How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Try going against the force of culture…it is a fools errand.

You have just described "conservatism" very well.  The entire reason for its existence is to try and force the natural movement of culture ("progression" is now a complicated term to use!) away from the new and to return it, at least in theory, to the old.  Doesn't matter if we're talking about keeping the Earth as the center of the universe, maintaining slavery, keeping women in the kitchen, or which bathrooms people use.  It's organized opposition to change.  For the most part, though, it is fools errand because all they can do is delay the change, not prevent it.  Eventually those responsible for the opposition to change die off and culture moves forward again after they are dead.

My point here is that sometimes there isn't a single herd in the pasture.  And that causes problems.  Big problems.

To bring this around to the purpose of this thread, the above is the primary reason why an American right winger can say "Russia looks great!" while also at the same time saying "I support American ideals".  It's a contradiction only when viewed objectively.  When viewed emotionally, which opposition to change generally boils down to, there might be far less contradiction.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, Fernando said:

The herd is ALWAYS led by a minority (or minorities in competition) for some time, until a different minority or minorities takes control for some time. OTOH leading a herd doesn't mean owning them. You may ride the herd, use it for your purposes for a time, no matter how short or long is that time, but you never own it. Another one may make take the herd from you.

Yes.  And we see this very clearly in places like Russia.  If Putin's regime was swapped out with a pro-Western government, 75% of Russians would probably go along with it even if with reservations.  25% would absolutely do everything they could to oppose it.

Generally speaking, political scientists in the US figure Trump's core support base is about 5-10% of the US population, yet he has about 50% of the herd supporting him.  But there's another herd (see previous point).

Steve

[Centurian52]

5 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

For the most part, though, it is fools errand because all they can do is delay the change, not prevent it. 

That's a very reassuring thing to read. I actually started suspecting as much after learning about the 1848 revolutions in Europe. All crushed. Change successfully delayed. Yet the issues they were pushing for (democracy, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, etc...) would eventually come to pass anyway.

[The_Capt]

2 minutes ago, Fernando said:

1. I don't to get embroiled in a discussion. I have no time for it.
2. You are recurring to a straw man falacy. You take conclusions that are your conclusions, not mine.
3. Herds pressure some kind of people that conforms up to 75% of the population, but fortunately 25% of the people seems inmune to it.
3. Herds don't build identity. They get it from others.

Well you do seem kinda embroiled. So what do you define as a “herd” then? What social construct serves as a foundation of your “herd” concept, while I reach for straw men (which really does not apply here).

Any collective of humans are going to form an identity over time. Sea peoples, desert peoples etc. They do not “get it from others” they form it largely based on their environment. You don’t really seem to have a bead on what a herd is or is not. Your description is a blob of humans waiting around for someone to tell them what to do. This sounds cool but does not reflect reality. 

6 minutes ago, Fernando said:

The herd is ALWAYS led by a minority (or minorities in competition) for some time, until a different minority or minorities takes control for some time. OTOH leading a herd doesn't mean owning them. You may ride the herd, use it for your purposes for a time, no matter how short or long is that time, but you never own it. Another one may make take the herd from you.

Based on what? This is a definitive statement with no proof to back it up. Herds in nature have complex internal hierarchies. So in that sense, sure they are led by a few. But those few have to then negotiate with the majority. How long do you think an alpha lion who commands the pride goes vegan would last? Same goes for human social constructs as well. The majority will suffer a minority but within limits. Seriously, this is pretty basic Waltz stuff really. The minority is tolerated to a point…by the herd (or at least what I think you are describing as a herd).

10 minutes ago, Fernando said:

Unfortunately, most people (according to Ash, up to 75%) can be led by a clever few. At least for some time. That is my personal experience.

I am not in a political post, but it is very close of it (I don't want to disclose details). I have seen every day for the last 5 or 6 years how some clever, but at the same time ruthless and amoral people are creating a false "truth" by a clever use of dirty, unscrupulous propaganda and plain lies. Those lies, repeated hundreds of times, have managed to slowly create a mass of consensus within our collective which is reaching a critical level now, so that level is high is enough to apply the effects of the herd pressure on the people prone to it. It would be quite fascinating ...if the people around me and I wouldn't be on the receiving end.

But that wasn’t what Ash was proving. He was showing that individuals will shift to meet the expectations of the many…even if they know it is wrong.  Really more the phenomenon of peer pressure than a clever few.

Well if you work at the political level then you know full well that those clever few will tie themselves in knots to try and keep that majority either happy or in line. Trump is not being clever, he is telling a herd what they want to hear. He isn’t leading anyone anywhere, he is jumping on a bandwagon and banging the loudest drum. He is a symptom of a shift within the herd years in the making, not the cause. And neither are your clever politicians. If you are working at those altitudes you should really take that one for free. You can only lay the games you describe for so long…and then the herd bucks. You have the history degree..tell me it hasn’t happened in the past.

And you are talking to a guy who lived and worked in one massive herd designed for war. We never got the dulled eyed herd you describe, and we put a lot more effort into it. We saw unit cultures. Individualism and tribalism in the most tightly controlled herds on the planet. Commanders have to continually negotiate with that.

[Billy Ringo]

4 hours ago, danfrodo said:

I see more & more concern in the private sector over doing business with china due to its turn to belligerence.  What is it they will gain that was better than the cash-tsunami they were getting from trade??????   I just don't get it.  

At my own company, investors want to know how much we rely on china before they invest.  

About three years ago there was a concerted effort by hardlines parts wholesalers, (HVAC, electrical, plumbing and heating, automotive, etc.) to significantly reduce their reliance on China and spread their sourcing to other countries.  It was pretty fascinating how quickly alternative sources started shipping product and China's ability to bully the markets significantly decreased.

31 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yes.  And we see this very clearly in places like Russia.  If Putin's regime was swapped out with a pro-Western government, 75% of Russians would probably go along with it even if with reservations.  25% would absolutely do everything they could to oppose it.

Generally speaking, political scientists in the US figure Trump's core support base is about 5-10% of the US population, yet he has about 50% of the herd supporting him.  But there's another herd (see previous point).

Steve

The majority of Trump's support, IMO, isn't from people that really like him, they just hate the alternative.  He's the lesser of two really bad choices for many.   Right or wrong, he'll get my vote for this reason.

Find it interesting that the heat really turned up on Elon when he came out and supported Trump.  (Not that he was universally liked before.)  The rhetoric just cranked up a few notches.  Even on this forum, barely mentioned before and now he's a dart board.   Had he supported Kamala, would he be in the bullseye? 

 

Edited September 3 by Billy Ringo
Edit

[danfrodo]

19 minutes ago, Billy Ringo said:

The majority of Trump's support, IMO, isn't from people that really like him, they just hate the alternative.  He's the lesser of two really bad choices for many.   Right or wrong, he'll get my vote for this reason.

Certainly an emotional choice, since it sure isn't based on any possible version of an evidence-based reality.  Unless you are really really rich -- if so, congrats and enjoy your tax cuts!  

[Sojourner]

3 hours ago, Lethaface said:

Not to take a position, but what is the difference between extreme left and extreme right?

Opposite sides of a Möbius strip. Go far enough in either direction and you become the other thing.

[acrashb]

As fascinating as this all is - sincerely, I'm a politically-active person - UA is still advancing in Kursk.

We won't know until well after the war what their full intent was, but I'd lay even money that they had not planned to be on the offensive nearly a month after the incursion.  
 

 

[danfrodo]

8 minutes ago, acrashb said:

As fascinating as this all is - sincerely, I'm a politically-active person - UA is still advancing in Kursk.

We won't know until well after the war what their full intent was, but I'd lay even money that they had not planned to be on the offensive nearly a month after the incursion.  
 

 

I'll be danged, UKR is running another right flanking operation that will make a pocket with a river at its back.  Very very interesting!!

[Sgt Joch]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

As a guest I get slammed with borderline scams and right wing messaging more than cute animals.  Back before Musk there was way more animals and way less political garbage.  Oddly enough, I rarely got the half naked women then or now.

There is definitely a lot of quality stuff on X still.  But... there's many factual studies that show the rise of nutjob/extremism has increased since he fired almost all the content moderators.

Steve

I know there has been a lot of histrionics and political posturing, but I personally can’t see I see much substantive difference between pre-Musk and post-Musk Twitter. 

Edited September 3 by Sgt Joch

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yes.  And we see this very clearly in places like Russia.  If Putin's regime was swapped out with a pro-Western government, 75% of Russians would probably go along with it even if with reservations.  25% would absolutely do everything they could to oppose it.

Generally speaking, political scientists in the US figure Trump's core support base is about 5-10% of the US population, yet he has about 50% of the herd supporting him.  But there's another herd (see previous point).

Steve

The problem here is that the herd is not passive. It creates the Trumps and Putins, either by actively supporting or betting that they can hold onto a local status quo regardless. In Russia’s case the herd has been incredibly powerful. To the point it bucked not one but two empires. 

As you allude to the herd is not really a single entity. It is a whole bunch of smaller collectives. All interacting on many levels. They collide and interact all the time. If humanity was simply a dumb herd, then centralized governments would need not work so hard to sustain control. Hell, open democracies have to spend a massive amount of resources and efforts to keep this horde of dead eyed sheeple under control. We have to start indoctrination at childhood and hope it sticks.

The simple reality is that humans are not designed to live in groupings larger than about 75-125. We had to invent massive amounts of fictions to grow into larger populations. That herd is about as unstable as they come. Try cutting off their food for a week and see what happens. I am willing to bet they won’t stay doe eyed in a field waiting for a minority to tell them what to do.

Russia is no exception. It can keep a lid on, but only for so long. At some point the central control has to renegotiate with the ocean of micro-social construct that make up their population. Or face the consequences if they fracture. Politicians often think they are being clever and playing Hypno-Toad, but from what I can see, they are almost always wrong. The herd creates the change. It does not sit around and let it happen. And if the herd decides it does not want change….well that can be as influential as change itself.

[Probus]

Interesting discussion about the new proposed M1A3. It would be nice if we had them now and could give the to Ukraine.

 

[FancyCat]

Jomini posted something. Long thread. click it since it does pay him (i think?) 

Quote

1/ Ukraine TVD, Day 921: As of 02 September, the VSRF retains the strategic initiative and positive operational momentum throughout the Ukrainian TVD. The ZSU continues efforts to expand the Kursk lodgment, with Russian ground forces attempting to push Ukrainian troops from Korenevo. OGV Sever offensive actions, through reduced in scale, maintain the ability to fix a significant number of Ukrainian forces in the Kharkiv region. In the Donbas elements of the 90GTD, 27GMRD, and 201MRD carry on their advance towards Pokrovsk, with the 201MRD now threatening the operational flank of OSUV Tavriya south of the M30 highway. In Zaporizhzhia, OSV Vostok appears to be preparing for offensive action in the Vuhledararea. The VKS stepped up strikes on Ukraine's energy grid while the PSU conducted a large drone strike targeting fuel and energy complex facilities in the Moscow region. #UkraineRussiaWar️️ #UkraineFrontLines #RussianArmy #UkraineNeverSurrenders #Russia

 

[FancyCat]

Quote

Earlier today, Romania's parliament approved the donation of one of its two operational PATRIOT SAM systems to Ukraine. The PATRIOT donation now heads to the desk of President Klaus Iohannis for final approval.

 

[FancyCat]

Quote

The US is reportedly "close to an agreement" to provide Ukraine with AGM-158 JASSM air launched stealth cruise missiles. One US official reported that efforts have been made to make the missile work with non-Western fighter jets in Ukraine's inventory (presumably the Su-24).

"Kyiv would need to wait several months as the U.S. works through technical issues ahead of any shipment, U.S. officials said" "The inclusion of Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM) in a weapons package is expected to be announced this autumn"

 

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

The problem here is that the herd is not passive. It creates the Trumps and Putins, either by actively supporting or betting that they can hold onto a local status quo regardless. In Russia’s case the herd has been incredibly powerful. To the point it bucked not one but two empires. 

I'll just chime in on this one, because it's important.

Demagogues take advantage of cultural angst/anger/resentment that was already there and use that to put themselves into power.  If you look it isn't hard to find lots of people who tried to be that person, but timing, money, charisma, etc... meant that those individuals didn't achieve what some other demagogue later went on to achieve.  For every one Donald Trump there are dozens of Cruises and DeSantis who, as successful as they might objective be, failed to gain the heights they obviously tried to achieve.

Likewise, if the herd isn't inherently interested in a particular message, it doesn't matter how effective the messenger is.  It won't work.  Which is why it's laughable to hear from the US political right about the threat of "socialism" or "communism" taking over US government.  There's no historical evidence to support that being even remotely possible.  However, there's ample evidence to suggest a right wing theocracy or otherwise fascist leaning ideology could very well destroy the Republic.  And the reason for that is the dominant culture in the US always has been, and maybe always will be, decidedly right of center.

As this pertains to Russia, the Russian culture (as we have talked about dozens of times) is predisposed to delusions of imperial greatness.  It believes that one has to give up personal liberties in order to be a part of this greatness.  For a long time Communism managed to convince people that their form of imperialism was the greatness they desired, since then it's Putinism.  The majority of Russians don't seem to care as long as they get that feeling of greatness.  Which is why there's very little hope of a real Western style democratic government taking power after Putin.  That's not what the Russian people want and so that is not what they will get.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, FancyCat said:

Jomini posted something. Long thread. click it since it does pay him (i think?) 

 

What this analysis boils down to is that Ukraine is going to keep pushing in Kursk at the possible expense of the rest of the front, and the Russians are willing to give up ground in Kursk in order to maintain offensive capabilities along the rest of the front.  The evidence definitely supports that.

As we discussed many pages ago, this makes sense from the perspectives of both countries.  This war, from the Russian side, is all about taking back lands that it did NOT have under its control prior to the start of the war.  Because of the "interesting" makeup of the Russian mindset, losing terrain that they had for centuries in the process is somehow not a problem. No matter how crazy that sounds to us, it does seem to be a real thing.  So, Russia continues to focus on its stated war aims because that's what they are being judged on.

On the Ukrainian side it became clear last year that it would not end this war by fighting Russia on its terms on Ukrainian soil.  Ukraine could keep or even liberate 10s of KMs in Donetsk and it wouldn't change the outlook for the war as a whole, but taking 10s of KMs in Russia *MIGHT*.  For similar reasons it is using its strategic strike capabilities to go after targets deep in Russia instead of taking out tactical or operational facilities within Ukraine.  Since Ukraine's goal is to end the war, not hold some Donbas villages, this makes sense.

In Combat Mission terms... we have asymmetric objectives.

Steve

[Eug85]

8 hours ago, Jiggathebauce said:

One side thinks EVERYONE should have their needs met and the other thinks that only certain people should be allowed to exist .

One side thinks people are fundamentally equal and the other thinks some should inherently serve and be served.

If we follow your logic, we have good far leftists and bad far rightists. If that's true and they have diametrically opposed goals, what makes them unite?

[danfrodo]

34 minutes ago, Eug85 said:

If we follow your logic, we have good far leftists and bad far rightists. If that's true and they have diametrically opposed goals, what makes them unite?

at some point this is just semantics, aint it?  They's all generally crazy when we get to the fringe, just differing flavors of crazy that are hard to fit into a box.

 

Edited September 4 by danfrodo

[Eug85]

1 hour ago, danfrodo said:

at some point this is just semantics, aint it?  They's all generally crazy when we get to the fringe, just differing flavors of crazy that are hard to fit into a box.

 

I don't know, but the union of these idiots definitely makes me wary.

Following the Ukrainians, the Russians have begun their experiments with dropping thermite from FPV drones. So far, unsuccessfully

 

[Battlefront.com]

7 minutes ago, Eug85 said:

I don't know, but the union of these idiots definitely makes me wary.

I've seen this at the local level and it definitely sucks.  "I voted against because it went too far" + "I voted against because it didn't go far enough" + "I voted against because today is Tuesday" + "I voted against because today is Sunday" + "I voted against because God doesn't want it to happen" + "I voted against it because my dog told me to" = a large voting block when it's all added up. 

Weimar Germany fell to the Nazis in large part because they and the Communists both agreed on at least one thing... the Weimar government had to be defeated.  And after the Communists were marginalized politically, many joined up with the Nazis.  So much for deeply held political beliefs, eh?

Steve

[chuckdyke]

Looks interesting.

https://www.msn.com/en-ph/news/other/ukraine-is-getting-a-powerful-new-weapon-before-the-end-of-the-year/ss-AA1pTK5G?ocid=socialshare&cvid=a7ee4c9d95774f8e861c358c43bdb5bb&ei=35#image=1

 

Edited September 4 by chuckdyke

[LongLeftFlank]

6 hours ago, Probus said:

Interesting discussion about the new proposed M1A3. It would be nice if we had them now and could give the to Ukraine.

 

Nothing personal, but speaking of 'weird' low T posturing as high T, I pretty much never click on a video whose splash screen features some unshaven guy with a quizzical expression. No clue where this meme comes from, or why it is so ubiquitous.

"Hi guys! Today I'm gonna mansplain to you at high speed about ________! Don't forget to like and subscribe!"

****

As to all the polemical stuff....

I'd like to answer that question in two ways, first in my normal voice and then in a kind of silly high-pitched whine

[The_Capt]

8 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I'll just chime in on this one, because it's important.

Demagogues take advantage of cultural angst/anger/resentment that was already there and use that to put themselves into power.  If you look it isn't hard to find lots of people who tried to be that person, but timing, money, charisma, etc... meant that those individuals didn't achieve what some other demagogue later went on to achieve.  For every one Donald Trump there are dozens of Cruises and DeSantis who, as successful as they might objective be, failed to gain the heights they obviously tried to achieve.

Likewise, if the herd isn't inherently interested in a particular message, it doesn't matter how effective the messenger is.  It won't work.  Which is why it's laughable to hear from the US political right about the threat of "socialism" or "communism" taking over US government.  There's no historical evidence to support that being even remotely possible.  However, there's ample evidence to suggest a right wing theocracy or otherwise fascist leaning ideology could very well destroy the Republic.  And the reason for that is the dominant culture in the US always has been, and maybe always will be, decidedly right of center.

As this pertains to Russia, the Russian culture (as we have talked about dozens of times) is predisposed to delusions of imperial greatness.  It believes that one has to give up personal liberties in order to be a part of this greatness.  For a long time Communism managed to convince people that their form of imperialism was the greatness they desired, since then it's Putinism.  The majority of Russians don't seem to care as long as they get that feeling of greatness.  Which is why there's very little hope of a real Western style democratic government taking power after Putin.  That's not what the Russian people want and so that is not what they will get.

Steve

Exactly. This is why I strongly suspect that a replacement regime for Putin is going to have to be another bunch of gangsters whose hands are just clean enough for us to live with. It is not that gangsters in Russia have a particularly high political acumen. It is because that is what the herd wants. Those are their gangsters. Until they decide they want something else this is the box Russia will be stuck in.

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Nothing personal, but speaking of 'weird' low T posturing as high T, I pretty much never click on a video whose splash screen features some unshaven guy with a quizzical expression. No clue where this meme comes from, or why it is so ubiquitous.

"Hi guys! Today I'm gonna mansplain to you at high speed about ________! Don't forget to like and subscribe!"

****

As to all the polemical stuff....

I'd like to answer that question in two ways, first in my normal voice and then in a kind of silly high-pitched whine

As I recall the young  lad here was infantry who did some time in a sandbox back when. Comes home sparks up a YouTube channel on military affairs…”like and subscribe folks”. Problem is that an infantry grunt who fought in a small war has zero expertise or relevant experience when it comes to force production and operationalization. Nor does he have experience in logistic, C4ISR at the operational or strategic levels etc. What he has is a snappy sales pitch and cute flash screens.

And here is the really hard part for us military folks: even the multi starred generals and their long suffering senior staff (I.e. Me) have limited utility in trying to understand this war. Why? Because we have not seen one like this since the 80s (Iran-Iraq) when even the most senior 3 stars were you bucks. And we have not seen one in a European context like this since WW2…and my grandpa died years ago.

So one really has to be careful. This young fella might be a gifted “babe and suckling in the Temple” or he could be some shill pitching ground up unicorn horn. Buyer beware.