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
In 1927, when Trotsky was being expelled from the Boslhevik Party, the atmosphere was very and very heated. One cavalry commander met Stalin at the stairs and threatened to cut off his ears. He even pretended he is unsheathing he sabre to proceed
Stalin shut up and said nothing
Like obviously, everyone around could see Stalin is super angry. But he still said nothing and did nothing
Which brings us to an important point:
Nobody becomes powerful accidentally
If Joseph Stalin seized the absolute control over the Communist Party, and the Soviet Union, the most plausible explanation is that Joseph Stalin is exercising some extremely rare virtues, that almost nobody on the planet Earth is capable of
Highly virtuous man, almost to the impossible level
Growing up in Russia in the 1990s, I used to put America on a pedestal. It was not so much a conscious decision, as the admission of an objective fact of reality. It was the country of future, the country thinking about the future, and marching into the future.
And nothing reflected this better than the seething hatred it got from Russia, a country stuck in the past, whose imagination was fully preoccupied with the injuries of yesterday, and the phantasies of terrible revenge, usually in the form of nuclear strike.
Which, of course, projected weakness rather than strength
We will make a huuuuuuge bomb, and drop it onto your heads, and turn you into the radioactive dust, and you will die in agony, and we will be laughing and clapping our hands
Fake jobs are completely normal & totally natural. The reason is: nobody understands what is happening and most certainly does not understand why. Like people, including the upper management have some idea of what is happening in an organisation, and this idea is usually wrong.
As they do not know and cannot know causal relations between the input and output, they just try to increase some sort of input, in a hope for a better output, but they do not really know which input to increase.
Insiders with deep & specific knowledge, on the other hand, may have a more clear & definite idea of what is happening, and even certain, non zero degree of understanding of causal links between the input and output
I have recently read someone comparing Trump’s tariffs with collectivisation in the USSR. I think it is an interesting comparison. I don’t think it is exactly the same thing of course. But I indeed think that Stalin’s collectivisation offers an interesting metaphor, a perspective to think about
But let’s make a crash intro first
1. The thing you need to understand about the 1920s USSR is that it was an oligarchic regime. It was not strictly speaking, an autocracy. It was a power of few grandees, of the roughly equal rank.
2. Although Joseph Stalin established himself as the single most influential grandee by 1925, that did not make him a dictator. He was simply the most important guy out there. Otherwise, he was just one of a few. He was not yet the God Emperor he would become later.
The great delusion about popular revolts is that they are provoked by bad conditions of life, and burst out when they exacerbate. Nothing can be further from truth. For the most part, popular revolts do not happen when things get worse. They occur when things turn for the better
This may sound paradoxical and yet, may be easy to explain. When the things had been really, really, really bad, the masses were too weak, to scared and too depressed to even think of raising their head. If they beared any grudges and grievances, they beared them in silence.
When things turn for the better, that is when the people see a chance to restore their pride and agency, and to take revenge for all the past grudges, and all the past fear. As a result, a turn for the better not so much pacifies the population as emboldens and radicalises it.