Russian officials are speaking in front of Putin and they're all saying that Moscow should recognize the DNR and the LNR. Interestingly, they're talking about recognizing them as independent states, not annexing them as the Duma asked Putin to do.
This would mean that Russia is burying the Minsk agreement, thus admitting that it couldn't get what it has sought since 2014, but I guess that, unlike annexation by Russia, it wouldn't necessarily be permanent and would leave the door open for reintegration into Ukraine later.
This is correct, I was confused because at some point during the meeting Putin corrected one of the officials who was talking about annexing them, so they're basically telling Putin to sign the Duma's resolution.
I guess it would be one of the least bad outcomes to be honest. I doubt that Ukraine would react militarily with all the Russian troops on their borders, so it would likely end with a post-2008 Georgia kind of situation.
Western countries would probably impose sanctions, but they wouldn't have to go too far. I'm just wondering if Putin can really walk back from all that with nothing more than the recognition of the DNR and the LNR though.
I have no idea whether this is the end goal, but it's certainly not a very good outcome for the Russians in my opinion, because their goal since 2014 has been to bring back the DNR and the LNR into Ukraine but with a new federalized structure.
This would have given the DNR and the LNR, and therefore Russia, a veto over Ukraine's foreign policy, but recognizing their independence doesn't really do much for Russia. Maybe Putin thinks it's enough to save face, but that's pretty weak sauce to be honest.
Yes, I hadn't thought of that, but that's a good point: if Russia does the latter, there would probably still be war.
Tout le reste de l'article est à l'avenant, chaque paragraphe est plus dingue que le précédent, on croirait lire le récit d'une campagne dans un pays du tiers-monde.
NATO is not the whole story, but *of course* it's a big part of it, people who deny that are embarrassing themselves or rather they would be in a healthy intellectual environment where the kind of factors aptly identified below are not present.
We have countless testimonies spanning 3 decades *by American officials* who've spent hundreds of hours discussing this with their Russian counterparts saying those guys are genuinely freaking out about NATO, but no you should trust academics with pronouns in their bio instead 🙃
There are plenty of smart things you can say to nuance the basic realist story, e. g. how what started as concerns over NATO led to an ideological shift toward a form of pan-Russianism that has now taken a life of its own, but no they're going to go with the stupid thing.
Ce qui est dingue, c'est que je clique sur un créneau et il me dit qu'il n'est plus disponible, mais quand j'actualise la recherche il me le propose à nouveau 🙃
Je vais perdre des heures devant ce site de merde à actualiser toutes les 5 minutes, comme si je n'avais que ça à foutre. Je me demande combien de gens ont entamé une carrière de tueur en série à cause de ce site...
Article by @akarlin0 making the case that Russia will almost certainly invade Ukraine. I agree 1-4 are good reasons to believe that, but I think he underestimates the cost and I'm still inclined to think it won't happen, but very interesting nonetheless. akarlin.substack.com/p/regathering-…
When discussing reason #4, he draws a lot on this article published by Putin last July, which I had missed. I think it's more ambiguous than @akarlin0 makes it out to be, but it's still a very interesting window into the official Russian ideology. en.kremlin.ru/events/preside…
Again, I think all of 1-4 are good reasons to believe that Russia will invade, but for me it's 2 that moved the needle the most. The fact that Russia published a list of demands that it must have known the US would never accept is hard to explain if it's not planning to invade.
Excellent fil sur le fact-checking auquel je souscris globalement et qui rejoint une observation que j'ai souvent faite au sujet du fact-checking, mais toutefois je ne suis pas entièrement d'accord avec l'analyse de @lorisguemart ou du moins je voudrais aller plus loin ⬇️
D'abord, même si je ne dis pas que ça n'a pas joué un rôle, je ne pense pas que le rôle de Facebook dans le financement du fact-checking soit la principale explication de la focalisation sur les réseaux sociaux, ce que @lorisguemart ne dit pas exactement d'ailleurs.
Je pense que fondamentalement cette focalisation sur les conneries qui circulent sur les réseaux sociaux est un phénomène de classe : le journalisme est un milieu socialement et idéologiquement très homogène, ce qui détermine largement le choix des sujets qui sont traités.
One of my hot takes, which comes from reading @RCAFDM's work on the determinants of health care spending, is that socialized medicine is good actually because it's the best way to ration health care and stop people from spending fortunes on it for small marginal returns.