit?

Perhaps a historian will give us the answer one day, but until then this war will remain a mystery to me.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Why? Ego. Putin wants to be spoken of in the same breath as Peter and Catherine. Why now? Because he's 70 years old and in poor health.

Edited July 15, 2022 by Vanir Ausf B

[MikeyD]

I was in the middle of typing something similar. Stalin died at 75, Putin's 69 in a country where male life expectancy is 73. It would be difficult to over-stress the effect of narcissist personality disorder on his decision to go to war. The egoist Putin wants his name in the history books and not just as a footnote. Even if he destroys Russia with this war he achieves his aim, being 'famous' for doing something 'big'.

[G.I. Joe]

19 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Why? Ego. Putin wants to be spoken of in the same breath as Peter and Catherine. Why now? Because he's 70 years old and in poor health.

 

11 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

I was in the middle of typing something similar. Stalin died at 75, Putin's 69 in a country where male life expectancy is 73. It would be difficult to over-stress the effect of narcissist personality disorder on his decision to go to war. The egoist Putin wants his name in the history books and not just as a footnote. Even if he destroys Russia with this war he achieves his aim, being 'famous' for doing something 'big'.

I am definitely inclined to concur, it seems likeliest that he felt it was now or never. The speculation that the pandemic ramped up his paranoia and left him more isolated, and in a smaller echo chamber, also has a plausible ring to it. Combine all those factors and I guess completely unhinged behavior isn't entirely surprising...

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, Beleg85 said:

Well, there are massive differences. Mandate of heaven (or older confucianism) was created mainly  at the courts as legitimacy for already existing power structures. While in early modern Europe Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and others constructed those ideas from "chaos" (especially first two) and did not generally wrote to appease some King.

The Mandate of Heaven might have been maintained with well built irrigation systems and full granaries. But it was claimed at the point of a sword, not once but perhaps two dozen times. Every time the winner pointed to fact of his victory s proof of his own "Mandate." The current dynasty very much included.

 

If Putin's three day coup/war/SMO had come off successfully it would have been exhibit A in his own mandate, and the history books. At least the ones a Russian school child was ever likely to see.

Edited July 15, 2022 by dan/california

[danfrodo]

I'll throw my theory into the ring on why Putin pulled the trigger:  because he was convinced his plan would work.  If the assassinations/treason weren't completely successful, he'd have the hostemel airport and would be flying in reinforcements.  Those troops would take the stunned capital ~day 2.  Then by day 3 the armored column would arrive so the light troops would only have to hold for a day or so.  Putin believed his plan was failsafe because he had multiple layers of increasing force, meaning he didn't need the plan to be perfect to work.  I think Putin really thought his plan simply couldn't fail because he believed it was so very robust, so he chose to go -- what's the risk when you can't conceivably fail? 

[LukeFF]

Russia's replacement for McDonald's bans customers from taking photos after running out of fries and reportedly serving moldy burgers

[G.I. Joe]

24 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Russia's replacement for McDonald's bans customers from taking photos after running out of fries and reportedly serving moldy burgers

No surprises there. I am still quietly dreading what could happen when the chickens start coming home to roost for their civil aviation system of stolen jetliners kept in the air with bootleg components...

[G.I. Joe]

1 hour ago, dan/california said:

The Mandate of Heaven might have been maintained with well built irrigation systems and full granaries. But it was claimed at the point of a sword, not once but perhaps two dozen times. Every time the winner pointed to fact of his victory s proof of his own "Mandate." The current dynasty very much included.

 

If Putin's three day coup/war/SMO had come off successfully it would have been exhibit A in his own mandate, and the history books. At least the ones a Russian school child was ever likely to see.

+1

Out of reactions, but well put.

Edited July 15, 2022 by G.I. Joe

[Haiduk]

At 3:30 of morning Russian ammo dump was HIMARSed in Stakhanov (Kadiivka). Detonations are continiung now

Also yesterdays late evening three lesser ammo dumps were hit in Kherson oblast - Snihurivka, Chornobaivka area (but not airfield) and in 16 km west from Nova Mayachka on the right bank of Dnieper

Edited July 15, 2022 by Haiduk

[poesel]

How much ammo is in such a depot? Obviously depends on size but 1k, 10k, 100k shells?

[Taranis]

Les médias russes affirment que le travailleur humanitaire britannique, Paul Urey, qui était illégalement détenu en captivité par les forces russes dans la soi-disant "République populaire de Donetsk", est décédé "de maladie et de stress" le 10 juillet
 

 

 

 

Edited July 15, 2022 by Taranis

[Grigb]

2 minutes ago, Taranis said:

Russian media claiming that British aid worker, Paul Urey, who was being illegally held in captivity by Russian forces in the so-called "Donetsk People's Republic" has died "due to illness and stress" on 10th July

He couldn't stand the tortures. 

For those who do not know what he got through quote from Murz experience:

Quote

Of course, I was not a spy and was not under "drug", so in the end, on the evening of May 11, to the sounds of "The Russians are coming" performed by Bichevskaya and "Get up, the huge country!" I was just tearing my right hand out of the handcuff like an animal caught in a trap, ready to bite off my hand if I could reach it with my teeth. Then I was delirious, then I lost consciousness, then I was delirious again, shouting in delirium, and I, lying under the bars, was beaten on the left shin until they were tired.

 

[Huba]

8 minutes ago, Grigb said:

He couldn't stand the tortures. 

For those who do not know what he got through quote from Murz experience:

 

This is perhaps the most disturbing part of all of that - the violence against the captives. What purpose does it serve exactly? Terror? It hardens the resolve of UA troops, that's a sure thing. And it will be a HUGE issue later, thwarting any attempts at normalization for decades, as there's no way Russians will be willing to submit to any international courts. I well can imagine a plague of assasinations/ accidents in Russia later, Nazi-hunting style.

Edited July 15, 2022 by Huba