qqqq
1yr ago
At one time, the Baltic countries joined the EU and became part of the "GAE". And they have deprived a third of their population of the right to vote on the basis of ethnicity. So I don't think that Ukraine will have problems with neo-Nazis.
Migrants go to Germany, France, Sweden - rich socialist states. Even Poland has a negative emigration balance in the EU. Probably Ukraine will never have to deal with mass migration from Africa.
From a demographic point of view, it is much more interesting how a country with one of the lowest fertility in the world and a population of less than 40 million people will exist after at least 10 million people left it. (Most of which are women and most of them will not return). This will probably be the biggest gender imbalance in history. Will Ukraine declare itself the first incel state? Will it provoke insanely high levels of crime and suicide? It will be interesting to watch.
qqqq
1yr ago
Why did Rome strive to ensure that the Germanic tribes could never unite? Why did the Roman Senate say "Carthaginem delendam esse"?
Because hegemony requires that any hypothetical threats be destroyed before they gain strength.
Therefore, the US is opposed to China, Russia and Iran. Therefore, a conflict between the US and India is inevitable in the near future.
If you, as a US citizen, want to enjoy the security and wealth that American hegemony provides you, then you must accept the blood that must be shed to achieve it.
It's not at all obvious. One of my cousins volunteered for the war in April and immediately found himself in a training center and then at the front. My own brother was mobilized in October and he still comes home for the weekend. The capacity of the training and supply centers cannot cope with 300,000 mobilized. Probably, Russia can train about 80,000 people per month, maybe 100,000.
And the meaning of the war of approximately equal in quality armies lies in quantity. Ukraine successfully advanced near Kharkov, not because Himars and not because Javelin. But because they were able to bring their army to almost a million people (And NATO provided them with equipment, equipment and artillery) against 300 thousand Russians.
The reduction in the numerical advantage of Ukraine after mobilization led to the stabilization of the front line and a small advance of the Russian army. But if Western countries are able to ensure the mobilization of Ukraine about 150-200 thousand soldiers per month, then at some point they will achieve a numerical superiority sufficient for a new successful offensive. And it does not look impossible for NATO countries.
They will have to give a significant percentage of the current stocks and equipment in service with NATO countries, but this is not impossible.
As for what? Well, because since 2014 a lot has been invested in Ukraine. Authority, money, prestige. All this is worth something. It does not matter for what reason politicians have committed themselves to support Ukraine. What matters is that they took it. Secondly, after the end of the war, Russia will obviously take vengeance. If there's a guy in Iraq who wants to shoot Americans, he'll get whatever weapon he wants. ATGM, MANPADS, explosives. And if he is competent enough, then the Kinzhal missile to fight aircraft carriers.
Wagner, significantly reinforced, will continue to attack European colonies in Africa and this will require a large number of resources to counter. For NATO countries, it is much more profitable to continue the conflict in Ukraine, so as not to get a conflict with Russia around the world. It's just that NATO only spends money in Ukraine. In other hypothetical conflicts, NATO will waste money and the lives of their soldiers. This is a significant difference.
And most likely politicians in NATO understand this. And I would expect a really huge supply of the Ukrainian army in the coming months. It is strange that Germany does not want to supply its tanks now, but I would bet that the US will be able to convince them in time.
qqqq
1yr ago
Men have been banned from leaving Ukraine since February 2022. Someone could pay a bribe (And people who can afford to go to Canada can also afford to pay a bribe), but it is likely that the gender ratio of refugees as a whole is highly disproportionate in favor of women.
But even if it is not 9 million but 4 million. The mobilization potential of Ukraine is still far from being exhausted.
qqqq
8mo ago
Bakhmut is similar to Grozny, Mariupol, Fallujah, Raqqa and Mosul for the simple reason that there is no way to storm a city that is actively defended without total destruction of the infrastructure of this city.Trying to draw any conclusions about the motives of the storming on the basis of the destruction in the stormed city is just a pointless waste of time.
qqqq
1yr ago
Jesus! Oh, these national ideas, printed in the genetic code since the time of the Huns. Is this a serious theory?
First, the negative attitude towards the US and NATO and the perception of its expansion as a threat to personal and state security. It started back in the Cold War and hasn't gone anywhere.
Secondly (and it's strange to me how people forget about internal and external groups in the culture wars thread) the population of Donbass is an internal group. And when Ukraine attacked a region that wanted to join Russia, the bulk of the Russian population perceived this as an attack on their own group with a predictable reaction. And the fact that there is no Ukrainian Internet and all Ukrainians are in RuNet only exacerbated the confrontation. And guro with Russian military finally consolidated this.
qqqq
1yr ago
Lol. With a population of 70 million, Germany mobilized about 18 million people during the Second World War. And Germany needed industry and economy to support the front. Someone had to make tigers, panthers, fokewulfs, shells and wheat. Ukraine does not need any industry or economy. Hence they can mobilize a larger percentage of people. They certainly have more old people, but they have fewer children. So with a population of 36 million (optimistically) people, they could well mobilize more than 9 million. They have many refugees, but almost all of the refugees are women, so migration has little effect on mobilization potential.
qqqq
1yr ago
It was a decision clearly motivated by nationalism. If this did not embarrass the leaders of the EU, then the AZOV regiment will definitely not embarrass them.
qqqq
1yr ago
Did I miss all the Soviet invasions into Eastern Europe pre and post Cold War?
The logic of the world communist revolution and the Cold War had nothing to do with the opposition of the feudal states of Rus against the Polovtsians. Like the pan-Slavism of the Russian Empire. These are too different societies and states for inheritance to make any sense.
You know those referendums were not free and fair elections.
You strangely assume that the pro-Ukrainian population left, when in fact there were people who fled the war to Ukraine and Russia. The referendums sufficiently reflected the will of the majority of the population. Legal formalities are much less important.
US did cut military spending.
Show me this on graph.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#/media/File:Defense_spending.png
And outside of Mitt Romney like I remember some guy named Obama making fun of Romney and the Cold War and everyone laughed.
The beginning of the Obama presidency was rather a strange exception, which quickly ended. As I understand it, the US was afraid that the 2008 crisis would turn their economy into Japan and began to behave like a good boy, normalizing relations with Russia and China. But it just ended in nothing when it became clear that quantitative easing was working. In general, the beginning of the Obama administration is a short and atypical period of change in rhetoric.
we never explicitly denied Russia from joining NATO.
And the EU has never denied Turkey membership. It is not in politics to publicly refuse such things. This does not mean that the de facto refusal did not occur.
And a lot of analysts are disappointed with Germany and a lesser extent Italy and a few others providing Russia with the machinery they needed to build weapons.
The Russian military-industrial complex has always remained quite separate from other countries. Except for buying electronics.
Germany built the Russian military infrastructure.
It was built by the USSR.
The issue is that NATO wasn't actually a threat in any plausible scenario in the way that Russians were describing it
Really?
Firstly, nuclear weapons are protection for today. Will it still be relevant in 20 or 30 years? Or will the development of missile defense systems make strategic missiles irrelevant? But the multiple numerical superiority of NATO and the territories of Ukraine convenient for the offensive will remain relevant much longer.
Second, proxy wars. Georgia is a perfect example. The creation of a supply and training base for Chechen fighters through the Caucasus mountains is a catastrophic threat that almost nothing can counter (the camps themselves are located on NATO territory, and it is almost impossible to effectively cut off supplies through the Caucasus mountains). The borders with Ukraine are not so obviously dangerous, but they can also be used to support the armed opposition (which still needs to be created, which is not easy, but makes sense with such a potential for supply through Ukraine). And the large length of these borders makes the supply cut much more difficult than for the borders with the Baltics or Finland.
And the restriction of access to markets and the loss of a sphere of influence are negative events in themselves, although not a military threat.
qqqq
1yr ago
"Хохлосрач, хохлосрач никогда не меняется."- Фаллаут, наверное.
This dispute has been going on for decades and never leads to anything. And in any case, instantly turn into throwing shit at the monitor.
qqqq
1yr ago
I wrote about it in the thread above.
An invasion either requires an improved missile defense system to reliably intercept intercontinental missiles, or can be carried out using a proxy.
qqqq
1yr ago
How do you have such confidence, and how do you have confidence that at some time the US will not invade North Korea?
qqqq
1yr ago
I reject this part.
First, the presence of nuclear weapons does not guarantee security in the medium term. Especially when your opponent has much more financial and human resources. Secondly, the loss of buffer states creates huge opportunities for proxy wars. Starting from attempts to arm the non-systemic opposition, ending with the Ichkerian separatists.
Isn't that enough reason?
qqqq
1yr ago
I'm trying and I can't understand what you're all arguing about? There are three actors in this game. It is true that Poland joined NATO, as the prospect of access to the closed EU market and subsidies from Germany, France and the UK is very tasty. It is true that the US is interested in expanding its sphere of influence. And it is true that for Russia, the expansion of NATO and the EU is a loss of market access and unacceptable security threats.
That is, Poland has reasons to join NATO/EU, the US has reasons to increase its influence, Russia has reasons to perceive expansion as aggression.
All of these things can be true at the same time. Right?
qqqq
1yr ago
Basayev was supported by Russians back then
Was the dude who actively supported Dudayev's separatist government since 1991, hijacked a Russian plane with hostages in 1992, and actively participated in the struggle for the independence of Ichkeria, really a Russian proxy?
but Russian support to Abkhaz separatist
And also Russia evacuated Georgian military from Sukhumi and protect Shevardnadze in Poti. Perhaps the absence of a civil war in Georgia or refusal to use army against regions with separatist sentiments would help more than minor excesses and the supply of weapons in the interests of all parties to the conflict.
just like Donbass War
I understand that if in 2014 Ukrainian government had not used the army against Donbass, Ukraine would have peacefully lost all eastern territories. But I am not ready to justify desire of Ukrainian government to kill because they did not want to lose some of their power.
qqqq
1yr ago
It has little to do with the topic of conversation.
Well, your view of the Ossetian-Georgian and Abkhaz-Georgian conflicts is slightly simplified. A country that bloodlessly gains independence from the USSR and a year later decides to use the army against the region that wanted independence from Georgia.
Basayev joined the conflict after the start of the war.
"Incite instability there" happened before him.
And it is rather difficult to call him and his forces supporting him Russian. (Although de jure they were.) But even then, Russia had little control over Chechnya.
qqqq
1yr ago
Soldiers who shoot at any moving target during battle - yes. The massacre of combatants, whom the soldiers consider to be combatants (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_massacre) - yes.
But when a party that clearly has a conflict of interest and uses the statements of the Ukrainian government, which is quite often lying, starts telling stories that are clearly designed for an emotional reaction and are implausible from the point of view of hypothetical actors - I show a lot of skepticism.
qqqq
1yr ago
There seems to be discussed the expansion of NATO in general. In the case of Ukraine, I would replace Poland with Ukraine and not much would change. (Although the armed coup and the right of the population to self-determination make this case more difficult).
And the threat to Russia is not Ukraine, it is the United States and NATO, of course.
qqqq
1yr ago
I also never said it was genetic. It’s cultural and educationally transmitted.
After 1917 the Soviet Union completely changed the culture and education system. The Huns cannot be relevant.
here’s no evidence Donbas wanted to join Russia. There’s never been independent not occupied votes.
Well, first of all, it was (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Donbas_status_referendums) .
And secondly, you will not create a successful militia in a small region, fighting the army of a 40-million country without the support of the local population. You can talk as much as you want about Strelkov connections with the FSB, but Strelkov had a lot of fighters from Donetsk. And the Russian army intervened in the conflict much later.
Let’s remember Germany was spending like 1.3% of gdp on defense
The US has never disarmed. And they actively demonstrated their readiness to attack random countries.
The NATO fear (which is irrational)
A military alliance with a population of a billion people and a GDP of 60 trillion that denies you the right to become a member, but stubbornly continues to push towards your borders, creating opportunities for proxy wars or a critical violation of your nuclear deterrent. Can't this be taken as a threat?
I'm talking about the shelling of thermal power plants and local gas pipelines. And jokes about it in ukrnet. And funny meme about "conditioners" of course.
qqqq
1yr ago
Don't know. For the last 6 years, I have interacted with Ukrainians only on 2ch, and even then rarely.
But I think that having the opportunity to choose and not being afraid of reprisals from the SBU, the majority in the east would prefer Russia. Russia is corny richer, less crime, better infrastructure and government, and no one would have to change either their culture or their language.
qqqq
1yr ago
Did they benefit from the war started by Ukraine? Of course not.
But I see a lot of irony in the fact that in 2022 Ukrainians stopped thinking that cutting off gas, water and electricity is very funny.
The monument to Catherine was demolished because Catherine the Great is associated with Russia. One should not look for some philosophical or historical meaning here. It's just a symbolic gesture against a pile of copper.
More options
Context Copy link