How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

33 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

And they somehow survived 500 years of basically uninterrupted statehood in this way (minus several years in XVIIth and XXth century). As much as repulsing their polity is, don't you folks think there must be something more beneath it than pure coercion and yeasts of imperialism?

I think we are talking about two different things here. You try to prove (effecively) that Russia is in bad shape economically and partly politically, which make it vulnerable to political turmoil. I talk about identities, sense of nationhood and continuity of state builded around it...in longue duree  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longue_durée  (sorry for snobbish term). It is by definition harder to find valuable data on soft issues in country like that. There is entire, relatively new  literature in english alone on the subject of "who is Russian" if you like to look for it:

https://academic.oup.com/book/12447

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/two-books-modern-russian-identity

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/national-identity-in-russian-culture/DB6E1D4E93213ECFDA2B6FB06067F005

https://www.amazon.com/Identity-Formation-Russian-Speaking-Populations-Politics/dp/0801484952

+ curiosity:

https://www.levada.ru/en/2024/06/21/emigration-sentiments-and-attitudes-towards-people-who-left-russia-march-2024/

None of these books seriously consider that state may suddenly stop to function and therefore people stop being Russians,  turning country into Mad Max. And that is how I read all those, very popular in anglosphere and partially also here, visions of "Fall", "Collapse" or "Implosion" of muscovy. People all too often imagine this potential catastrophy literally, expecting endgame like in Syria, Libya or other failed states- that means, that Russian polity stop to be one.

I gave you reasons why they were different, where is whataboutism here? Comparing Iraq to Russia is, sorry to say, not very reasonable given massive cultural differences alone. Also I don't see what revolution was in Russia in '89-91, when literally three older gentlemen (Jelcyn, Shuchkievich and Kravczuk) decided to dissolve Soyuz during their winter holidays after external, non-Russian Republics and satellites started to secede. Poland, Ukraine, Baltics, Belarus, Romania...non of these (except unfortunate Belarus) are now within their borders or under Russia influence to help it implode.

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

Issue of ethinc diversity we disucussed before many times. Russia may have even 50 languages, doesn't matter that much as long as they are all Russkije. Btw.: do you know any serious independence national organizations there? Who is Russian candidate for Catalonia? Any ETA/IRA type sentiments for country of Mari El or Republic of Komi? Except for those two small Caucasian republics we talked about many times. For me it looks like pretty self- concious and coherent nation overall; even too much:

https://www.russiamatters.org/blog/levada-poll-12-russians-support-idea-russia-russians-about-15-would-not-let-chinese-ukrainians

This is probably correct observation, though I am not sure if different national schools exists. Rather different levels of experiencing Russia, if you know what I mean (there are fantastic Russia experts in the West too, nobody denies that).

Whatever the case, I still think we have all right to ask questions about rationale behind this or that White House decision making. Especially that, in case Orange Guy wins, we have maybe 2-3 months of relatively rational discussions about it left.

Hold on…you do see the inherent cognitive trap here?  If you wish to dismiss all the other factors and boil it down to “Russian identity”? The problem here is that Russian identity appears to be whatever anyone wants. It is not an objectively measured metric.  On this board we have Russian identity as:

- Apathetic, heads down and filled with inertia so long as it doesn’t happen in one’s own back yard.

- Ruled by fear.  So long as there is a strongman ruling by that fear - Russians will stick together.

- Strong centralized nationalism (your angle), Built on centuries Russia has a strong identity that transcends external intervention, internal social instability factors and economic strain.

- Bloodthirsty expansionist, that must dominate its neighbours to feel complete.  A need to be a great power in order to hold itself together.

The reason why Russia and Iran can be compared is that in the end they are all people.  Culture and identity are definitely a factor but they do not trump the objective factors of basic human survival that impact how stable a society can be. A society with a strong culture and identity may endure longer and worse, but it is not immune to social breakdowns.  No society on the planet is immune to going “Mad Max”, the difference is the distance, not the destination.

So how far is Russia from it? Well based on subjective metrics they are moving towards a cliff…and accelerating.  I disagree on Russia previous collapses being irrelevant.  The fall of the Soviet Union was not because three old men had a meeting, it was years of internal and external pressures.  Russia itself in 1991:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_coup_attempt

Or was this all for show? And then this little whoopsie in 93:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis

A nasty financial crash 5 years later:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Russian_financial_crisis

Let’s toss in two wars in Chechnya and one in Georgia, a bunch of terrorism based on some pretty nasty internal lines. I mean seriously how can you hold onto a position that this is a strong stable state based on something as ethereal as “identity”?

I welcome questions and everyone is welcome to ask them, we should be asking them. But we cannot let the answer we want to hear, become the answer. I am not saying Russia is fragile because I want to somehow dial back on domestic frictions. I am saying Russia is fragile…because it is f#cking fragile. Your position is right next to the “Russia has no red lines”.  If Russia is un-collapsible and has no red lines..well then logically we should be actively pounding on them with NATO forces until they leave Ukraine…mischief managed.

But the major problem is that if you are wrong, and in my opinion both of those positions are very wrong, then we are taking some serious risks that could make things much worse for Ukraine and the region as a whole…if not the whole world.  I for one am not comfortable with taking these kind of risks based on soft squishy factors like “Russian identity and culture”. Especially with the history that nation has had in the last 100 years or so (hell the last 35 would be enough).  This is as bad as “Russia has no red lines because they ain’t blown up the world yet” logic.

So we can go round and round on this - “Russia is never going to fail” “Yes it will”.  But the simple fact is that “Russian can fail” and being stuck in a really costly losing war with a strongman pin head who is looking a lot less strong, while his cronies still run rampant with corruption…is not a recipe for a stable state. I have said this from the beginning, no small part of this mess is trying to engineer a Russian loss, just enough.

 

 

[LongLeftFlank]

58 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Hold on…you do see the inherent cognitive trap here?  If you wish to dismiss all the other factors and boil it down to “Russian identity”? The problem here is that Russian identity appears to be whatever anyone wants. It is not an objectively measured metric.  On this board we have Russian identity as:

- Apathetic, heads down and filled with inertia so long as it doesn’t happen in one’s own back yard.

- Ruled by fear.  So long as there is a strongman ruling by that fear - Russians will stick together.

- Strong centralized nationalism (your angle), Built on centuries Russia has a strong identity that transcends external intervention, internal social instability factors and economic strain.

- Bloodthirsty expansionist, that must dominate its neighbours to feel complete.  A need to be a great power in order to hold itself together.

The reason why Russia and Iran can be compared is that in the end they are all people.  Culture and identity are definitely a factor but they do not trump the objective factors of basic human survival that impact how stable a society can be. A society with a strong culture and identity may endure longer and worse, but it is not immune to social breakdowns.  No society on the planet is immune to going “Mad Max”, the difference is the distance, not the destination.

So how far is Russia from it? Well based on subjective metrics they are moving towards a cliff…and accelerating.  I disagree on Russia previous collapses being irrelevant.  The fall of the Soviet Union was not because three old men had a meeting, it was years of internal and external pressures.  Russia itself in 1991:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Soviet_coup_attempt

Or was this all for show? And then this little whoopsie in 93:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Russian_constitutional_crisis

A nasty financial crash 5 years later:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Russian_financial_crisis

Let’s toss in two wars in Chechnya and one in Georgia, a bunch of terrorism based on some pretty nasty internal lines. I mean seriously how can you hold onto a position that this is a strong stable state based on something as ethereal as “identity”?

I welcome questions and everyone is welcome to ask them, we should be asking them. But we cannot let the answer we want to hear, become the answer. I am not saying Russia is fragile because I want to somehow dial back on domestic frictions. I am saying Russia is fragile…because it is f#cking fragile. Your position is right next to the “Russia has no red lines”.  If Russia is un-collapsible and has no red lines..well then logically we should be actively pounding on them with NATO forces until they leave Ukraine…mischief managed.

But the major problem is that if you are wrong, and in my opinion both of those positions are very wrong, then we are taking some serious risks that could make things much worse for Ukraine and the region as a whole…if not the whole world.  I for one am not comfortable with taking these kind of risks based on soft squishy factors like “Russian identity and culture”. Especially with the history that nation has had in the last 100 years or so (hell the last 35 would be enough).  This is as bad as “Russia has no red lines because they ain’t blown up the world yet” logic.

So we can go round and round on this - “Russia is never going to fail” “Yes it will”.  But the simple fact is that “Russian can fail” and being stuck in a really costly losing war with a strongman pin head who is looking a lot less strong, while his cronies still run rampant with corruption…is not a recipe for a stable state. I have said this from the beginning, no small part of this mess is trying to engineer a Russian loss, just enough.

 

 

I must say I lean towards @Beleg85 in this quarrel, while appreciating your sense of the risks. 

Russians do have a pretty strong sense of 'Russianness', compounded by the fact that (like us in the Americas) they've colonised the majority of today's 'Russia' in the last 2 centuries, displacing or absorbing the indigenes.

That said, however....

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.--That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. 

.... It may therefore be that such very much self-identified culturally 'Russian' societies as Kuban and Novgorod decide that they've had a bellyful of 'absolute despotism' from Moscow -- by then effectively a satrapy to the Throne of Heaven in Beijing! -- and that they are better off going their own way (presumably as part of the European confederation, especially when a victorious postwar Ukraine proves to be thriving).

So you would tell them:  sorry kids, you must groan under Moscow's misrule forevermore, cuz loose nukes?

Edited August 22 by LongLeftFlank

[billbindc]

Perhaps it's worth pointing out that Russia doesn't need to fail as a concept, a thus far fairly durable central polity, etc. It just needs to fail as currently constituted for Ukraine to win. Essentially the only really dangerous collapse is a complete one. 

[photon]

Just now, billbindc said:

Essentially the only really dangerous collapse is a complete one. 

Or, I'd suggest, a first century Roman style blowup. We think of societies as being horizontally organized and stratified, but modern Russia (from my limited reading) seems like a more vertically stratified society with oligarch-led power blocks and fiefdoms? If you got five or six oligarchs all making plays for the capital and crown, that's a nasty brew.

The breakup might not be territorial, but factional?

[photon]

Another question I've been thinking about: does the incursion into Kursk offer Ukraine opportunities to insert SOF into Russia proper? How porous was the border and for how long? What SOF teams and targets would produce the most change in the decision space?

[LongLeftFlank]

4 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Perhaps it's worth pointing out that Russia doesn't need to fail as a concept, a thus far fairly durable central polity, etc. It just needs to fail as currently constituted for Ukraine to win. Essentially the only really dangerous collapse is a complete one. 

But what's a 'partial collapse?' Is it gangs of thugs with Kalashnikovs and pornstaches a la 1993?

That's really what I'm trying to challenge here.

We Westerners are all somewhat shaped by the 1990s tribal wars in the Balkans, as well as the Middle Eastern stanbox tribalism that sadly goes on to this day. Especially those who served there.

It is as plain as daylight to me that the best future of Eastern Europe, including whatever parts of Greater Slavdom can evade Moscow f***ery, lies in becoming the high tech manufacturing core of a revitalised and more self-sufficient European Union. (Nobody in their right mind should intend to keep buying their essential material wants from China, at least not as presently governed).

So that's going to be EXTREMELY attractive to polities presently within the orbit of Moscow. And yet the Western strategists are saying, tough crap, you poor bastards all get to stay behind the Iron Curtain because we only trust whatever clique sits in the Kremlin to keep us all from nuclear annihilation.

Sorry, I really find that very Kissingeresque (and @billbindc I think you are well aware of what I think of Henry)

[billbindc]

7 minutes ago, photon said:

Or, I'd suggest, a first century Roman style blowup. We think of societies as being horizontally organized and stratified, but modern Russia (from my limited reading) seems like a more vertically stratified society with oligarch-led power blocks and fiefdoms? If you got five or six oligarchs all making plays for the capital and crown, that's a nasty brew.

The breakup might not be territorial, but factional?

It is very important to understand that the oligarchs, as understood to be the industrialists and opportunists who grabbed large sectors of the Russian economy after the collapse of the USSR are now either dead, driven into exile or reduced to occasional contributions from the sidelines (see: Deripaska, Oleg). The big Russian power players are mostly of the lineage of the Leningrad KGB and/or other former security service members who managed to attach themselves to Putin's rising star. 

That's important because while power struggles exist, they all share many common interests. Prigozhin's jaunt is an excellent example. Many were willing to stand aside...including the head of the Rosgvardia...until the prospect of actual popular unrest looked possible and/or Prigozhin *who was an outsider to that group* looked like he might actually seize a share of power. 

So yes, we should be concerned about a complete collapse but at the same time we should understand that a full bore violent civil war is unlikely. 

[photon]

2 minutes ago, billbindc said:

The big Russian power players are mostly of the lineage of the Leningrad KGB and/or other former security service members who managed to attach themselves to Putin's rising star. 

Agree that oligarch's was a badly chosen word. The folks you describe here are the folks I was thinking of as heads of power verticals. If Putin's rising star falls, how do the power verticals below him resolve that vacuum?

Agree that it wouldn't be a full bore civil war 1860s America style. But what would the internal power competition look like, and how violent would it get? To what extent are there large bodies of armed men whose primary loyalty is not to the state (in the abstract) but to the leader of a power vertical? Prigozhin appeared to have commanded the loyalty of a smallish (?) body of skilled armed men, not enough to seize a share of power, as you note. Does anyone have a claim on a larger and better resourced group? Are there good sociopolitical sources that are grappling with that?

[billbindc]

6 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

But what's a 'partial collapse?' Is it gangs of thugs with Kalashnikovs and pornstaches a la 1993?

That's really what I'm trying to challenge here.

We Westerners are all somewhat shaped by the 1990s tribal wars in the Balkans, as well as the Middle Eastern stanbox tribalism that sadly goes on to this day. Especially those who served there.

It is as plain as daylight to me that the best future of Eastern Europe, including whatever parts of Greater Slavdom can evade Moscow f***ery, lies in becoming the high tech manufacturing core of a revitalised and more self-sufficient European Union. (Nobody in their right mind should intend to keep buying their essential material wants from China, at least not as presently governed).

So that's going to be EXTREMELY attractive to polities presently within the orbit of Moscow. And yet the Western strategists are saying, tough crap, you poor bastards all get to stay behind the Iron Curtain because we only trust whatever clique sits in the Kremlin to keep us all from nuclear annihilation.

Sorry, I really find that very Kissingeresque (and @billbindc I think you are well aware of what I think of Henry)

The likeliest outcome in Ukraine's favor is simply that Putin dies or is overthrown and the succeeding government cannot summon the will or make the demands necessary to continue the war. That would certainly lead to internal conflict from extreme nationalists, a potential Chechen exit, etc. I would argue that is almost certainly the outcome as long as Ukraine is supplied sufficiently. 

That is not a recipe for further subservience of Eastern Europe to Moscow...in fact, it likely means that Russia becomes the economic hinterland of the more successful polities to it's West. So, not Kissinger-esque at all but a cold assessment of Russian war making limitations and future demographic/economic prospects.  

[LongLeftFlank]

8 minutes ago, billbindc said:

The likeliest outcome in Ukraine's favor is simply that Putin dies or is overthrown and the succeeding government cannot summon the will or make the demands necessary to continue the war. That would certainly lead to internal conflict from extreme nationalists, a potential Chechen exit, etc. I would argue that is almost certainly the outcome as long as Ukraine is supplied sufficiently. 

That is not a recipe for further subservience of Eastern Europe to Moscow...in fact, it likely means that Russia becomes the economic hinterland of the more successful polities to it's West. So, not Kissinger-esque at all but a cold assessment of Russian war making limitations and future demographic/economic prospects.  

But just to be clear, I'm talking about major Russian cities and oblasts that are adjacent to the Eurozone (including Baltics and Ukraine):  Rostov, Novgorod, maybe even Kursk/Belgorod. Karelia.

Hell, maybe St. Petersburg gets sick of being second city to Moscow, with Chinese tech bros swarming all over, buying up the nice mansions but not paying any tribute to the local barons, etc.

...Again, this isn't about pornstaches and AKs, and smuggling cigarettes or heroin or whatever else gangstas did back in the day. *Real* money is involved here, postwar.

[billbindc]

3 minutes ago, photon said:

Agree that oligarch's was a badly chosen word. The folks you describe here are the folks I was thinking of as heads of power verticals. If Putin's rising star falls, how do the power verticals below him resolve that vacuum?

Agree that it wouldn't be a full bore civil war 1860s America style. But what would the internal power competition look like, and how violent would it get? To what extent are there large bodies of armed men whose primary loyalty is not to the state (in the abstract) but to the leader of a power vertical? Prigozhin appeared to have commanded the loyalty of a smallish (?) body of skilled armed men, not enough to seize a share of power, as you note. Does anyone have a claim on a larger and better resourced group? Are there good sociopolitical sources that are grappling with that?

Unless things come really unstuck (i.e. 1930's style economic collapse) leading to a mass popular uprising, the resolution of a power conflict or vacuum will look like a mafia fight more than a civil war. Each of the power players control not just a measure of kinetic power but also an economic/financial base. The loyalty of those beneath them relies to a greater degree on the ability to continue to control the money that feeds them all. If everyone is shooting at everyone else, that becomes impossible. 

[billbindc]

6 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

But just to be clear, I'm talking about major Russian cities and oblasts that are adjacent to the Eurozone (including Baltics and Ukraine):  Rostov, Novgorod, maybe even Kursk/Belgorod. Karelia.

Hell, maybe St. Petersburg gets sick of being second city to Moscow, with Chinese tech bros swarming all over, buying up the nice mansions but not paying any tribute to the local barons, etc.

...Again, this isn't about pornstaches and AKs, and smuggling cigarettes or heroin or whatever else gangstas did back in the day. *Real* money is involved here, postwar.

I can see that happening...and it's one possible version of collapse.

[kimbosbread]

1 hour ago, LongLeftFlank said:

It is as plain as daylight to me that the best future of Eastern Europe, including whatever parts of Greater Slavdom can evade Moscow f***ery, lies in becoming the high tech manufacturing core of a revitalised and more self-sufficient European Union. (Nobody in their right mind should intend to keep buying their essential material wants from China, at least not as presently governed).

Yes and no. Yes, in the ideal world. No, in that they simply don’t have the demographics. Western Russia does not in fact ****.

Ukraine lest we forget is in a similarly bad demographic hole compared to Russia, and even if the entire Foreign Legion take it upon themselves to procreate in an epic Paraguayan fashion, it still likely won’t make up the difference.

The west’s ideal case is basically letting young western Russian families with minimum two children immigrate, and everybody else can go hand out with Winnie the Flu and be old.

[FancyCat]

Quote

Ukrainian attack drones mounted a large strike into Russia tonight, with multiple explosions, smoke and flames seen rising from Oktyabrskoye Airfield in Volgograd Oblast.

Local sources report at least 12 explosions near the Russian airbase.

"Video from Kalachevsky district which was subjected to a massive drone attack today"

Smoke and flames rising from Oktyabrskoye Airbase, Russia.

POV (48.653178, 43.790799)

 

[LongLeftFlank]

3 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

Yes and no. Yes, in the ideal world. No, in that they simply don’t have the demographics. Western Russia does not in fact ****.

Ukraine lest we forget is in a similarly bad demographic hole compared to Russia, and even if the entire Foreign Legion take it upon themselves to procreate in an epic Paraguayan fashion, it still likely won’t make up the difference.

The west’s ideal case is basically letting young western Russian families with minimum two children immigrate, and everybody else can go hand out with Winnie the Flu and be old.

But we aren't just talking about Foxconnn assembly lines or sweatshops requiring massive pools of unskilled labour. The Europeans will source most of that low skill wok in Africa anyway, or wherever labour is cheap and pliable.

The Ukrainians have shown themselves to be born mechanics, improvisers and tinkerers, and unafraid of math. Even an 'aging' population base of 30-40 million can develop and run increasingly automated factories powered by renewables backstopped by nuclear, so long as the society and infra is reliable. Decent jobs, not brilliant pay for most, but stable and you don't have to emigrate.

I'll let our European compadres chime in here, but these jobs (and the factories themselves) don't seem to be wanted in Old Europe today; e.g. as best I can tell, all the cable guys in Spain where my kid is living now are Romanians and Ukies. The native Spaniards either join the financialised private/corp sector or else work for the government. Plus, power prices, regulation, etc.

So there's an enormous potential opening for greenfield projects and facilities in the East, bricks and mortar and infra, as well as labour. Yes, corrupt local officials can bollix it up of course; I see that a lot out here in Asia.

[kimbosbread]

10 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

But we aren't just talking about Foxconnn assembly lines or sweatshops requiring massive pools of unskilled labour. The Europeans will source most of that low skill wok in Africa anyway, or wherever labour is cheap and pliable.

The Ukrainians have shown themselves to be born mechanics, improvisers and tinkerers, and unafraid of math. Even an 'aging' population base of 30-40 million can develop and run increasingly automated factories powered by renewables backstopped by nuclear, so long as the society and infra is reliable. Decent jobs, not brilliant pay for most, but stable and you don't have to emigrate.

Yeah, but it’s tough if there’s one worker for each retiree, unless you can somehow get the old people to dissappear. Even in places that are productive and efficient, that ratio is terrifying. And the old people vote more.

10 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

The native Spaniards either join the financialised private/corp sector or else work for the government. Plus, power prices, regulation, etc.

Or leave. I’ve seriously considered moving to Spain, but the 3% wealth tax is killer and basically prevents wealth being accumulated, similar to the tax mess NL have.

The death of all these schemes in Europe and Asia is the US having rational immigration policy: Are you smart, hard working, lucky (roll 10 sixes) or good looking? You get in. The US siphons off the best young people in the world, and the world gets old otherwise.

Speaking of, any advice for financial diversification with shrinking populations and the US getting good immigrants? Should I buy a villa in Zurich as a hedge?

[LongLeftFlank]

35 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

Yeah, but it’s tough if there’s one worker for each retiree, unless you can somehow get the old people to dissappear. Even in places that are productive and efficient, that ratio is terrifying. And the old people vote more.

Or leave. I’ve seriously considered moving to Spain, but the 3% wealth tax is killer and basically prevents wealth being accumulated, similar to the tax mess NL have.

The death of all these schemes in Europe and Asia is the US having rational immigration policy: Are you smart, hard working, lucky (roll 10 sixes) or good looking? You get in. The US siphons off the best young people in the world, and the world gets old otherwise.

Speaking of, any advice for financial diversification with shrinking populations and the US getting good immigrants? Should I buy a villa in Zurich as a hedge?

I dunno, I'm personally lucky enough to base in Southeast Asia and have family and friends in North America and now, Europe, as well as steady work that's location independent and tax efficient . So I'm not a typical citizen.

Good point on the Ukrainian oldsters though.

I know I sound a bit Pollyannish, but I am looking for a Thailand-Japan model where the German Mittelstand and its EU counterparts, having shut off China entirely, sets up a new greenfield base postwar in the open spaces of Ukraine, atop massive state subsidies for rebuilding, demining, etc. That flood of money buys the support of the local pols. Thailand is still pretty corrupt, but it has put certain boxes around it now and business gets done quite normally and ordinary people live pretty well (Just don't say anything bad about the King).

Now initially, it's probably just migrants sneaking over from Russia to sweep floors of these new Ukrainian plants, or dance in their strip clubs (the best form of reparations lol).

But per my earlier posts, I could readily see Russian provinces like Kuban saying screw this, we want out of the rusting old Muscovite gas station. It would be even more glaring if, say, Georgia came into the EU. And Turkiye continued to do well as a self-ruled adjacent developed economy.

So the Grand Strategists preaching 'stability of Russia at all costs' need to think through what they're saying, and whether it's really as pragmatic as it sounds in the abstract.

'The right to self determination' went from a founding pillar of the United Nations to something of a horror show in the 1990s ('freedom' to 'free' ourselves from those scumbag Bosniaks/Kurds/Tutsi, etc.). But it doesn't make the principles Jefferson penned so eloquently back in the day go away.

Edited August 22 by LongLeftFlank

[Battlefront.com]

I wonder if Ukraine did a distracting attack directly at Moscow that allowed the attack on Murmansk to succeed.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukraine-targets-moscow-in-massive-drone-attack-one-of-largest-since-war-began/ar-AA1pcfSF

Report from Ukraine press that Russians continue to surrender in significant numbers:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukrainian-armed-forces-report-positive-results-regarding-prisoners-in-kursk-region/ar-AA1pd0IL?cvid=5d4d942d48314c4da917bb0e5228cd55&ei=41

Don't mind the Times of India pro-Russian propaganda feed if you see it

And lastly, another Russian general, also with ties to logistics, dies of "heart failure":

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-logistics-general-dies-in-front-of-family/ar-AA1pbu3L?cvid=5d4d942d48314c4da917bb0e5228cd55&ei=38

Steve

[Fenris]

This is a good one from Darth Putin

Quote

West: “You can’t use our weapons over border with Russia!”

Ukraine: “Fine. We’ll move border”

 

[FancyCat]

Quote

NASA's FIRMS fire monitoring systems shows multiple fires at Russia's Marinovka Air Base in Volgograd Oblast after a successful Ukrainian drone attack earlier tonight. Explosions, smoke and flames were seen rising from the airfield.

 

[Eug85]

7 hours ago, FancyCat said:

Unless your reference to "drowning in blood" include dropping out of WWI and making a separate peace with Germany, you should explain how you think Nicholas II could have possibly held his throne by "drowning in blood" anyone. 

The Bolsheviks concluded a separate peace with Germany in 1918. Tsar Nicholas II abdicated the throne back in 1917.

As for drowning in blood, this refers to the events of the February Revolution of 1917, when a democratically minded provisional government came to power (not the October Revolution of the same year, when the Bolsheviks seized power). The Tsar simply lacked the greed for power. A strong and aggressive ruler would have shot the demonstrators, but the Tsar loved the Russians too much to do that. He saw Russia as a liberal state like Great Britain. As we can see, Russia and liberalism are incompatible.

[Eug85]

By the way, did the forum participants notice the strange behavior of the residents of the captured territories of the Kursk region? No attempts to actively resist the Ukrainian troops. No demonstrations or protests, much less any guerrilla warfare. Most residents of the Kursk region understand and even speak Ukrainian with the Ukrainian military. They all curse Putin and are friendly towards the Ukrainian military. If we proceed from the theses that the Russians are obsessed with their imperial ideas, then why don't they want to fight for these ideas? Let's remember the events of 2022. When the Russian army invaded, it was met with demonstrations and protests in almost all populated areas. Guerrilla warfare was also actively waged. Let's remember all those Molotov cocktails. There is nothing like that in the Kursk region. Without a strong and tough ruler, 90 percent of Russians turn into apathetic and indifferent people.

[Carolus]

6 minutes ago, Eug85 said:

By the way, did the forum participants notice the strange behavior of the residents of the captured territories of the Kursk region? No attempts to actively resist the Ukrainian troops. No demonstrations or protests, much less any guerrilla warfare. Most residents of the Kursk region understand and even speak Ukrainian with the Ukrainian military. They all curse Putin and are friendly towards the Ukrainian military. If we proceed from the theses that the Russians are obsessed with their imperial ideas, then why don't they want to fight for these ideas? Let's remember the events of 2022. When the Russian army invaded, it was met with demonstrations and protests in almost all populated areas. Guerrilla warfare was also actively waged. Let's remember all those Molotov cocktails. There is nothing like that in the Kursk region. Without a strong and tough ruler, 90 percent of Russians turn into apathetic and indifferent people.

It's a special military operation to save the Ukrainian speakers in the historical Ukrainian sphere of influence.

[Offshoot]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

And lastly, another Russian general, also with ties to logistics, dies of "heart failure":

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russian-logistics-general-dies-in-front-of-family/ar-AA1pbu3L?cvid=5d4d942d48314c4da917bb0e5228cd55&ei=38

Meanwhile, General Lapin keeps on going. I'm sure Ukraine don't mind

Russian general weakened border defenses before Ukraine's Kursk incursion, WSJ reports
 

Quote

 

A Russian general dismantled a council charged with overseeing security in Russia's Kursk Oblast in the spring, weakening border defenses before Ukraine's unprecedented incursion, the Wall Street Journal reported on Aug. 21.

Citing an official in the Russian security services, the outlet said Colonel General Alexander Lapin claimed the Kremlin's military could effectively defend the border on its own.

 

I wonder if this was a sanctioned leak?

[zinz]

2 hours ago, FancyCat said:

 

Is this the new HIMARS o clock? Exploding airfields.