Yes, but that is very gentle mode of war from the Russian perspective. Those who decry happening as "madness" or call it "unimaginable" are either clueless (Westerners) or liars (Russians). Russian war in Ukraine is going on *extremely* soft mode. Because Ukraine has air defence
Soviet Union had the largest and the most comprehensive air defence system in the world. It was largely developed as a countermeasure against the U.S. airforce superiority. You have a large and great airforce? Fine, we'll build the large and great air defence. And they did
After the collapse of the USSR, the bulk of the Soviet military was inherited by Russia. But Ukraine also got a substantial part of it, including the air defence. It declined through the 1990-2000s and by 2014 Ukraine was effectively demilitarised. Its army was dysfunctional
After Crimea and the start of the war in Donbass, the army improved significantly, including the air defence. Old Soviet air defence system was reinforced by the modern digital equipment and software, specifically the PLC industrial computers
In 1991-2014 Russia fought in countries with zero or weak air defence. Thus it resorted to the indiscriminate use of airforce, bombing cities like Grozny or Aleppo to the ground. Neither Chechens, nor Syrians could do anything against the airforce turning their cities to the dust
Syrian example illustrates the Russian mode of war and its consequences. Syrian war was *way* worse than the Iraq or Afghanistan. Look at the population graphs for all three countries and you may notice a very particular trend for Syria. Russia enters the game
If Ukraine didn't have significant air defence, Russia could have resorted to the same indiscriminate use of the airforce as in Syria or Chechnya. But it can't. A thorough air defence system made the use of the airforce very risky and difficult. Russia will just lose its aviation
Russian war in Ukraine is unprecedentedly soft and gentle. Consider this. They are raising a Peski town with thermobaric artillery rather than with a bomber. Why? Ukraine has air defence. That's why Russia is so gentle and slow. It can't bomb everything to the dust as in Syria
To sum up:
1. Russian war in Ukraine isn't cruel. It's very gentle, because Ukraine has means of defence. Previous victims of Russia did not
2. Russian mode of war is pure evil
3. Russian public opinion preferred not to notice or condone that evil till they got hurt themselves
4. The strange softness of the Russian army in Ukraine results from Ukraine being armed. Therefore, arming Ukraine is the single best way to deescalate this conflict. The better is Ukraine armed, the more Russia will deescalate. At some point they'll try to back off
5. Russia is a large and strong military machine without *any* ethical or humanitarian concerns. In Syria they literally depopulated a large country. Russian public opinion ignores or endorses it. Ergo, Russia must be demilitarised to minimise the danger it poses to the world
6. Demilitarisation of Russia requires its breakup. Should Moscow keep control over its colonies, it will endure through the hard times and then rebuild its military again. The only way to prevent it is to allow the colonies to break away from under the power of Moscow
7. Russian Federation is the extreme anomaly. It is the last European colonial empire that still continues to exist. Some of these colonies are predominantly white, others are POC-populated. All of them however, should receive a chance for independence from the metropole. The end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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
People don’t really understand causal links. We pretend we do (“X results in Y”). But we actually don’t. Most explanations (= descriptions of causal structures) are fake.
There may be no connection between X and Y at all. The cause is just misattributed.
Or, perhaps, X does indeed result in Y. but only under a certain (and unknown!) set of conditions that remains totally and utterly opaque to us. So, X->Y is only a part of the equation
And so on
I like to think of a hypothetical Stone Age farmer who started farming, and it worked amazingly, and his entire community adopted his lifestyle, and many generations followed it and prospered and multiplied, until all suddenly wiped out in a new ice age
1. Normative Islamophobia that used to define the public discourse being the most acceptable form of racial & ethnic bigotry in the West, is receding. It is not so much dying as rather - failing to replicate. It is not that the old people change their views as that the young do not absorb their prejudice any longer.
In fact, I incline to think it has been failing to replicate for a while, it is just that we have not been paying attention
Again, the change of vibe does not happen at once. The Muslim scare may still find (some) audience among the more rigid elderly, who are not going to change their views. But for the youth, it is starting to sound as archaic as the Catholic scare of know nothings
Out of date
2. What is particularly interesting regarding Mamdani's victory, is his support base. It would not be much of an exaggeration to say that its core is comprised of the young (and predominantly white) middle classes, with a nearly equal representation of men and women
What does Musk vs Trump affair teach us about the general patterns of human history? Well, first of all it shows that the ancient historians were right. They grasped something about nature of politics that our contemporaries simply can’t.
Let me give you an example. The Arab conquest of Spain
According to a popular medieval/early modern interpretation, its primary cause was the lust of Visigoth king Roderic. Aroused by the beautiful daughter of his vassal and ally, count Julian, he took advantage of her
Disgruntled, humiliated Julian allied himself with the Arabs and opens them the gates of Spain.
Entire kingdom lost, all because the head of state caused a personal injury to someone important.