How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Holien]

41 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

He really doesn't understand the ramifications of what he's advocating for.

Hmmm we in the UK have personal experience of this and it has cost us dearly. A very expensive mistake...

I hope for the world's sake America takes note that tearing up years of work and cooperation doesn't magically solve anything and creates problems no one was told would happen...

[Haiduk]

43 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Follow up on the Crimean attack.  According to the Ukrainian government:

 

Hopefully Haiduk will have some verified information to share.

Steve

Many different sources official and unofficial, Russian TG and UKR ATESH underground in Cimea give different information about results. We should wait satellite images. 

Here is General Staff posted a mixed video - at the start we can see probably ATACAMS launches (on one of videos, filmed by locals clearly sounds of multiple cluster minitions explosions are heard), then intensive flashing burning - likely SAM missiles detonate. 

FIRMS map of fire on the airfield

Allegedle (but unverified) photos of destroyed launchers on airfield

Total claimed losses of different sources:

3 S-400 launchers + radar, 2 S-300 launchers, staying under repair in repairing units on airfield, 2 Ka-52 and 2 Mi-28 helicopters seriously damaged, about 30 of personnel killed, 80 wounded. 

GUR claims: 4 S-400 launchers and 3 radars, AD control post, "Fundamnet-M" automatized control complex. 

Russian TG claims: "nothing what can fly wasn't hit"

Last one is on the photo:

 

"Fundament-M" allows to coordinate actions of SAM regiment autimatically in repelling of aerial attack. There are no enough information in open sources about this stuff. First time this system appeared on armament of AD in 2015.

Edited April 18 by Haiduk

[cesmonkey]

51 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

 

Unfortunately, for the last many minutes Democrats and Republicans of the Rules Committee are now bickering over who is most to blame, Trump or Biden, for the miserable situation that brought them to this point in time, leading to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, not supporting Ukraine enough for the last two years, who should get credit for the aid to Ukraine up to this point, and who to blame for not getting Ukraine the recent support they need.

Edited April 18 by cesmonkey

[Centurian52]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

A friend of mine, smart and truly a good person, believes that the only way to fix the REAL problems with our government (and for sure the list of REAL problems is very lengthy) is to "tear it all down".  This is why he supports Trump.  What he doesn't realize is that is equivalent to someone in debt and trying to raise a family advocating demolishing their home, with everything still in side, because the toilette backs up every so often.  He really doesn't understand the ramifications of what he's advocating for. 

Steve

I'm always a bit concerned whenever I see any of my friends online advocating "tearing it all down". They never have any suggestions about what to replace it with. And anything you could replace it with would either be worse, or mostly the same but for a few modifications. The system as it is actually has the framework of a pretty good system. It just needs some tweaking. Rather that screaming into the void about tearing it all down, I think we'd do ourselves a lot more good by having constructive arguments over which tweaks would improve the system.

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

The American Experiment is, at its roots, a massive social test.  A test to see if our species has evolved to the point where a power sharing scheme like democracy can survive at scale.

I'd avoid using terms like "evolution" and "species". There is evidence that our species has evolved measurably in the recent past (as in "within the last 10,000 years"). The most notable sign of recent evolution being the evolution of lactase persistence in European populations (clearly a post-agriculture development, probably as a reaction to dairy farming). But there is no evidence at all that our psychology has evolved since the rise of the first civilizations (about 6,000 years ago) in a way that would have any influence on which political systems would be most effective. It's our systems that are changing to better suite the brains we have. It isn't our brains changing to allow us to use better systems. We are certainly still evolving. But the timescales involved are so long compared to the timescales on which we refine our political systems that it just isn't relevant.

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

I would say the jury is still out.

I actually think the jury is in. Loads of countries other than the US are democracies. It's obvious at this point that there are much better implementations of democracy than the US system (downsides of being first). But almost universally, people living in democracies (including the US) are better off than people living in autocracies. Democracies do collapse and revert to autocracies (and it feels like the US is currently skirting the danger zone on that). But autocracies also collapse and become democracies. And so far it appears that autocracies collapse at a higher rate than democracies. The overall trend so far appears to be towards greater democratization. 

Edited April 18 by Centurian52

[Haiduk]

Two days ago UKR drone repeated attack of Russian over-horizon 29B6 "Konteiner" radar complex (it's receiver part) with 3000 km range near Kovylkino village. On the video we can see distant explosion.

  

 

Some Russian TG claimed after second attack radar site isn't operational. Single research institute, which developed it almost dead and the factory, where this radar equipment was built already doesn't exist. Radar had been producing during 5 years and about 10-15 years were spent for it deployment, ajustment works and test service until it became fully operational. If this true, Russia got huge blind zone on own SW direction, so if Ukraine has super-long-range drones it can fly more free in this window to reach Volga and Syberia strategical military and civil infrastructure 

PS. US media as always was alarmed because of this. Newsweek issued an article that this is dangerous attack, which can cause esaclation (OMG...) because Ukraine attacked startegical radar site, intended i.e. for early warning of nuclear strike and this according Russian nuclear doctrine can be considered as a reason of nuclear weapon usage. 

 

 

Edited April 18 by Haiduk

[Haiduk]

Yesterday in Kamensk-Shakhtinskiy, Rostov oblast UKR UAVs hit the building of chemical factory, producing MLRS rocket fuel components. There is no information about the scale of detriment, just an unverified photo of probable fire in one of factory's building.

Local authorities as usual claimed all drones were shot down, just one fell down on territory of the factory, damaging some windows

    

Edited April 18 by Haiduk

[The_Capt]

29 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

I'd avoid using terms like "evolution" and "species". There is evidence that our species has evolved measurably in the recent past (as in "within the last 10,000 years"). The most notable sign of recent evolution being the evolution of lactase persistence in European populations (clearly a post-agriculture development, probably as a reaction to dairy farming). But there is no evidence at all that our psychology has evolved since the rise of the first civilizations (about 6,000 years ago) in a way that would have any influence on which political systems would be most effective. It's our systems that are changing to better suite the brains we have. It isn't our brains changing to allow us to use better systems.

This part really makes no sense to me.  How can physiological and social evolution be disconnected from psychological evolution?  We know we have seen significant physical evolution over the last 10k years - eg our brains are smaller.  We also have seen dramatic social evolution with the creation of complex societies to sustain much larger populations than we were ever designed for.  We have seen macro-social evolutions such as the introduction of monotheistic religions and ideologies on a global scale.  And we have seen micro-social evolutions in areas such as male-female pairings.  And yet we somehow have had our psychologies existing in glorious isolation from all this change?

I have always found this "frozen psychology" argument weak.  I can accept that we are living with our "firmware" from 50k year ago but our software is evolving constantly.  It is what makes us such an adaptable species. 

https://hbr.org/1998/07/how-hardwired-is-human-behavior

Regardless, your point on "our systems changing to better suite our brains" is inconsistent and illogical.  If our brains are truly locked into a 6000BC chassis, then any and all systems we develop are beyond that are by default less-optimal.  We had the best systems for our brains before the emergence of agrarian civilization...and by your argument, our brains prove it.  We have been coping with unnatural social realities ever since.

 

Edited April 18 by The_Capt

[sburke]

5 hours ago, JonS said:

I mean ... I think that's a joke? But with MT "Empty" Greene (proud veteran of the Bowling Green Massacre) it's really really hard to be sure. That is bat**** enough to have actually leaked out of her ears.

 

Edit: oh FFS. Those really were among the proposals she submitted

She blamed Jewish Space lasers for CA fires.  She hasn't gotten crazier, she is just returning to her normal level of crazy.

[The_Capt]

32 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

I actually think the jury is in. Loads of countries other than the US are democracies. It's obvious at this point that there are much better implementations of democracy than the US system (downsides of being first). But almost universally, people living in democracies (including the US) are better off than people living in autocracies. Democracies do collapse and revert to autocracies (and it feels like the US is currently skirting the danger zone on that). But autocracies also collapse and become democracies. And so far it appears that autocracies collapse at a higher rate than democracies. The overall trend so far appears to be towards greater democratization.

And on this one, the data really does not support:

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-the-state-of-global-democracy-2022/

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/how-many-people-live-in-a-political-democracy-today/

Now taking a big picture we are definitely in an era of experimentation:

https://ourworldindata.org/democracy

But those lines are looking downward. 

Edited April 18 by The_Capt

[sburke]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

because the toilette backs up every so often.  He really doesn't understand the ramifications of what he's advocating for. 

Steve

"toilette"? Hmm sounds like you've sent a little too much time with your Poutine friends.

[Centurian52]

17 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

This part really makes no sense to me.  How can physiological and social evolution be disconnected from psychological evolution?  We know we have seen significant physical evolution over the last 10k years - eg our brains are smaller.  We also have seen dramatic social evolution with the creation of complex societies to sustain much larger populations than we were ever designed for.  We have seen macro-social evolutions such as the introduction of monotheistic religions and ideologies on a global scale.  And we have seen micro-social evolutions in areas such as male-female pairings.  And yet we somehow have had our psychologies existing in glorious isolation from all this change?

   

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.

Edited April 18 by Centurian52

[Ultradave]

7 minutes ago, sburke said:

She blamed Jewish Space lasers for CA fires.  She hasn't gotten crazier, she is just returning to her normal level of crazy.

She made some comment about previously supporting space lasers for Israel's defense. Not sure what that's in reference to, but I think it was not the same as the CA fires lasers. But hey, who knows what she's talking about? I'm sure she doesn't even know, really.

The fear I have is that now that Speaker Johnson has divided up the aid and humanitarian packages to be voted on separately, he'll get the aid for Israel done, and then after that passes renege on even voting for the Ukraine aid and possibly the humanitarian aid for Gaza in order to save his job, regardless of what he says he plans to do. 

I read a suggestion this morning that other (saner, more responsible) Republicans should play Rep. Greene's game. "Hold a vote on Ukraine aid, which WILL pass with wide support, or else we'll fill a motion to vacate the Speaker." At least then the aid would pass, and it's because the majority demanded action, not a cabal of 2-8 (depending on day of the week) dictating to 435 Representatives their own personal agenda for the whole country. 

Dave

 

[The_Capt]

4 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

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.

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

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-has-human-brain-evolved/#:~:text=With some evolutionary irony%2C the,important driver of this trend.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2023.1191274/full#:~:text=Von Bonin (1934) wrote%2C,smaller than Pleistocene hominin crania.

I do not think one can divorce psychological, physical and social evolution.  Again, I think our firmware has been relatively static but our software had changed dramatically.  Physically we have undergone dramatic shifts in caloric intake and exposure to diseases - one of the major evolutions over the last 10k years is a resistance to malaria.  As to why they have been shrinking...there does not seem to be widely accepted agreement.

Then there is the sticky issue of epigenetic impacts:

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

Regardless, the underlying point is still valid - we have never tried a political power sharing system at the scope and scale of the US, as imperfect as its democracy is.  At no time in history has this many people from a single collective construct ever tried this before.  There is no guarantees that it will work any more than communism in the Soviet Union.  Now this could be a factor of social evolution, but if you are indeed correct in that we really are not physically or psychologically evolving fast enough, then a social evolution on this scale may simply be doomed.  

In fact one could say that large scale human civilization is in itself a large scale experiment of only around 7000 short years.  It may also be doomed, we just do not know it yet.  Or conversely, perhaps humans need a burst of artificial evolution (eg AI) to allow these larger social constructs to work. 

[Centurian52]

13 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Regardless, the underlying point is still valid - we have never tried a political power sharing system at the scope and scale of the US, as imperfect as its democracy is.  At no time in history has this many people from a single collective construct ever tried this before.  There is no guarantees that it will work any more than communism in the Soviet Union.  Now this could be a factor of social evolution, but if you are indeed correct in that we really are not physically or psychologically evolving fast enough, then a social evolution on this scale may simply be doomed.  

In fact one could say that large scale human civilization is in itself a large scale experiment of only around 7000 short years.  It may also be doomed, we just do not know it yet.  Or conversely, perhaps humans need a burst of artificial evolution (eg AI) to allow these larger social constructs to work. 

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.

[sburke]

48 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

but if you are indeed correct in that we really are not physically or psychologically evolving fast enough, then a social evolution on this scale may simply be doomed.  

In fact one could say that large scale human civilization is in itself a large scale experiment of only around 7000 short years.  It may also be doomed, we just do not know it yet.  Or conversely, perhaps humans need a burst of artificial evolution (eg AI) to allow these larger social constructs to work. 

you guys are just a fountain of good vibes today!  Freakin glad I am already retired, and my life expectancy is such that I may be long dead before humanity implodes.

[Holien]

15 minutes ago, sburke said:

my life expectancy is such that I may be long dead before humanity implodes

Don't be so sure...

[FancyCat]

This reactive policy to Ukraine by the West is actually past time to end. Pledges of munitions and equipment must no longer be reactive, like closing the barn door after it burned down. No more dallying on vehicles. Bradleys, M113s, M1s, strip everything possible from NATO, and send it to Ukraine. How can we expect the Ukrainian soldier to fight and win when we can’t even be bothered to send some more m113s? 

past time to equip it with long range missiles. The question we have now, should not be, “what does Ukraine need the most?” It should be, what can Ukraine use now and in the future, and start making it now and shipping it now.

at this point, it’s clear Russia does not have will to negotiate, therefore, the prior reactive aid to Ukraine is now a failure, and only signaling to Russia that it can outlast the West. 

[Centurian52]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

And on this one, the data really does not support:

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-the-state-of-global-democracy-2022/

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/how-many-people-live-in-a-political-democracy-today/

Now taking a big picture we are definitely in an era of experimentation:

https://ourworldindata.org/democracy

But those lines are looking downward. 

Alright, I had to restart my browser in order to open these links for some reason. I'm not seeing the downward lines you're referring to. In fact these all look pretty darn upwards to me. We are in the middle of a dip starting ~15 years ago. But dips and rises are pretty normal on any graph, and I don't think there's any reason to think that this one is any more significant than the dips in democratization at the end of the 19th century, in the 20s-40s, or in the 60s and 70s (anyone living in the 20s-40s with access to a similar graph really would have had good reason to be pessimistic about the future of democracy). My guess is that it'll continue going down for another decade or two and then either level off or start rising again, just like the last three dips. Let's check back on this in 20 years.

[Battlefront.com]

Interview with Budanov.  Nothing really new here, just a good piece reminding people that Ukraine isn't beaten and won't be:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/04/17/kyrylo-budanov-ukraine-general-russia-war-attacks/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F3d6ca95%2F661ff4242d43a25434edb2be%2F5b6a1f5bade4e277958a3cb5%2F13%2F52%2F661ff4242d43a25434edb2be

Steve

[Centurian52]

And a quick follow up with an article talking about the recent dip in democratization.: https://ourworldindata.org/less-democratic

This bit seems to be the core of what the article is saying. I've added some bold.

Quote

Democracy is in decline, whether we look at big changes in the number of democracies and the people living in them; at small changes in the extent of democratic rights; or at medium-sized changes in the number of, and people living in, countries that are autocratizing.2

The extent of this decline is substantial, but it is also uncertain and limited. We can see it clearly across democracy metrics: the world has fallen from all-time democratic highs to a level similar to earlier decades. But the extent of this decline depends on which democracy measure we use. And it is limited in the sense that the world remains much more democratic than it was even half a century ago.

Finally, the recent democratic decline is precedented, and past declines were reversed. The world underwent phases of autocratization in the 1930s and again in the 1960s and 1970s. Back then, people fought to turn the tide, and pushed democratic rights to unprecedented heights. We can do the same again.

 

[The_Capt]

32 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

Alright, I had to restart my browser in order to open these links for some reason. I'm not seeing the downward lines you're referring to. In fact these all look pretty darn upwards to me. We are in the middle of a dip starting ~15 years ago. But dips and rises are pretty normal on any graph, and I don't think there's any reason to think that this one is any more significant than the dips in democratization at the end of the 19th century, in the 20s-40s, or in the 60s and 70s (anyone living in the 20s-40s with access to a similar graph really would have had good reason to be pessimistic about the future of democracy). My guess is that it'll continue going down for another decade or two and then either level off or start rising again, just like the last three dips. Let's check back on this in 20 years.

Any chance you actually looked at the the other refs:

This has been about a 20 year trend depending on how one measures "democracy".  Your stated point was:

"I actually think the jury is in. Loads of countries other than the US are democracies. It's obvious at this point that there are much better implementations of democracy than the US system (downsides of being first). But almost universally, people living in democracies (including the US) are better off than people living in autocracies. Democracies do collapse and revert to autocracies (and it feels like the US is currently skirting the danger zone on that). But autocracies also collapse and become democracies. And so far it appears that autocracies collapse at a higher rate than democracies. The overall trend so far appears to be towards greater democratization."

1.  There is at best around 8 percent of the planet with true liberal democracies.  And democracy is not in the majority by any stretch.

2.  Democracies are not on the rise, they are in fact in decline and have been for some time.  Liberal democracies have been on decline for nearly 20 years.  Flawed democracies - like India and Pakistan - are also starting to decline.

More bluntly put...the data does not match your initial opinion/position - which now seems to have shifted to "sure we are in a decline but can recover as we have in the past". 

Sure we might see a surge in democracies globally but likely not if the US continues a downward spiral.  We definitely saw a Post-Cold War bump but the party appears to be over.  This is why this war is an important test and has a lot at stake.

[cesmonkey]

I'm believe that this Trump Truth Social post, that Matt Gaetz appears to be misconstruing, is also very wrong on the facts:
 

 

[The_Capt]

4 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

And a quick follow up with an article talking about the recent dip in democratization.: https://ourworldindata.org/less-democratic

This bit seems to be the core of what the article is saying. I've added some bold.

 

Ok if we are going to play "pick the data"  then using the same chart democracy is a fad as of about 1850.  We are just as likely to fall back into complete autocracies which have dominated human political affairs for millennia.  Why can't autocracy recover in the long game if democracy can in the short?

In reality this is kinda silly.  It is clear democracy around the world is under strain.  We have no guarantees it will work and my original point stands - we have abandoned democracy in the past (see Roman Empire) and we are at risk of doing it in the future if we do not protect it.  I so not subscribe to the "it will be ok...because reasons" school of human affairs.  Pulling it back to the subject of this thread, we are facing a test for modern democracy right now in this war and the USA is at the forefront.  I honestly hope that democracy prevails but within the US right now some of those charged with protecting it are in fact attacking it.  They are attacking it by "proving" (engineering really) that democracy is weaker in "getting things done."  They are doing so to re-wire how power is distributed in the US and by extension globally.

    

[Centurian52]

4 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Any chance you actually looked at the the other refs:

This has been about a 20 year trend depending on how one measures "democracy".  Your stated point was:

"I actually think the jury is in. Loads of countries other than the US are democracies. It's obvious at this point that there are much better implementations of democracy than the US system (downsides of being first). But almost universally, people living in democracies (including the US) are better off than people living in autocracies. Democracies do collapse and revert to autocracies (and it feels like the US is currently skirting the danger zone on that). But autocracies also collapse and become democracies. And so far it appears that autocracies collapse at a higher rate than democracies. The overall trend so far appears to be towards greater democratization."

1.  There is at best around 8 percent of the planet with true liberal democracies.  And democracy is not in the majority by any stretch.

2.  Democracies are not on the rise, they are in fact in decline and have been for some time.  Liberal democracies have been on decline for nearly 20 years.  Flawed democracies - like India and Pakistan - are also starting to decline.

More bluntly put...the data does not match your initial opinion/position - which now seems to have shifted to "sure we are in a decline but can recover as we have in the past". 

Sure we might see a surge in democracies globally but likely not if the US continues a downward spiral.  We definitely saw a Post-Cold War bump but the party appears to be over.  This is why this war is an important test and has a lot at stake.

Yes, I did take a look at the other links. The part of my point that is in question here is "The overall trend so far appears to be towards greater democratization". And I stand by that. I don't think a 20 year decline constitutes a trend in democratization any more than a one year decline represents a trend in the stock market. When you zoom out the overall trend is still clearly upwards.

[Centurian52]

5 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

I'm believe that this Trump Truth Social post, that Matt Gaetz appears to be misconstruing, is also very wrong on the facts:
 

 

I recall ISW pointing out a couple months ago that while the US is the largest single doner (and Ukraine does desperately need the US to resume donating), Europe overall has donated more than the US. I think it was something like $160-$170 billion.