The_Golem101
No bio...
User ID: 548
The_Golem101
10d ago
Fair, but I feel you've missed the important detail that lots of the polling holds implicit but might not be obvious - Ukrainians who want a negotiated end to the war/freezing along current lines are supporting ongoing fighting until that is achieved by definition, the option in the poll for taking Russia's current offer is defined as "capitulation".
It's maybe a subtle point, but hugely important, in a sense you're right, it's capitulation to outsiders as they would end up with less territory, but it's also fighting until Russia is forced to accept the Ukrainian red lines, security agreements or whatever ends up in there. It's a very important distinction to the population and why many are fighting so hard - to give the best chance that this is an end to the war, not a temporary pause.
The_Golem101
10d ago
Coffee, I really like some of your writing, which is why I write all this and why your denial of Bucha is so strange, it makes me question everything else you say, and so it’s worth focusing on.
The timeline makes the Ukrainian-perpetrator theory physically impossible. Russia’s Defense Ministry of course claimed the bodies had been placed on the streets after Russian units fully withdrew from Bucha around March 30, but commercial satellite imagery shows otherwise. In addition, a video filmed by a local council member on April 1 shows multiple bodies along Yablonska Street, and Maxar imagery shows at least 11 of them had been there since March 11, when Russia, by its own account, occupied the town. Many bodies in the satellite images also sit in the exact positions seen in the street-level footage, it literally cannot be faked. We also have signal intercepts, identified Russians, eye witness accounts that match the above, and Ukraine flew in independent forensics teams to avoid exactly this denial, but that’s just flogging a dead horse.
Russian soldiers raped mothers in front of their kids and killed them, shot people in the street and hung them from lampposts, and all without much caring to hide it. The fact that you persist in believing Ukraine somehow did it instead suggests that either your priors are to accept whatever Russia says, no matter how incredible, or that you wish others to. That may seem uncharitable, but it is the only conclusion I am left with given the strength of the evidence.
However, on your other points quickly:
the Russian soldier raped by Kadyrov's troops
Meduza says that was fabricated, do you have a better source?
The evidence we have is a Russian telegram chat from a soldier group, a photo of a dead body, and a note saying all of the above. I do not see any Meduza debunking, maybe they have more information but it seems hard to know what other evidence could surface other than the above. It seems perfectly believable given the endemic rape in the Russian military (as we discussed before), the use of Chechens as barrier troops and to cow their Christian charges, and the hatred Chechens have of Russians, but I guess your priors vary.
Nothing approaching the horror of bombing 100 schoolchildren
I am not sure what this refers to? I see Russia claimed there was a single strike that killed 21 schoolchildren in Luhansk, without the evidence like names, interviews etc that Ukraine provides for similar cases (but its possible) while Ukraine claimed it hit a school building being used for training by the Rubicon drone unit. I see no claims of 100 schoolgirls? This may actually have killed schoolchildren and been a mistaken target. Russia by contrast has definitely killed at least 760+ confirmed Ukrainian schoolchildren, and raped, kidnapped and abused many more. So, again, nothing Ukraine has done this war comes close to approaching the horror of common Russian actions, the worst case is well below a Tuesday for them, your point is perfectly inverted and really weird.
Zelensky supporting the UPA was retarded, and he's not a great politician in some regards, agree with you there. However, those deaths don't carry forwards from the 40s to invalidate Ukraine fighting Russia today.
In terms of Muslims in Moscow, your own sources say the lower bound is 300,000, but that has to be an underestimate as it's a 2010 figure of only permanent residency. The real number probably exceeds 2 million using your own source there, but also ones like this. Paris is burning, Russia had many terrorist attacks (including in 2024), and I would be surprised if the base rate of attacks in Moscow is lower than in similar cities with similar muslim populations, it's more of the same rather than Russia finding some solution.
Hi Shrike -
Possibly a bit clumsy wording by me there. I didn't mean that Belarus and Ukraine are literally at the same level of income, rather that there is a clear bifurcation in the post Soviet states - those who moved into a Western, EU orbit became much more wealthy, those who stayed stuck in a Russian orbit were much poorer, while those like Hungary that went one way then moved towards a Russian type patronage model for a protracted time saw their growth collapse versus neighbors.
Ukraine is poorer than Russia, and Belarus - stuck in the Russian orbit without significant hydrocarbon revenues or Russia's heavy subsidies of Belraus and Ukraine's post Soviet heavy industry had a much harder job adapting than Belarus' agriculture. Plus, all three have a deep oligarch problem, which Ukraine will have to deal with.
My contention is that a future Ukraine in the western system has no reason why it can't achieve something like Poland or the Baltics, and they know it - that was the literal trigger for Maidan. Honestly, they could probably have a higher HDI/GDP per capita than Russia, even without any hydrocarbons, that's what Poland proved as a reference class.
There's actually a lot of really good publications and papers on how Russia's economy functions - I really like those on the rent management system and they were super useful when I did economics over there. I think Gaddy and Ickes are really readable too, but there are others!
The most recent data does show Ukrainians have largely given up on outright military victory and want a negotiated end, but they overwhelmingly reject terms that amount to capitulation. The dominant position is a third option: freeze the war on roughly the current line, without legally giving up territory or disarming, still fighting. All of those require fighting Russia to a standstill, and are based on the assumption that is the correct thing for Ukraine. I am perfectly aware of the polls, they match my descriptions above, and Zelensky's challengers are attacking him from that position, there is no popular capitulation position. What's your "trust me bro" information I'm missing?
The_Golem101
10d ago
Pork, I know Ukrainians, I have relatives fighting, and the poem "The beginnings" applies to all of them. I'm British but the force of the Ukrainian's fury would impress Kipling, and I would not want to be a Russian over the next few decades after their sowing of the wind.
As per reality, I can strongly predict reality based upon all of what I posted, for example the pro/anti war/Russia direction of Zelensky's future challenger. Would you make a prediction there?
The UK had a similar level of conscription in WW2, what does that prove? Did you think that after Coventry and London that we wanted peace? Gently, where is any of what you are saying coming from other than vibes?
Coffee, people pointed out before how totally insane your take of: "Russians are actually based and trad" is, but I guess it's my turn, again:
You remember that Moscow has an official Muslim population in the 1-2 million range, comparable with Paris, and rising, plus many more unofficial migrants push it much higher. Relations are not great, with many past terrorist attacks. You might say the same about the west, but this is the same story, not a solution by the Russians.
Russia's elite is wildly corrupt, stealing from its own population rampantly in a way that would make Alex Jones' theories of elite misbehavior look tame. Their model has kept Ukraine and Belarus edit poor versus their more west leaning compatriots, and only oil revenues sustain them - they have no economic theory or model for flourishing worth exporting, and everyone knows it. Ukrainians knew this well before Maidan, but that is what pushed them over the edge, they aspire to be Poland or the Baltics, not a vassal of a shitty larp of a rotting pretend trad state.
Don't let yourself be ruled over those who hate you is the best red tribe advice I've read on here, and it cut to my heart. The Ukrainians know it, I'm confused how you miss it? They seem pretty based to me.
We also have many war crime incidents in the war, both by and inflicted onto Russians - who immediately upon entering Ukraine killed civilians and looted almost at random. Remember, this while they were told Ukrainians would fold, welcome them and it would be over in weeks - why can't you see these people are not in any way people you want near your family or those you love, and I would pay serious blood and treasure to keep that it way?
Once again (as you did not reply before), possibly the incident most be interested in was the Russian soldier raped by Kadyrov's troops who are used as barrier troops and left to run rampant over their Christian charges, who then hung himself. Not sure if you read Russian, but a rough translation is: "Goodbye. love, in the time that I am here I have seen hell. There were not so many deaths in Chechnya or even Afganistan. seas of human meat. but that is not why i depart. We here, Russian people, are nobody, and Chechens rule. They drink, are lawless and rape, they despise everyone and no ones doing anything about it. Kitty, they took all the money you sent and they did a thing to me. This is to let you know that I resisted. Remember that you and me owe nothing to anyone. This is the only way out. See you after death". That's your positive influence for resisting Muslim influence?
The_Golem101
10d ago
Ukrainians: I would like to fight.
Allies: We can support you in that effort
Porkpiehat: EXCUSE ME, isn't there someone you forgot to ask?
My brother, the Ukrainians have, with a massive majority, chosen to fight. The only opposition to Zelensky comes from a position of wanting more efforts to fight, based around those who have other ideas on how to fight. They really, honestly, truly, want to do it, I promise you from personal experience. Zelensky isn't forcing them to against their will, he's riding a tiger and likely to be voted out post war for his failings here. Some have left the country, some will return, but those who remain strongly think the best future for Ukraine is by breaking Russia, and truly think they can.
Kind of based. I'm confused by those who can't see that.
I am not certain I will be able to change your mind on much to do with chronic Russian hazing and rape, both by their own and by Kadyrov's boys, here. As I recall you thought that the Bucha massacre wasn't Russian discipline immediately collapsing once in an environment where they hold power, as is common, but instead somehow Azov who decided to kill everyone post liberation and then go back in time and doctor satellite footage of the massacre.
However, I guess it's worth a go:
Christ being misused and twisted by politics certainly is very old, and is a factor that can bring down such states in the past. This is a failure mode, not something to aspire to for a Christian and the states they wish to live in surely?
Your Youtube link doesn't work, but as I understand John Paul II was elected for several reasons, none of which support any relevant thesis that Russia is a model for a Christian state.
Moscow has an official Muslim population in the 1-2 million range, comparable with Paris, and many more unofficial migrants as you point out that will certainly push it much higher. Relations are not great, which boils into open war in the past, and terrorist attacks here and there. You might say the same about the west, but this is the same story, not a solution by the Russians.
Rape is endemic in the Russian military, including as hazing "Dedovshchina" where it is extremely common. All forces struggle with some incidents worldwide, but the Russian structure is famously bad for it since forever. For example: Russian recruits sold for sex, 1500 army sexual assaults reported in 2019 which must be a floor, and that only came to light after a guy snapped and shot those who were raping him.
We also have many incidents in the war, both by and inflicted onto Russians, but possibly the one you'll most be interested in was the Russian soldier raped by Kadyrov's troops who are used as barrier troops and left to run rampant over their Christian charges, who then hung himself. Not sure if you read Russian, but a rough translation is: "Goodbye. love, in the time that I am here I have seen hell. There were not so many deaths in Chechnya or even Afganistan. seas of human meat. but that is not why i depart. We here, Russian people, are nobody, and Chechens rule. They drink, are lawless and rape, they despise everyone and no ones doing anything about it. Kitty, they took all the money you sent and they did a thing to me. This is to let you know that I resisted. Remember that you and me owe nothing to anyone. This is the only way out. See you after death"
The_Golem101
4mo ago
Only in Russia, in Africa, in Latin America is Christianity taken more seriously. Defacing churches in Russia and LGBT behaviour is treated very seriously indeed.
I can never understand the trad Christian love for the Russian state as some enabler of Christian virtue - it's really really not the case.
Russia is a larp, pretending to be bits of the Soviet bear and the Imperial eagle whenever it suits, and as such they have made the Russian Orthodox Patriarchy an arm of that project by stuffing their mouths with gold. This is done for state aims, and many Eastern Europeans (including in Ukraine) attend churches regularly - more than Russians incidentally (which is kind of obviously true due to Ukraine's far lower muslim population for a start). The orthodoxy is another state pillar, and part of the legitimizing claims Russia projects, but I don't see much beyond that.
Russia comes down hard on those who damage churches as its popular among a fairly conservative core population that likes tradition and the larp (which I actually understand and respect), and because its a disrespect to a state arm like attacking a police station. It also lets Russia project an image of being against globalhomo too, which is popular for some and where the gay bashing comes in.
But what does being a supposedly trad Christian state actually do for morality and behaviour of the Russian system in general? They have mass muslim migration, onto a population that was already fairly muslim - 10-15% of the population (~ double to triple the poor UK), and a string of terrorist attacks to match. Homosexual rape and general degeneracy is embedded deeply into the Russian military, and the whole anti LGBT thing seems to miss out a lot - Russia is just repressed, not some trad paradise. I'm not sure Jesus would love old King Charles and his mealy mouthed words, Russia however is a few steps away from Sodom by comparison.
To be clear, this is aimed at the Russian state and high leadership of the church - I actually think a good chunk of normal Russians have solid christian convictions that are to their credit. However, that's inherited through time, was failed to be stamped out via the Soviets, and they seem to happily wage war on their very Christian Ukrainian neighbors. The Russian government itself is just very cynically using them, and burning through what it inherited - this isn't going to last long-term. Drug abuse, HIV/AIDS, divorce and spousal abuse are through the roof, that's your Christian paradise?
I'm not a fan of globalhomo, and Ukraine is going to have to navigate a minefield post war to chart its way through the various failure modes of the West, but Russia is just sad. Punching gays as strength and golden watches while the structure rots and now burns, if that's the best of the Christian project then it needs to find Christ too.
The_Golem101
5mo ago
Well, I guess we'll have to wait and see for the next quarterly update then, or another couple, to resolve much of our differences.
Has anything recently made you update in favor of Ukraine? You were making very strong predictions that they were on the ropes, and they should be collapsing around now right? Pokrovsk fell, they lost their key logistics hub by your analysis, but Russia is literally stuck there. Anything at all updating you away from your maximalist Russia will take Lviv pitch? Russia seems to be seeking terms well below that, and are messaging internally to that effect, maybe they know something you do not?
And, I can reply to all you posted above if you care, but on a specific point you must know it's pure distilled cope that Russia's doctrine now of tiny foot infiltration is anything other than desperation and a lack of any other choice? Like, you posted:
Ironically, it’s a hell of a lot like what everyone in the 1950s predicted the nuclear age battlefield would like: everything done with small units because big assaults would get zotted with tactical devices. Ukraine and Russia are actually adapting a lot of their old Soviet nuclear land battle strategies for the Ukraine war.
That's not even close to Soviet nuclear doctrine, which was deeply mechanized (the BMP was designed for their conception of a nuclear battlefield, famously) and focused on rapid maneuver of units at least at battalion strength, though moving at greater dispersion prior to contact and concentrating again before the attack. I know that, others reading know that, and you must know that. Why bother posting it?
On a lighter note, any predictions for the next Dune movie, after the trailer dropped? I really liked part 1 as a Dune fan, agreed with you that part 2 massacred the character of Chani, and now they have to be back in love? Would have worked better having her be a true believer for sure. Plus, Messiah is a brutal book to adapt, seeing it's mostly politics, monologues and inner thoughts. I do love me some Dennis though, maybe he can cook up something still.
The_Golem101
5mo ago
Hey an actual pro Russian, we're low on those since @No_one left, and @ABigGuy4U is more ironic as far as I can tell and mostly thinks that smaller countries shouldn't mess with their local superpower. If Russia is revealed to be a poorly performing regional power rather than super, he might not be on your team anymore, but that's up to him of course.
Do you have a source for that table? It doesn't seem to match much else, but it could be accurate. Stranger things have happened, I just can't remember when.
Certainly the equipment losses gap has closed, but that appears to be because Russia is critically low on much of its kit and now sends handfuls of men on foot to infiltrate and try to take ground, anything bigger died or is being held back from Ukraine's kill zone. However, I think the table might just be wrong.
Could I check, why do you think that the rate of Russia's advance has collapsed this year? Do you think Ukraine hitting the refineries and rear logistics lines with new drones are a concern? Do you think the pro Russia military bloggers who are saying the situation has deteriorated to the point that either mobilization must occur or peace be signed by fall are deluded?
The_Golem101
5mo ago
Apologies, I meant that I don't think they'll realistically be the final terms Ukraine accepts absent a big change in the battlefield situation (and the lack of that is why we're here) or a loss of European support. Terms like that have a lot of Russian hopium baked in - especially seeing as that's pretty much the list Russia put forwards when they were stalling negotiations by being way too optimistic. I do however think it's realistic that that's a list of things Russia would like and could possibly sell internally if accepted.
Interestingly there has also been a reported leak of the internal messaging Russia was planning on using to sell a climb down from their maximalist war goals to their population and supporters in the west. It seems plausible as a document, and has a few interesting elements.
First - their expected terms of peace:
Format. A framework peace agreement. Likely US–Russia and US–Ukraine.
Territories. All of the DPR and LPR transfer to Russia. Kherson and Zaporizhia oblasts split along the line of contact. Russian forces withdraw from Sumy and Kharkiv.
Demilitarization. Neutral status. A buffer zone.
Denazification. Symbolic, limited.
Sanctions. The US lifts theirs. European sanctions stay in place.
Money. Part of the frozen assets goes to rebuilding war-affected territories — both in Ukraine and in Russia.
We also have some good quotes on how they will message, including:
The peace Putin achieved is a huge victory. Putin made the West bend. We thwarted the West’s plans to expand and prolong the conflict.
Victory over whom? Over international imperialism and globalism. Not Ukrainian nationalism — a far stronger, more skilled, more powerful enemy: the united West.
The whole world has now seen who is right and who is wrong. We showed that we are tougher, taller, better, more humane. The Ukrainian Nazis showed they really are Nazis, sadists, and moral degenerates. The Ukrainian elites had a full coming-out.
Know when to stop. Going too far is defeat. Continuing the SMO would be a Pyrrhic victory.
Promoting the right behavioral track for SMO veterans — public-service ads, blogs, news, artistic formats. On the model: “NN became a respected member of the community / bought a Russian car / rebuilt his house / started his own manufacturing or service company / hotel / got into a prestigious university. His fellow soldier, meanwhile, drank away everything he earned / killed himself / wound up in prison.” Promote the norm, not the extremes; push new heroes and opinion leaders to the front.
Lowering the temperature on radicalism and bellicosity. Limiting the media presence of the “nuclear-option” turbo-radicals. Reorienting or marginalizing the most uncompromising of them.
An amnesty in honor of victory. A tradition and a marker. Russia has practiced this since the end of the Crimean War. Above all for those who spoke out in support of peace. Rehabilitation (decriminalization) of the word “peace” and of the concept itself. A peace-loving disposition is part of our character and our traditions — we have always strived for peace and continue to do so. Emphasis on Russia’s peacemaking acts throughout history — historical excursions.
I'll leave it to the audience here to decide if those peace terms seem realistic (*edit - realistically acceptable to the Ukrainians and likely to end the war if proposed) - they don't for me, however this does seem to suggest that Russia is hurting enough to consider actually negotiating rather than just pretending to in order to keep Trump on side.
Meanwhile, following the very serious drone developments this year where Ukraine is now killing more Russians than are mobilized/replaced and stalling out their attacks, we have pro Russian military channels like notes_veterans saying
The situation on the Ukrainian front today is such that this fall there will either be a mobilization or a move towards signing a peace treaty. There simply can't be a third option.
The situation is still very serious for Ukraine, and the timeline seems to be that the war will last at least into late this year, but Russia seems to be on the horns of a real dilemma here - take peace negotiations seriously, and accept that they are negotiating with Ukraine and not Trump, meaning they will need to make that deal sweet enough that Ukraine actually wants it. Or, option two, mass mobilize and try to break the Ukrainians somehow before that shakes apart the social contract.
Or, do a classic Putin procrastination, and end up in the same dilemma but a weaker position this time in the autumn/fall. I honestly think that might be what happens until something on one side or the other finally snaps.
The_Golem101
7mo ago
I know right... I assume some of that difference might be crews who were recovered by neutral countries/landed on coasts where they were not captured/interred afterwards. But there might be a fair number of crews in that total that never were on a sunk U-boat in the end, for example they were on leave, training, rotations or whatever and didn't get a uboat posting again when they returned after they were all sunk, bombed or too low on resources to run in the late war.
I think that's also true on the Kamikazes, not all died as they didn't all get planes or missions by the end, and some tried and failed to find a target (you got a few chances to return before on like the 5th one or something you were assumed to be a coward and shot? However, some later versions of the planes couldn't even land, so you were committed).
The_Golem101
7mo ago
The total death rate of Uboat crews was something in the order of 70% over the war, and half of the survivors were captured - the highest for any of the German branches at least. Peak operations were 118 or so boats out at one time, but then they lost 43 in a single month - Black May. I think @ChickenOverlord might be slightly misremembering the history here, the peak attrition was brutal and their scaling back of operations was after this point to prevent a collapse of the force and reassess tactics etc.
The_Golem101
9mo ago
Russia certainly isn't the Soviet Union, it's a weird larp of all the things you accuse Europe of there - high divorce, high crime, high immigration, 10-15% actually practicing Orthodox, high Muslim % and growing rapidly thanks to its war, massive drug abuse and HIV/AIDs, and I'm really confused why you seem to like them or find them in any way preferable to the Danes, who actually have done a lot right and are just chill friends happy to let the US take the lead mostly. 80s Reganite Christians also wouldn't presumably be into the whole weird postmodern 4Chan Pol larp thing of based and cucked and cringe that comes out nowadays and would have recognized where satan sits in the balance of Russia vs Ukraine, but that's an aside.
Anyway, you got what you want surely, the US funding to Ukraine is now tiny and the weapons/all the subsidies are paid for by the EU, isn't that directly opposite to your core point of Europe never carrying any weight? That's the key bit here right?
Then you cucked out
Who is this you in the room? I'm British, but Denmark and the rest of NATO went on all your adventures until pretty late, when the US wrapped everything up and let the sand wash back over all we did in Afghanistan (mostly the US) for better or worse (and there certainly is an argument that it was better to cut our loses). How is that anyone cucking out, other than maybe the US?
By the way, what is the attraction of using the term cucked for international diplomacy? I can never understand it myself.
The_Golem101
9mo ago
I assume you mean that around half of the equipment sent to Ukraine has a US origin, but paid for by EU money under Trump? Direct US funding has fallen to basically zero under his administration, so I guess that is a win for those seeking to disengage from paying for the conflict directly - the total funding of which was around 0.2% of GDP annually when it was actually being sent in past years. Regan would have died laughing if that was the bill to cause this much of a headache to the Soviet Union.
However, the US could certainly do all kinds of very painful things to further undermine European security and Ukraine in particular for sure, like forbidding the EU from paying the US for weapons, stopping intelligence sharing or pulling out of NATO full stop. Europe is dealing with a reorientation in our relationship with the US, which is certainly likely to leave us all poorer - with only the reward of staying out of future US led entanglements.
You didn't need to call on Article 5 post 911, but you did and found it useful in so many ways, and were the only NATO country to do so. Lets hope for America's sake it never needs to enact it under this Trump presidency, for this is the stupidest prize to burn all that for - Greenland, really? You already had it in everything but name for as many investments and bases as you wanted, and the Danes were paying the subsidies needed to maintain the island into the bargain. This is insanity and the reckless arrogance of Trump spending on America's checkbook of massive power built by saner, stabler minds over a century. The Republican party deserves much better.
The_Golem101
9mo ago
No no not at all, I absolutely assumed that it must be true that PTSD has been with us everywhere before I read Bret's argument, and maybe someone here has something that in convincing the other way - for what it is worth I am not a historian and I assume that PTSD symptoms must have emerged before WW1 more commonly than reported, but that does seem to be the big break when it became impossible to ignore - followed by later developments like Vietnam that Scott discusses.
In many ways I find its relative absence more interesting in many ways, and it might give us clues as to why people experience it if we can explain the reason it emerged.
The_Golem101
9mo ago
I always love a good conquistador story - in some ways they're the closest thing we have to experiencing actual alien invasions and both Mexico and Peru saw stories that are better than most fiction. I would advise everyone to read the Peru one for sure - literally a few hundred men with a few horses soloed tens of thousands of soldiers with no native support - it's fairly wild.
Back to your point, I think this is where the clinical definitions of PTSD come in that I linked to before. PTSD is not being afraid, or guilty, or experiencing agitation seeing your comrades get sacrificed one by one by people you cannot stop and then going to fight them anyway. I am not a psychiatrist, but as I understand it PTSD goes much much beyond that, it's post for a start, and your Spaniard exhibits fear during a multi day battle in the Mexican capital that he masters and fights on to victory in the campaign. He meets critera A - experiencing trauma, but that's kind of a baseline of being in combat. However, the others are clearly not met, remembering an old fear during a multi day battle as a soldier is extremely far from PTSD and I encourage the reader to run down the list for themselves to see the stark differences. I see no "Persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the traumatic event(s), beginning after the traumatic event(s) occurred" exactly the opposite there, he's discussing it and saying I was afraid, it was correct to be, but we overcame. Also, no "Negative alterations in cognitions and mood associated with the traumatic event(s), beginning or worsening after the traumatic event(s) occurred, as evidenced by two (or more) of the following:" for an extended period afterwards, and the same for all the other markers - this is someone overcoming an understandable fear in the immediate term, not PTSD.
I would also caution you to read Bret's admonition again about defining the strength of evidence you would need prior to your search - you are going to see historical evidence of people following battles, near misses, sieges etc. being on edge and jumpy, especially if the danger/war is still present. That is not PTSD, it is being a sensible human, unless it goes into the clinical territory above. Civilians following a siege would be prime material for PTSD, but as far as I understand we do not see it nearly as much as in modern times (Malta being a classic too where it is absent), and the silence is very very interesting. Certainly SOME must have met the threshold for PTSD, the Siege of Vienna would be a prime candidate to cause it and I would assume that rates climbed well before WW1, but there is still a hole where the evidence would be if it was in any way common.
The_Golem101
9mo ago
Interestingly this seems not to be the case, which I think perhaps raises far more questions than it closes. See my post above here for the full argument - but on Herodotus:
... There is one very frequently cited account in Herodotus (Hdt. 6.117) of a man named Epizelos experiencing what is generally understood as ‘conversion disorder’ (which used to be badly labeled ‘hysterical blindness’) in combat. Without being wounded he went blind at a sudden terror in battle and never recovered his sight. Herodotus terms it a θῶμα – a ‘wonder’ or ‘marvel,’ a word that explicitly implies the strange uncommonness of the tale. Herodotus is concerned enough about how exceptional this sounds that he is quick not to vouch for its veracity – he brackets the story (beginning and end) noting that it was what he was told (by someone else) that Epizelos used to say happened to him. In short, this was uncommon enough that Herodotus distances himself from it, so as not to be thought as a teller of tall-tales (though Herodotus is, in fact, a teller of tall tales).
This one example ... is remarkable not because it is typical, but because it is apparently very unusual (also, it is my understanding – with the necessary caveat that I am not an expert – that while conversion disorder is a consequence of emotional trauma, it is not clear that it is associated with PTSD more generally). Meanwhile, in the war literature of the Romans, in their poetry (including that by folks like Horace, who fought in quite terrible battles), in the military literature of the Greeks, in the reflections of Xenophon (both on his campaigns and his commands), in the body of Greek lyric poetry…all of it – nothing. It is simply not there – not as a concern that such a condition might befall someone, nor a report that it had done so. Nothing. The lacuna baffled me for years.
I don't mean to deny the reality of PTSD, symptoms of which were recorded in the medical literature as far back as ancient Greece, as a mechanistic biological response to extreme injury.
This is often raised as a point (alongside the Herodotus quote that is used to back it up for evidence) but the reality is far more interesting - there doesn't seem to be compelling evidence for the existence of PTSD in anything other than highly rare cases in the ancient and even medieval periods. PTSD is real, but it is not a simple correlation between experiencing death/danger -> PTSD, which raises some really interesting points about the nature of human trauma and experience that might tie into your argument.
I'm paraphrasing the arguments of Bret Devereaux here, who did a far better review of the evidence and lack thereof in this post, which is well worth a read for further detail, but anyway in summary:
First, PTSD is a very serious diagnostic term, which goes beyond experiencing grief or shame about a past event or an anxiety around entering a dangerous situation. PTSD requires:
one intrusion symptom (involuntary and instrusive memories, dreams, flashbacks, marked physiological reactions) and persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma and two negative alterations in cognition and mood associated with the trauma and two marked alterations in arousal and reactivity associated with the trauma.
If you go looking for something in history, you'll find stories that could resemble the above here and there, the most famous being Herodotus' one. Quoting Bret:
... One thing you learn very rapidly as a historian is that if you go into a large evidence-base looking for something, you will find it. That’s not a species of research positivity – it’s a warning about confirmation bias, especially if you do not establish a standard of proof before your investigation. It is all too easy to define down your definition of ‘proof’ until the general noise of the source-base looks like proof. In this case, we have to ask – before we go looking – what would evidence of PTSD in ancient societies (I’m going to start there because it is where I am best informed) look like?
... There is one very frequently cited account in Herodotus (Hdt. 6.117) of a man named Epizelos experiencing what is generally understood as ‘conversion disorder’ (which used to be badly labeled ‘hysterical blindness’) in combat. Without being wounded he went blind at a sudden terror in battle and never recovered his sight. Herodotus terms it a θῶμα – a ‘wonder’ or ‘marvel,’ a word that explicitly implies the strange uncommonness of the tale. Herodotus is concerned enough about how exceptional this sounds that he is quick not to vouch for its veracity – he brackets the story (beginning and end) noting that it was what he was told (by someone else) that Epizelos used to say happened to him. In short, this was uncommon enough that Herodotus distances himself from it, so as not to be thought as a teller of tall-tales (though Herodotus is, in fact, a teller of tall tales).
This one example – cited endlessly and breathlessly in internet articles – is remarkable not because it is typical, but because it is apparently very unusual (also, it is my understanding – with the necessary caveat that I am not an expert – that while conversion disorder is a consequence of emotional trauma, it is not clear that it is associated with PTSD more generally). Meanwhile, in the war literature of the Romans, in their poetry (including that by folks like Horace, who fought in quite terrible battles), in the military literature of the Greeks, in the reflections of Xenophon (both on his campaigns and his commands), in the body of Greek lyric poetry…all of it – nothing. It is simply not there – not as a concern that such a condition might befall someone, nor a report that it had done so. Nothing. The lacuna baffled me for years.
Taking a step back, if PTSD was common this seems impossible. A majority of adult free males in many of these societies experienced combat for several century periods in our sample (during the Second Punic war, only a few thousand out of a body of 150,000 eligible men avoided serving). It's unlikely that such societies would put any possible PTSD symptoms in their victory speeches, but we have a huge body of other material where symptoms might appear if they are common (medical texts, private texts, histories where the conquered are discussed, candid advice for Abbots dealing with knights retiring to monasteries etc.) and there is... nothing. Societies might not want these stories front and center, but plenty of things that were embarrassing were still recorded. If PTSD occurred at modern rates it should be everywhere and impossible to brush under the carpet (like in WW1), instead there is simply very little to suggest PTSD was anything more than incredibly rare in a world where violence was very common.
There are a few theories as to why. I think it might be something along the lines of how violence was considered at least for part of the period - a necessary part of masculinity and a good thing and uplifting, rather than a burden that some must carry for society - but that can't be all of it. Possibly the universality of the experience of combat in peers helped (if you fought, it was highly likely you had a lot of peers that did too that you could relate to), and the positive social status of veterans (no Vietnam war protests in Republican Rome, and again combat was viewed as a positive source of virtue not a pollutant of the soul). Interestingly, they also commonly had rituals for entering and exiting military modes to civilian ones, which perhaps allowed some compartmentalization. It might also be the nature of modern combat - artillery, ambush, IED, long periods on the front in danger but not quite sure when, but this is also difficult to be certain on - sieges had a fair amount of the above and were the modal form of warfare for periods. We kind of just do not know why it was so low.
However, I do think it's very interesting in general - I would say that PTSD as a response to trauma is certainly not a sign of moral failing (it's closer to altitude sickness, a bit of a dice roll - I have ancestors who fought in both WW1 and WW2 and loved combat despite repeated wounds), but rates can change and we don't understand so much about it. Pushing people away from it at the margin without returning to a warrior society like Rome seems an achievable goal, but that would require a big change in lots of our thinking - I'm really interested how we might do so though.
The_Golem101
10mo ago
I don't think the core of what you have said is "wrong" and it aligns fine with my text you quoted - it's just a fair chunk of it is obviously true ground level cynicism and missing the higher level logic that actually makes things interesting.
Interstate anarchy is a baseline factor for all relations but it clearly waxes and wanes, pointing to it is not enough - for example the actual cost/benefit calculation of taking territory has moved sharply post industrialization (I actually think this random review of Vicky II is a fairly good overview of some of that in the context of a game's mechanics). My point is that should such wars be seen as more likely to be net positive for one party again we are going to end up with far more stupid expensive wars. WW1 for sure and WW2 in part happened because states (mainly but not just Germany) were assuming that their limited and focused wars could come out as solidly net positive, and led to utter ruin that they did not predict as their assumptions were totally off. That is my ought - it would be good for human flourishing if countries expected wars of aggression to not be net positive at the margin, maybe even for NATO/the US that would be a good lesson too. We ought to avoid making it more positive at the margin.
I also think there's a clear ought with the nuclear dynamics here, which is perhaps easy to miss at the level of "countries will always bully each other, nukes exist, and the tech isn't going away". Schelling was right and a non nuclear world seems impossible without a fundamentally different political reality, but that's the start point of the conversation, not the end. Proliferation fraying and breaking might be inevitable at the margin, but it's still bad for several reasons, and it would be a real failure of the US to prioritize its own selfish long term interests if it accidentally or knowingly creates a nuclear arms race across Asia and the Middle East. The arms control treaties in effect have reduced weapons totals massively, lowering the probability of an accidental launch and limiting the impact of a war should it occur. Conversely, any event that pushes countries to scramble for weapons at short notice creates bad dynamics, and ought to be avoided if possible.
We can chat about the ground level realities, and no "ought" chat in the end can avoid them, but I would be really interested in who you think "ought" to win, who would you prefer, based on what you have written above? Russia, because the liberal order needs to realize that other powers can have preferences and it can't always win?
Total Ukraine Victory or Total Russian Victory?
Your choice, whatever is more interesting.
My interest in writing this post is that we spend so long arguing over which is more likely (which is a very important question) that we don't get into the reasons why one person or the other on this forum hopes for an opposite outcome. Like you say, it ties a lot into your views on the American Empire, but that itself opens up a load of questions and interesting points on what outcomes people actually prefer. For example, Vance, does he want to pivot to China, genuinely dislikes Europe, hates Zelensky, thinks this is hopeless, or something else? I struggle to accurately model and therefore predict his preferences on Ukraine and therefore a lot of other things.
The_Golem101
10mo ago
I still think Ukraine can "win" for given value - as in its resistance has led to a far better outcome for the country than unconditional capitulation in 2022, but these conversations are what we have been having here for years to little effect. We simply have to wait for the dust to settle to be sure, and then perhaps a decade or two. Dean's comment that won a quality contribution is probably the gold standard here.
Personally, the bit where Ukraine routed and broke 90% of the fighting power of the 1st Guards Tank Army in 22 was the evidence for me that these boys could fight and Russia was really fucking up hugely - I love the saying "Hard pounding this gentlemen, let us see who pounds the longest" in relation to this war but that day had other good quotes, such as: "The Guard retreats. Save yourself if you can!”. But now we're back stuck with "is" statements.
Coffee, I come back to this, because you are absolutely better than this. As I see your points, and please do others jump in if I have lacked charity or understanding:
I do not believe Azov, who are not load bearing to any of this. I believe the evidence provided in my reply to you, primarily the satellite footage released days in advance of Ukraine retaking Bucha and can date the executions to post any early fighting, and also matches footage taken prior to the retaking of the city and exactly matches the patterns of bodies found once it was retaken. That's a hilariously high bar of evidence, and if it was the other way around for Azov you would correctly be calling it out, and you have claimed events prior on far far shakier evidence. Russian soldiers ran rampant over civilians they had power over, none of which is built upon needing to believe a single word of Azov.
Why do you even like the Russians here? Why can't Bucha be a terrible failure and a mistake by units gone rogue for you?
Anyway, on our other notes:
Your Meduza link shows that there are other allegations versus mine that Chechens raped, DNR soldiers this time, but that neither of them have been disproven? Are you agreeing with me?
And your source that 3% of the respondents were muslim, in line with the lower bound i mentioned, but that 65% of residents express that religion is important and 36% of them Islam is the most important? In a city of like 13 million? Do you see a slight pickle even in the narrow survey that the massive irregular population is not going to be well covered by? That there may be quite a few Muslims in Moscow isn't some weird conspiracy, who do you think is launching all the terrorist attacks?
More options
Context Copy link