That's Mikhail Khodaryonok. Out of all people in the room he is the most sober one. Why? Well, may be because he's the only one with the substantial military experience. He's a career officer of the air defence who turned to a pundit career only after retirement (not a thread)
Khodaryonok used to be a senior operative officer in the Russian General Staff. Most Russian pundits judged the military capacity of the Russian army based on official propaganda. Khodaryonok - on his lived experience. Now wonder he is way more pessimistic about the war
Khodaryonok published a pessimistic prognosis about the Russian invasion of Ukraine back on February 3, long before it started. Many pundits expected a quick Russian victory. But the one who actually worked in the Russian General Staff didn't believe in it nvo.ng.ru/realty/2022-02…
Some Khodaryonok's points he raised back on February 3, three weeks before the Russian invasion:
- Pundits are wrong about the political situation in Ukraine. Many claim that nobody iwould defend the "regime in Kyiv". That's false. They will, including the Russian-speakers
- Pundits claim that Russia can win in a few hours by destroying Ukrainian army with "a mighty artillery strike". Well, even a term "mighty artillery strike" suggests it were the Politruks who made it up and not the military. It's propaganda. It's also factually wrong. They won't
- Pundits claim that Ukrainian army is in disarray. Well, it used to be back in 2014. Back then it used to be a very much deteriorated version of the Soviet army. Since then it improved immensely. It is now organised on very different principles and largely by NATO standards
- Pundits claim that the Western countries won't send a single soldier to die for Ukraine. Probably they won't. But they will support Ukraine massively "There is no doubt that in the case of war, the USA and NATo will reincarnate some version of lend lease much alike WWII"
- Pundits expect Russia to win in days or hours. They forget that the USSR spent more than 10 years exterminating guerrillas in Western Ukraine. Now Russia will face guerrillas in urban landscapes that naturally favour a weaker and less heavily armed side of the conflict
- Conclusions. There will be no Blitzkrieg in Ukraine. Experts who claim that Russia will defeat Ukraine in "8 minutes", "10 minutes" and even in "30-40 minutes are wrong". Best of all, forget about your jingoist fantasies and never bring them up again
I very much recommend to translate Khodoryonok's prognosis from back on February 3 and publish it as a full length thread. It's really the most astute, detailed and shockingly precise prognosis of the future war that I read. That's literally Cassandra-level of prophesying
Some wrote that my prognosis from Feb 27 aged well and I take this as a compliment. But Khodoryonok's article was *waaay* more precise and came out 3 weeks earlier. He predicted the course of this war before it even started. That's the power of a true expertise & lived experience
TL;DR Out of all predictions and prognoses about the Z-war that I ever read or hear about, Khodaryonok's one was the most precise, like unbelievably precise. I don't exclude the possibility that this guy understands the situation better than anyone else. The end of not a thread
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Yes, and that is super duper quadruper important to understand
Koreans are poor (don't have an empire) and, therefore, must do productive work to earn their living. So, if the Americans want to learn how to do anything productive they must learn it from Koreans etc
There is this stupid idea that the ultra high level of life and consumption in the United States has something to do with their productivity. That is of course a complete sham. An average American doesn't do anything useful or important to justify (or earn!) his kingly lifestyle
The kingly lifestyle of an average American is not based on his "productivity" (what a BS, lol) but on the global empire Americans are holding currently. Part of the imperial dynamics being, all the actually useful work, all the material production is getting outsourced abroad
Reading Tess of the d'Urbervilles. Set in southwest England, somewhere in the late 1800s. And the first thing you need to know is that Tess is bilingual. He speaks a local dialect she learnt at home, and the standard English she picked at school from a London-trained teacher
So, basically, "normal" language doesn't come out of nowhere. Under the normal conditions, people on the ground speak all the incomprehensible patois, wildly different from each other
"Regular", "correct" English is the creation of state
So, basically, the state chooses a standard (usually, based on one of the dialects), cleanses it a bit, and then shoves down everyone's throats via the standardized education
Purely artificial construct, of a super mega state that really appeared only by the late 1800s
There's a subtle point here that 99,999% of Western commentariat is missing. Like, totally blind to. And that point is:
Building a huuuuuuuuuuge dam (or steel plant, or whatever) has been EVERYONE's plan of development. Like absolutely every developing country, no exceptions
Almost everyone who tried to develop did it in a USSR-ish way, via prestige projects. Build a dam. A steel plant. A huge plant. And then an even bigger one
And then you run out of money, and it all goes bust and all you have is postapocalyptic ruins for the kids to play in
If China did not go bust, in a way like almost every development project from the USSR to South Asia did, that probably means that you guys are wrong about China. Like totally wrong
What you describe is not China but the USSR, and its copies & emulations elsewhere
What I am saying is that "capitalist reforms" are a buzzword devoid of any actual meaning, and a buzzword that obfuscated rather than explains. Specifically, it is fusing radically different policies taken under the radically different circumstances (and timing!) into one - purely for ideological purposes
It can be argued, for example, that starting from the 1980s, China has undertaken massive socialist reforms, specifically in infrastructure, and in basic (mother) industries, such as steel, petrochemical and chemical and, of course, power
The primary weakness of this argument is that being true, historically speaking, it is just false in the context of American politics where the “communism” label has been so over-used (and misapplied) that it lost all of its former power:
“We want X”
“No, that is communism”
“We want communism”
Basically, when you use a label like “communism” as a deus ex machina winning you every argument, you simultaneously re-define its meaning. And when you use it to beat off every popular socio economic demand (e.g. universal healthcare), you re-define communism as a synthesis of all the popular socio economic demands
Historical communism = forced industrial development in a poor, predominantly agrarian country, funded through expropriation of the peasantry
(With the most disastrous economic and humanitarian consequences)
Many are trying to explain his success with some accidental factors such as his “personal charisma”, Cuomo's weakness etc
Still, I think there may be some fundamental factors here. A longue durée shift, and a very profound one
1. Public outrage does not work anymore
If you look at Zohran, he is calm, constructive, and rarely raises his voice. I think one thing that Mamdani - but almost no one else in the American political space is getting - is that the public is getting tired of the outrage
Outrage, anger, righteous indignation have all been the primary drivers of American politics for quite a while
For a while, this tactics worked
Indeed, when everyone around is polite, and soft (and insincere), freaking out was a smart thing to do. It could help you get noticed