How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[BeondTheGrave]

2 hours ago, c3k said:

There are variants on this, but freedom vs. control is a much more useful measure. It shows that "right wing fascists" are really just a form of left-wing totalitarianism. (And, boy, do they hate being reminded of that.)

This is only true about the Communists and Fascists if you choose to ignore literally everything theyve ever said about themselves, their origins and rises to power, and of course what they thought about each other. This kind of thing is like doing history where you get to exclude everything thats inconvenient for your argument. We already have that discipline, its called political science. Seriously though IDK why people try to bend over backwards to excuse the right from the crimes of the people who tried to be apart of its movement. Its like the left is responsible for all the horrors of the world while the right gives out guns, lollipops, and tax vouchers. But saying the Nazis were left wingers flys in the face of not only what they said, but what contemporaries even thought about them. Unless you think Paul von Hindenburg was gunning for a socialist revolution in Germany.

The left/right spectrum is dumb and meaningless. Attaching meaning to it is the death of all truth. You will tie yourself into pretzels trying to determine whether one group is truly left or truly right. We live in a three dimensional world, our politics are multidimensional and cannot be place on a one dimensional spectrum, horseshoe, or cartesian plane. 

[acrashb]

4 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Some old Chinese guy you may have heard of:

 

If one wants to read Sun Tzu, the Cleary translation is far and away the best.

2 hours ago, c3k said:

The spectrum to use is linear. On the far right is total individual liberty. Call it anarchism.

 

The most consumable, reasonably-accurate political spectrum theories are "horseshoe".

Any simple right-left spectrum presumes that all of human political thought can be reasonably shown on a one-dimensional line, which doesn't really work, see Steve's stuff below and my amplification of same.

 

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

The reason for this is very simple.  If you look at what the ideology promises the individual there's just about no difference between Fascism and Socialism (I'm using Socialism in its pure form, not the watered down versions that we see in places like Europe). 

[...]

The differences between the structure of Fascist and Socialist nation states is tiny.  In Fascism a few people control all the wealth and levers of power in support of the individual citizens, in Socialism a few people control all the wealth and levers of power in support of the common good.  Boiled down they are far more similar than dissimilar.

That's all pretty good. I'll add that both Communism and Fascism are both Socialist political philosophies (so Germany's National Socialist party, aka 'NAZI' party, was accurately named). In Communism, the state owns and plans / controls the means of production and the enemy is other classes.  In Fascism, the state allows private ownership but still plans / controls the means of the production and the enemy is other people / nations.  Both say they work for "the people" (hence Volkswagen, the 'peoples car'), but both in practice end up working for the powerful and connected elite few.

So switching from communism to fascism is relatively easy, as demonstrated recently by China, and to some extend, although less deliberately and completely, in Russia.

Having said all of that, the political evolution of Russia is complicated and not, I think, primarily driven by political ideology and fascism (as developed, most vividly, by Mussolini and refined by Hitler).  I think it's more of a kleptocracy that uses nationalism / fascist motifs as a tool to manage the population and keep the spoils flowing.  Having said _that_, reviewing Putin's declarations over the last twenty years or so makes it evident that he does have some ideology which one might summarize as Russian Greatness.  He has, for example, been crystal clear and consistent that he views the dissolution of the USSR as the greatest geopolitical disaster ever.  Whether his ideology is a pragmatic matter (securing the borders and maintaining the support of the kleptocracy) or is pure ideology or as a blend of both I don't know, but I think it's a blend as non-pragmatic ideologies don't maintain power for this long.

The relevance of this to the current war, and hence this thread, is in determining likely / possible exit paths and the related post-war political / economic order both globally and with respect to the Ukraine / EU / Nato relationships.
 

For those keeping score I'm oversimplifying a bunch of stuff for the sake of argument (e.g., Mussolini did not independently develop Fascism but was the most prominent proponent early on).

 

Edited April 6, 2022 by acrashb

[kraze]

1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:

Too cut it short if you want to be a dictator be a benevolent one. Like manufacturing people's cars and child endowment schemes. Once you fail to deliver you soon be out. 

History knows no benevolent dictators.

Simply because people have to have a mentality of serfs to want a single leader to decide everything for them and then follow his every order unconditionally.

Thus such people will always choose the most malevolent person, because it has to be the one that is perfectly OK with having slaves. And every other trait like being violent and often mad comes in the very same package.

It's a locked circle where a dictator has to seem strong enough for people to feel like they can stop taking responsibility for their lives, while at the same time making sure they couldn't, even if they wished to - to, again, seem strong.

No benevolent person is fit to be accepted as a dictator.

[c3k]

16 minutes ago, BeondTheGrave said:

This is only true about the Communists and Fascists if you choose to ignore literally everything theyve ever said about themselves, their origins and rises to power, and of course what they thought about each other. This kind of thing is like doing history where you get to exclude everything thats inconvenient for your argument. We already have that discipline, its called political science. Seriously though IDK why people try to bend over backwards to excuse the right from the crimes of the people who tried to be apart of its movement. Its like the left is responsible for all the horrors of the world while the right gives out guns, lollipops, and tax vouchers. But saying the Nazis were left wingers flys in the face of not only what they said, but what contemporaries even thought about them. Unless you think Paul von Hindenburg was gunning for a socialist revolution in Germany.

The left/right spectrum is dumb and meaningless. Attaching meaning to it is the death of all truth. You will tie yourself into pretzels trying to determine whether one group is truly left or truly right. We live in a three dimensional world, our politics are multidimensional and cannot be place on a one dimensional spectrum, horseshoe, or cartesian plane. 

I...literally...have no idea what you're talking about.

Control vs. freedom has nothing to do with anything you've just written. There are no knots to be tied into. 

I'll leave this now. Happy to join in on a thread about how to measure political ideologies (NOT debate them, just how to compare them) if you choose to start one.

Let's get back to the brave (freedom loving) Ukrainian fight against the Russian (controlled by an autocrat) invasion.

[LongLeftFlank]

Worthy thread here, on the Kherson front:

The repetition of the RuAF experience at Chornobaivka AB will eventually cause a similar Melitopol AB bug out. 

The big game the Aerorozvidka are waiting for are the RuAF mechanics, tool & spare parts in the trucks leaving the Melitopol AB.

With those gone the RuAF loses the ability to generate enough air interdiction sorties in the South to stop a AFU general offensive by it's mobile mechanized brigades crossing the Dnieper.

This will force Russian ground forces out of their fortified positions to deal with the Ukrainian mobile formations

Then the real trap will be spring.

You see, the real Ukrainian killing force isn't their mobile brigades.  

It is the light infantry ATGM & Drone supported mortar teams who are listening to compromised Russian radios.

If the Ukrainians play their cards right this is the recipe for a Russian Army general collapse & rout to Crimea.

The reason I'm laying this out ahead of time is due to the fact the Russians are helpless to stop  it.

The only counter to light infantry the way the Ukrainians are using it is more Russian air mobile light infantry in helicopters.

The Russian name for that is the VDV.  Which was p--sed away trying to take Kyiv

 

 

 

Edited April 6, 2022 by LongLeftFlank

[acrashb]

2 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

For those interested, some trenchant comments on the 'end of the tank?'

Also, the more I read about Trophy and similar APS (what I used to call "point defence" - what happened to that term?) the more I think that the main battle tank is going to carry on for some time.  As they get smarter and more networked, they just get better.  But we haven't been seeing any of that in this war.

[Kinophile]

2 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Pretty disgusting.

It's not quite as simple as she's making out.

They didn't give it to him, it's not a hand out. It's not charity. It's business, and for a critical resource that frankly, without it, makes making and doing things in Europe a good deal more expensive and awkward.

Those billions paid for gas etc to heat homes, run power and importantly support industry, manufacturing, science and research.

Sure he's getting money, but he has pretty high costs and that money loses significant use if he can't buy whizzbang Western tech or products (civ or mil).

I'm not saying it's a good thing (it absolutely ISN'T) but that's the blunt reality.

Think of it like this - Russia's gas is powering and heating the societies and industries that are now ****ing with his invasion in all sorts of delightfully maddening ways. Hell, his gas helps make the damn NLaws, Javelins and Panzerfausts that are slaughtering his tanks.

 

Edited April 6, 2022 by Kinophile

[sross112]

3 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

It's not quite as simple as she's making out.

They didn't give it to him, it's not a hand out. It's not charuty. It's business, and for a critical resource that frankly, without it, makes making things in Europe a good deal more expensive and awkward. Those billions paid for gas etc to heat homes, run power, and importantly support industry, manufacturing, science and research.

Sure he's getting money, but he has pretty high costs and that money loses significant use if he can't buy whizzbang Western tech or products (civ or mil).

I'm not saying it's a good thing (it absolutely ISN'T) but that's the blunt reality.

Think of it like this - Russia's gas is powering and heating the societies and industries that are now ****ing with his invasion in all sorts of delightfully maddening ways.

 

There is so much truth to this part. All the money in the world is of no use if there is nothing you can buy with it. Money is only good for his invasion if he can buy stuff to support it or the components of stuff so he can manufacture it. Money in itself is worthless without products in which to trade it for.

[Sarjen]

UA Tractor Defense Forces in action:

 

More on Chernobyl. The trenches digged by RA.

 

 

[Kinophile]

10 minutes ago, acrashb said:

Also, the more I read about Trophy and similar APS (what I used to call "point defence" - what happened to that term?) the more I think that the main battle tank is going to carry on for some time.  As they get smarter and more networked, they just get better.  But we haven't been seeing any of that in this war.

I'd lay strong odds we'll soon see (in 5 years) overwatch drones slaved to the tank targeting & acquisition systems, that will be sent up and constantly be tracking with and above the tank, providing heavily increased range of awareness both to the tank and nearby units. Probably two drones per tank - one up and watching, one down and recharging. 

[akd]

Another NLAW kill?

 

[BeondTheGrave]

Regarding the information war. Big reason why were not seeing more pro-Russian propaganda on social media and elsewhere? 

[Kinophile]

Thats nuts, the tank is facing towards them and doesn't see them? Theyre so close!

By "nuts" I mean CMBS Russian tanks would have killed my guys lllooooOOOOONNNng before they got that close, and absolutely from the front. I torture myself into knots trying to maneuver to hit MBTs. And wtf is with all the unsupported tanks in this war? I learned really hard and really fast after the very first game of CMBS - dont leave tanks alone.

[billbindc]

Worth noting a broad but extremely important distinction: 

Communism s is based on the idea that men are perfectible. 

Fascism is based on the idea that men are defined by their intrinsic characteristics. 

Both resemble each other in application but those distinction above leads to very significant practical differences.

One obvious example would be that in a fascist state, private property is allowed to flourish as long as it serves observes the ethnonationalist priorities of the regime. Conversely, in a communist state, private property is only allowed to the degree that it does not contradict the ideological ones.

Another obvious example (which obscures the left/right distinction) is that Communist states are based very firmly on an ideological foundation. Fascist states only require a more or less finely graded identitarian set of rules and then can be fairly pack-rat about everything else. 

The above examples show how crucially important those basic foundations are because they have enormous downstream effects...not least who gets killed/invaded/pogromed and why.

I would strongly suggest reading Robert Paxton's "Anatomy of Fascism" for a fuller exegesis of the topic.  

[Battlefront.com]

7 minutes ago, akd said:

Another NLAW kill?

I'd say so.  The blast from the missile is way bigger than we'd expect to see from smaller shoulder filed AT weapons and the destruction of the tank seems to be larger too.  The impact flash and apparent internal ammo cookoff seems consistent to me.  The other possibility is a Javelin used in the Direct Attack Mode, though I would expect the impact flash to look different.

Steve

[Vergeltungswaffe]

10 minutes ago, akd said:

Another NLAW kill?

 

Looks like it.

For anyone that doesn't think you have to be brave to use a short range ATGM, the launch was an enormous "blaze away here" sign.

[Kinophile]

1 minute ago, billbindc said:

 

Communism s is based on the idea that men are perfectible. 

Fascism is based on the idea that men are defined by their intrinsic characteristics. 

 

Beat me to it, darn it

very nice overview @acrashb

[DesertFox]

15 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Thats nuts, the tank is facing towards them and doesn't see them? Theyre so close!

Supports my view that the russians dont use thermal imaging.

[Chibot Mk IX]

30 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

I'd lay strong odds we'll soon see (in 5 years) overwatch drones slaved to the tank targeting & acquisition systems, that will be sent up and constantly be tracking with and above the tank, providing heavily increased range of awareness both to the tank and nearby units. Probably two drones per tank - one up and watching, one down and recharging. 

+1

Westwood is a witch

C&C generals, US Crusader tank + Battle Drone  

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Both resemble each other in application but those distinction above leads to very significant practical differences.

Yup, which is why it's easy to distinguish between a Communist and Fascist state.  There are tangible differences.  However, from a state level these differences aren't significant.  All property ownership and utilization is effectively controlled by the state.  Russia has a long history of seizing privately owned property for "tax evasion" or what not. 

It is also not surprising that the real threat to Democracy in the West comes from Fascism.  The right can bleat on and on and on about how Socialism/Communism is threatening to take over, but it's just not going to happen.  The strong cultural belief in private ownership of property and the concept of individual liberty (which Fascism doesn't really believe in) means the West will always lean right vs. left.  The flip side of this is that poorer non-Western countries tend to go left vs. right.  When the average person doesn't have property it's harder to sell them on Fascism and much easier to attract them to Socialism.

2 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Another obvious example (which obscures the left/right distinction) is that Communist states are based very firmly on an ideological foundation. Fascist states only require a more or less finely graded identitarian set of rules and then can be fairly pack-rat about everything else.

This is an important point.  Socialist governments have an "Agenda" that is intended to improve the lot in life for the average citizen.  Fascist governments tend to focus their messaging on "threats", internal and external, with less attention to stating what the benefits are to the people for compliance. 

Putin's primary social agenda rested on "no repeat of the 1990s economic chaos".  Well, that's likely a promise he can't keep any longer.  Not that it really matters.  Russia figured out how to message blame onto the West for the 1990s, it is going to be even easier to do the same this time around.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, DesertFox said:

Supports my view that the russians dont use thermal imaging.

Or nobody was looking.  There is only so long you can stick your eyes into a vision enhancement device.

Steve

[Kinophile]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Or nobody was looking.  There is only so long you can stick your eyes into a vision enhancement device.

Steve

Occam's razor cuts again for sure.

[DesertFox]

1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:

Or nobody was looking.  There is only so long you can stick your eyes into a vision enhancement device.

Steve

Yeah sure. If you dont use it that´s what you get in return, Hence he deserved it.

[Battlefront.com]

18 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Thats nuts, the tank is facing towards them and doesn't see them? Theyre so close!

By "nuts" I mean CMBS Russian tanks would have killed my guys lllooooOOOOONNNng before they got that close, and absolutely from the front. I torture myself into knots trying to maneuver to hit MBTs. And wtf is with all the unsupported tanks in this war? I learned really hard and really fast after the very first game of CMBS - dont leave tanks alone.

There are some pretty big practical problems with this.  Drones require a lot of energy to keep up in the air and they need more to operate various systems.  EW and kinetic "hard kill" weapons also require energy.  The more energy that is needed the bigger the drone has to be.  Winged drones have an advantage as they are more energy efficient for loitering (and for travel for all I know), but winged drones aren't an option for this purpose.

Steve

[Ts4EVER]

13 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Worth noting a broad but extremely important distinction: 

Communism s is based on the idea that men are perfectible. 

Fascism is based on the idea that men are defined by their intrinsic characteristics. 

 

The figure of the "leader" is also quite different in both, a fact often lost on us "liberal minded" people who just see despotism in both cases. To give you an example, an old joke / metaphor, originally told (I think) by Slavoj Zizek:

In Nazi Germany, let's picture Hitler holding some kind of horrible speech against the Jews and with all his standard stuff. At the end, some party member stands up and says: "Mein Führer, that was a nice speech, but some of the stuff you said was simply wrong." Then another guy stands up and says: "How dare you criticise the Führer? Don't you know that he leads Germany by provenance? We don't challenge those who lead us into a greater future in the fight against the Jews etc. etc. etc." After the session the first guy would be sidelined and the second guy would have some shiny new medals and titles.

Same scenario with Stalin: The first guy will be put on the next train to the Gulags, but guess who will be already waiting there? Guy number 2. Why? Because Stalin is not REALLY the leader, of COURSE you can criticise comrade Stalin, we are among equals here... BUT MOST SMART PEOPLE DON'T DO IT. The act of pointing out the reality of the situation (Stalin is a strongman) is in itself treasonous.

The "God" of fascism is a two-part one: The leader and the "People", whoever that is. The "God" of communism is history, or more exactly the inevitable march of it towards communism. If you believe that (and this is my personal big beef with Marx, I think this is where he falters in his analysis), then all responsibility is taken from those in power, because they can rationalise any evil they do by claiming that it is in service of "historical necessity". Basically "who cares if I have caused a few million people to starve, this was a historical necessicity and I just acted as its agent."