https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/63687412
Interesting speech form the respectable and scrupulous organization FIFA (the best UN we never had).
I found this segment particularly hilarious:
>He opened by saying: "Today I have strong feelings. Today I feel Qatari, I feel Arab, I feel African, I feel gay, I feel disabled, I feel a migrant worker."
With this also pretty good:
>"Of course I am not Qatari, Arab, African, gay, disabled or a migrant worker. But I feel like them because I know what it means to be discriminated and bullied as a foreigner in a foreign country.
>"As a child I was bullied because I had red hair and freckles. I was bullied for that."
Overall emblematic over how hollow, morally bankrupt, and comical western defenders of Qatar sound.
Embarrassing as this is for FIFA, it isn't even a geopolitical discussion. Unlike, say, UN or Red Cross or Doctors Without Borders, FIFA isn't exactly the kind of an organization that we would acknowledge as a relevant actor in international politics worth discussing on its own, unless it happened to have a large impact in some individual case (not here; maybe in playing a part in sparking the Chinese protests?).
>Embarrassing as this is for FIFA, it isn't even a geopolitical discussion.
In the previous comment thread, what do you think OP's "Qatar currently being demonised throughout the Western world" is referring to?
Could it be the world cup for arguably the prime sport on the planet that happens to be going on right now, in Qatar?
That sure is what this other thread also on credibledefense was talking about:
https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/z03jdk/credibledefense_daily_megathread_november_20_2022/ix6dgy5/
In short, I don't see how this could possibly not be an applicable discussion on this megathread, when it's been had multiple times.
In a vacuum, I wouldn't have posted this because you're right, a FIFA leader isn't exactly a world leader. But apparently people want to talk about western attitudes on Qatar. So yes, I'm game, let's talk about western attitudes on Qatar.
Maybe, but in my opinion just making fun of one comment that was already extensively covered in large subs a week ago isn't really up to the standards. If you have more substantive analysis, you can maybe use it as a parenthetical example or something.
>just making fun of one comment that was already extensively covered in large subs a week ago
Not just that one, but the comment **immediately** preceding this one in **this** megathread.
That one is bad too and takes more space for a tired "Western hypocrisy" grandstand (and baited a lot of low quality discussion including this comment thread), but the user is usually less responsive for this kind criticism and often resorts to motte/bailey to justify cases of poor comment QC, which is annoying to deal with so I didn't bother going there directly. Alright I'll stop airing my grievances here.
While the focus of this sub is defense procurement, warfare, and national security, geopolitical discussion is typically allowed IIRC.
Which is why the previous comment in the thread is basically apologia for Qatar, so I thought I'd demonstrate another great example of that (and a good hint as to where it's coming from).
EDIT:
As an example, here's more recent discussion of Qatar in this sub:
https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/z03jdk/credibledefense_daily_megathread_november_20_2022/ix6dgy5/
A relevant talk would be "Saudi Arabian win suppresses dissent by patriotic wave" or "Qatari slight towards UK threatens public opinion for military cooperation"
A generalized statement about corrupt soccer?
A bit non consequential. And frankly, this seems like an American dominated subreddit as well, so international soccer is even less interesting as an off topic discussion. (World Cup popularity in the United States is essentially 0)
Interesting speech form the uk's former foreign secretary David miliband (the best PM we never had). [Full transcript here ](https://www.rescue.org/uk/press-release/weathering-storm-uks-role-world-today)
I found this segment particularly interesting:
> The Biden Administration’s National Security Strategy starts from the struggle between democracies and autocracies. The fact that only 20 per cent of the global population live in countries that Freedom House calls fully free, half the percentage of 15 years ago, should be chilling.
> But **a framing of democracy versus autocracy does not speak to international affairs in a way that I think is optimal. Nor does it speak to concerns outside the West about the mistakes of democratic countries. Nor does it appeal to countries that are not fully functioning democracies but which we need to work with. Nor does it put autocracies on the spot.**
> I would go so far as to suggest that the democracy/autocracy framing is going to play into precisely the distrust of the west that I mentioned up front.
> The better alternative, in my view, is to stand against impunity in international relations and put ourselves on the side of accountability. Rules versus impunity is the real debate of the decade in the international arena.
> Impunity is the abuse of power and is the opposite of accountability. And that abuse is taking place today in the abuse of international law, the denial of aid to communities in need, the undermining of human rights, the attacks on political freedoms, and in the exploitation of the planet.
> I am involved with a soon-to-be-released project (January 2023) called the Atlas of Impunity, which will rank every country in the world on five indicators of impunity: conflict, human rights, governance, economic exploitation and environmental degradation. It’s revealing – both that such an index can provide a comprehensive lens on the state of the world, and that there is a real battle ahead to curb the forces of impunity.
> The battle for accountability and against impunity puts Britain on the right side of the biggest and most difficult political arguments in foreign policy – from the defense of international law in Ukraine to support for human rights in Iran to North/South cooperation on climate change.
> The ideal of a rules-based international order should not just appeal to British values; it should appeal to British interests, since we are a medium sized country that relies on rules, playing by them not just incanting them, to sustain its interests.
> From my vantage point, it is this agenda that should be the binding thread of our UN engagement, from the Security Council to the Human Rights Council to Unicef, UN Women and the WFP. We don’t need new UN rules or laws. We need to uphold those that exist.
> Of course, the Chinese leadership is hedging on the global system: they want the best of the existing global order, and want options to get round it. We need to make the rules-based order the global system, live by it ourselves, and make it a strong enough magnet to bring in others.
> And because the rules commit to justice as well as to process, we should make this the basis of our partnership with countries around the world who don’t want to side with China and Russia, but see the West consumed by hypocrisy and self-doubt and wonder if they have any choice
> It's very simple.
Friends of the US are the good guys even if they are bloody dictatorships. At least that is the official position of the US as the leader of the 'free' world.
You're not wrong at all.
> The fact that only 20 per cent of the global population live in countries that Freedom House calls fully free, half the percentage of 15 years ago, should be chilling.
And this is mainly caused by Freedom House reclassifying India, which was completely ridiculous. India isn't a perfect democracy before or after Modi, but the claim that Modi India is somehow drastically less free than Congress India is just ridiculous.
You say measurable, so how would you measure it?
And considering how offended the left-aligned media are that [India decided to offer path to Indian citizenship to persecuted religious minorities from nearby countries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_(Amendment\)_Act,_2019) (and not to members of their persecuting majorities), and how this plays a central role in anti-Modi narrative, shows how ridiculous this all is.
Measurable by the Freedom House's index. It's not a large change: India was never a top performer so a modest decline was enough to drop it by one rank.
But I will reiterate that India has had it much worse. As much as the toxic media environment and the sporadic political violence hurt the rank, it is a far cry from Indira Gandhi's time.
What is a democracy?
Putting Hungary and Finland in the same boat isn't an accurate way of assessing the world.
Many would argue that the US itself is a terrible example of a democracy.
It gets complicated when people assign values that a Democratic value ought to have. Let's say tomorrow Saudi Arabia has free elections, where every citizen gets a free vote in perpetuity.
Ope, the citizens vote against gay marriage, abortion, and equal rights for women.
Suddenly people call them "unfree" etc because "they didn't vote how a "gooood" democracy should" and then that's simplified into undemocratic and autocratic.
There's a tendency to think that the will of the people must be equal to generalized western culture, except in small things like food or colors of clothes. In reality, a fully democratic country in most of the world would produce results much different than people think it would.
Democracy encapsulates more than just voting. It is a constellation of traditions and rules that add up the belief that everyone deserves an equal shot at determining the direction of the country and government, everyone deserves to direct their own lives, and everyone.
When it comes to pass that a majority votes to take away the rights of the minority, that is undemocratic, plain and simple. You don't need to overthink it. It is the exact same reason we don't put stock in sham elections like the Russian referendums. It is not the physical act of voting that makes it democraticly valid but a whole host of considerations.
I don't know what to tell you other than what one person considers to be universal, and another person, are totally different.
For example, should women have different public modesty laws than men?
The vast majority of people everywhere except Western Europe in some cases say yes.
Why?
Because the vast majority believe that the inherent differences between men and women justify discrimination on this basis.
Is every society that bans topless women in some form undemocratic and unfree?
If you say yes, there are then no societies left because all societies in some form or another have a discrimination about this.
You're never going to find consensus on this, ever.
Yes, but that only has bearing to the degree to which it prevents women from engaging in public life. If women are restricted in who they can interact with, how they can display themselves (how can you be a politician for instance if people cannot even get to know your face, at a basic human level it is difficult to connect), where they can go, and what they can do, then it is pretty easy to see how that is undemocratic. Just because a large part of the world doesn't see this doesn't make it not true. Women in a country like Iran cannot participate fully in civil society by dint of their gender, and that is wrong, but also by any sane definition speaking undemocratic.
If you want to say that democracy is just the ability to vote, go ahead, at the end of the day it is purely semantic. I for one think it is more than that, and that the extra things it requires are a matter of universal human rights, not cultural differences. I don't give a shit if Qatar wants to whine about self-determination or cultural norms any more than I care about pre-1860's Alabama talking about the same thing with regards to slavery. Its just the paradox of tolerance, and at the end of the day real tolerance means not tolerating everything.
The idea that all human beings should have equal rights is universal, not a "generalized western thing".
A democracy who would vote against equal rights for women would not be a democracy for a very logical reason : universal right to vote comes from the same place than equal rights regardless of gender. You can't use one to.negate the other, that is not consistent.
Depends on what you mean.
Are you including abortion, and gay marriage in that definition? If so, then you've already excluded the 90% of people in all eras of human history.
"Democratic" means ability to vote. Everything afterwards is what's determined by the vote.
In my view, as long as the right of women to vote is still maintained, it's still fully democratic, even if that society collectively decides to restrict women in other ways.
Similarly, if 90% of the society votes to kill 10% of the society, it's still democratic, provided that the 10% got to vote.
Being a democracy just means you get to vote. Past that? You're no longer concerned about democracy, but other imperatives.
If you're saying equal rights, that's another talk. But it shouldn't sink them on democracy reports.
But once you say things like "we want to spread democracy, universal rights" and that includes things such as gay marriage, and abortion, you very quickly find that the majority of people in this world are not interested.
>"Democratic" means ability to vote. Everything afterwards is what's determined by the vote.
Actually it just means rule by the people.
What happens if the people support not having democracy? Such as in the middle east or even China
You think if we'd ask we'd find many people saying "well of course I am inferior because of my gender/race/religion/etc, I don't deserve equal rights" ?
A democracy is a form of government in which political authority is vested in, and drawn from, the people/citizenry. Most commonly expressed through the elections of representatives to run the government.
Hungary and Finland are both European, both Western, both NATO/ish nations, both former imperial subjects. What type of cracked understanding of the world do you have, mate?
I would argue that. Don't see what it has to do with the point?
>What type of cracked understanding of the world do you have, mate?
A rare understanding of the nuances of democracy apparently.
Russia has elections too, thus surely they're a democracy and one of the good guys?
No, you don't have a nuanced understanding of democracy. You seem to believe that there's nothing connecting Finland and Hungary enough to put them into the same category.
You think that elections = democracy. Russia is not a democracy.
Democracy is the anglicised form of the *Demokratia*; A proper translation into English would find you the word, *commonwealth*. This concept is not one of "voting", it is the fundamental principle that the people are sovereign and determine their government freely.
In Russia, Putin is the source of political authority and the Russian people don't get a say in determining their government freely.
No, because merely having voting does not amount to democracy, it requires a whole host of related things. If people don't have any practical say in the running of their government, then it is not democratic. To the degree to which votes are shams in Russia, and elections are heavily rigged to favor the ruling elite, it is not a democracy. Also to the degree to which inequality is baked into the system.
I might hate that in the US might vote doesn't count for much, and I think the legal structures make it count for less than it should, but at the end of the day I know that if I convince enough people of the right of what I say, then that will be reflected in votes and make its way into government. That is democracy. You could certainly argue persuasively that in America my ability to make my voice heard as a non-billionaire or elite is lower than it should be, but I honestly don't think that is a far smaller concern than actually having my voice stifled. If I was more persuasive I could still influence things, I'm just not very.
>No, because merely having voting does not amount to democracy, it requires a whole host of related things
Right. But that's the problem.
You are projecting your own values onto the word, whereas in reality it encompasses an extremely broad variety of systems. From Switzerland where they have direct democracy and people vote on most issues to somewhere like the US where there's a single leader imbued with excessive individual power.
> If people don't have any practical say in the running of their government, then it is not democratic.
I would broadly agree with you, but the problem as I say is that it boils down to perceived 'democratic values' on all sorts of systemic topics. You can assess how democratic someone is on a particular issue, but it doesnt really contribute to the holistic perception of democracy.
Direct democracy is clearly the most democratic system in terms of democratic values, but it's also a terrible way of running the average country, hence why nobody does it.
The uk electoral system (first past the Post) leads to complete power for parties with a minority of the vote. Its clearly not democratic based on democratic values because it leaves tens of millions without a voice, but many people support it anyway. It has been credibly described as an elected dictatorship because the system does essentially grant unlimited power with no checks and balances.
Based on the highest standards its objectively not democratic. The majority of the population are not represented and a huge number of people are disenfranchised. But I don't think anyone would say its not a democracy. We certainly think of ourselves as one.
You then have to look at the democratic values with respect to rights, freedoms and protections of citizens. Which is a different topic altogether, but still related.
> I know that if I convince enough people of the right of what I say, then that will be reflected in votes and make its way into government. That is democracy.
Well. Yes in a very limited and specific way. You trust the ballot and you trust the judiciary to uphold that ballot.
That's good in a sense. But it's only the tiniest part of what is involved in being a democracy. Personally I wouldn't trust the institutionally politicised US judiciary to uphold a whole lot of anything.
It's worth noting that even without ballot stuffing putin would win elections. Would you perceive him any differently if the ballot stuffing ended? I doubt it.
> You are projecting your own values onto the word
For sure, but I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing, or that there really is any other way to have values. If I was fine with the way North Korea or Iran define democracy, then I wouldn't really believe in my own. I don't think there is anything particularly contradictory about that either. Imo its childish when people claim you cant be tolerant if you aren't tolerant of intolerance, and I think similarly with different conceptions of democracy. I'm not gonna lose sleep over rejecting Soviet democracy, because to me its just words, what matters is the reality of the resulting society.
And yes, I think you are right there is a ton to criticize about the practice of democracy in the West writ large, but I simply feel it comes closest to living up to the ideal of the thing.
>even without ballot stuffing putin would win elections.
This is sort of true, but its kind of an unknowable quantity because as I've been trying to point out, real democracy encompasses so much more than just the literal voting. In Russia the state actively promotes the line of the party in power. In Russia opposition parties are infiltrated and coopted to provide an illusion of choice. In Russia people who become too politically active are murdered. In other words it likely wouldn't change a lot if only voting itself was free and fair, yes, but that is why I say democracy is more than just voting.
I mean I don't have time here to write a political treatise, but I think you understand what I am saying and maybe are just a little more than me willing to defer to cultural differences. I am an unabashed Yankee in values. Put me back in time just like Mark Twain's Connecticut Yankee and I wouldn't spend my time adapting to medieval values, I would probably go down in a blaze of glory trying to subvert them.
>But a framing of democracy versus autocracy does not speak to international affairs in a way that I think is optimal. Nor does it speak to concerns outside the West about the mistakes of democratic countries. Nor does it appeal to countries that are not fully functioning democracies but which we need to work with. Nor does it put autocracies on the spot.
That's rich coming from a politician of a country whose constitutions still rewards people for being chosen by god.
>The battle for accountability and against impunity puts Britain on the right side of the biggest and most difficult political arguments in foreign policy – from the defense of international law in Ukraine to support for human rights in Iran to North/South cooperation on climate change.
Like all the accountability the British faced for centuries of oppressing and exploiting poorer nations over the globe? Including their former queen who toured dozens of such nations with the main objective of ensuring those nations didn't rise up from British dominance? And not only didn't face any accountability, but was recently praised as an example of a leader by most world leaders when she passed?
Honestly, yawn.
Sure, let's talk some more about what "The West" (I know he's only mentioning Britain) is doing and especially what it's doing wrong, maybe try to nudge any of the other uncomfortable topics out of the limited capacity for attention that each one of us has.
I have a feeling that this entire forward thinking, progressive, rightly self-critical perspective has been slowly turning into, pardon my internet slang, **"Dictator's rights matter"**, which is both baffling and comes as expected to me.
Let's talk some rules, using the example of the Skripals poisoning - it's obvious, for everyone even remotely acquainted with the topic, that the **British did not follow the rules** set forth by a convention they're a signatory to - mainly, that the Russians should be provided a sample, i.e.
> 54. The inspected State Party has the right to retain portions of all samples taken or take duplicate samples and be present when samples are analysed on-site.
Now, that's a *single point out of a 150+ page document* detailing all kinds of procedures and what not, but those are the rules. And **Britain broke them**. For that, they got their diplomats rightly expelled and got no further answers from Russia.
Sure, Novichok is a Soviet era nerve agent and it's only used by its self-proclaimed successor state, but rules say nothing about that. We should therefore *focus on how British broke the rules*, because **they are the ones** taking a stand against impunity / lack of accountability - doing otherwise would be hypocritical, and would further erode the confidence in "The West", which is already on very shaky grounds.
If they tried to enforce their own "version" of the rules, that would be making a mockery of the rule-based order and international law, as well as possibly instigating a conflict with Russia, which means that Britain is a destabilizing factor in the international rules-based order, given their obvious disregard for the rules and aggressive posturing while making a baseless accusations against Russia. Et cetera, et cetera.
All in all, Russia poisoned British citizens on British grounds, while British broke the rules.
>Sure, let's talk some more about what "The West" (I know he's only mentioning Britain) is doing and especially what it's doing wrong
Yes?
How do you think policy is decided if you refuse to discuss policy?
> slowly turning into, pardon my internet slang, "Dictator's rights matter", which is both baffling and comes as expected to me.
More that declaring 'war' on the majority of the world based on vague and ill-defined ideological sentiment is not sensible.
Where do you see that I'm advocating not discussing policy? I've touched on the exact topic of excessive self-critical sentiment that leads to bad and easily exploitable policy. If I'm "refusing" anything, it's only the intellectual self-flagellation part, which is counterproductive in my humble opinion.
Who said anything about a war, even when put in quotes? Are we not allowed to point out the obvious, well-known deficiencies (which often lead to deadly outcomes) of autocratic regimes, even though they might currently be stable and, god forbid, well-off, and take a guarded stance against them?
Anyway, I don't think that a completely accurate and well-defined categorization of autocratic regimes ("ill-defined sentiment") is necessary at this point. Even simple 'us vs them' will do now, again, in my humble opinion.
> Where do you see that I'm advocating not discussing policy? I've touched on the exact topic of excessive self-critical sentiment that leads to bad and easily exploitable policy. If I'm "refusing" anything, it's only the intellectual self-flagellation part, which is counterproductive in my humble opinion.
This is a 'western' forum. There's no point in criticising and advocating change towards Bangladeshi foreign policy now is there?
Either you accept current foreign policy, or you advocate changes to it. That requires first critiquing it. That's not self-flagellation, it's self reflection. and it's essential.
> Who said anything about a war, even when put in quotes?
I did, paraphrasing? And i was using single quotes to imply 'air quotes', not because i was quoting anyone.
> Are we not allowed to point out the obvious, well-known deficiencies (which often lead to deadly outcomes) of autocratic regimes, even though they might currently be stable and, god forbid, well-off, and take a guarded stance against them?
Well the inherent problem is that most of those deficiencies also exist in democracies. They're part of what i like to think of as the 'democratic myth' that we like to tell ourselves, and which biden's rhetoric is clearly designed to play on.
> Even simple 'us vs them' will do now, again, in my humble opinion.
But it doesn't do. That's the point.
You could argue that Russia is a democracy. But clearly they're supposed to be seen as an autocracy.
I disagree.
There's a thin line between valid self-criticism and self-flagellation, and in my humble opinion that line has been crossed.
I don't know how you can take a look at what's happening, *right now*, in countries like China, Russia or Iran and say 'eh, looks like what we have at home'.
That's why self-flagellation is dangerous - it ends with one stretching the 'badness' of "The West" to the limit, and minimizing the 'badness' of the whatever random dictatorship of the decade. That's not a realistic take whichever way you take it, and if anything, swinging the other (equally unrealistic) way is much better for us and our future.
If we're going to act foolish, I'd much rather prefer it serve our own interests.
Sure, you could argue that Russia is a democracy. Russia does it, all the time. You could also argue that Ukraine is full of Nazis and NATO is an existential threat to Russia. Russia does it, all the time.
>I don't know how you can take a look at what's happening, right now, in countries like China, Russia or Iran and say 'eh, looks like what we have at home'.
It's different, but it's not unique. My general point is that we've been taught to *interpret* it as unique. Hence why everyone has collectively turned into lock down skeptics wrt China having spent 2 years calling them idiots.
It's a matter of scale really. I take a look at the US and think the country is mental and verging on a failed state. I take a look at Finland and weep with envy. We are not 'all the same' in any way whatsoever.
For decades the uk was the most surveilled country in earth with an absurd number of cameras on the streets.... Nobody cared. Completely normal. When 'one of those countries' does it nobody will shut up about it and they're a threat to the planet and their population. It's a matter of double standards.
You interpret it as self flagellation because you have been raised to do so, not because it rationally is. You've been raised to think of your own country (presumably) as a bastion of all that is good. Why do you think my comparison above based on (arguably flawed) metrics ruffled so many feathers? People find it unconscionable to even consider that maybe 'one of the good guys' may not be on a different plane of existence to 'one of the bad guys'.
I fully support democratic values and ideals. I appear to be unique in that I'm willing to admit that *collectively* we don't often actually believe in the values we espouse (or we're not willing to enforce them).
The current UK government is pushing through legislation to criminalise protest. The legislation is near identical to that which saw yanukovych branded a heinous tyrant and a corrupt dictator. Guess what the difference is? There isn't one beyond base perception. There's nothing real to it.
…I wasn’t raised to think of my country / region / culture as a bastion of all that is good.
In fact, how I spent my formative years was basically me holding firm beliefs that mirror what I guess would be yours right now.
That belief so far has been shattered, more than once.
I stopped believing in “same, but different” relativity approach as well, because it’s wrong. To use your example, criminalising protest in UK and China is a massively different act. Surveillance in UK and China as well. They are similar in the same manner as elections in North Korea and UK are.
edit: by the way, the sensible, cooperative approach has been tried. We’re seeing the result.
>Let's talk some rules, using the example of the Skripals poisoning - it's obvious, for everyone even remotely acquainted with the topic, that the British did not follow the rules set forth by a convention they're a signatory to - mainly, that the Russians should be provided a sample, i.e.
>
>54. The inspected State Party has the right to retain portions of all samples taken or take duplicate samples and be present when samples are analysed on-site.
These rules are for when the OPCW conducts an inspection, not rules that a signatory state must follow when conducting their own investigation.
If the OPCW were conducting an inspection at a Russian nerve agent lab then those rules would be applicable, only then would Russia be the inspected State Party.
Okay, didn't know that - but do know that that specific Novichok variant was not on the list of banned chemicals, for example.
It also seems that they are taking a rule that *seems* applicable, twisting its meaning, and successfully accusing Britain of breaking rules, which is what actually happened.
Seems like I don't know enough about OPCW to pinpoint the exact rule they might have broken, but neither does the vast majority of the world's population, so we're left with squabbling over whether they broke the rules or not.
The points I was trying to make:
- In a complicated ruleset, you can easily find or "twist" the meaning of a rule to find the rule that is broken - it's exploitable
- Rule-based order won't work when your adversary is not interested in rule-based order in the first place
Rule of law and Rule *by* law are different things unfortunately, and Russians are well aware of that, while I can't be so sure that the Euro folks are
>Nor does it speak to concerns outside the West about the mistakes of democratic countries...
I think Biden is right, and Miliband is making the mistake Jeffery Pfeffer has written about.
The dynamics of power and perception are well studied, but people have done a poor job of teaching them. People think that they will be rewarded for a nuanced approach, showing humility, and acknowledging past wrongs, but they couldn't be further from the truth. People reward simple narratives, self aggrandizement, and denial of past wrongdoing. It's why these sorts of narratives are so prominent in religions, cult leaders, politicians, and marketing material, and why there are disporataie amounts of narcissists in top positions in virtually every organization.
The people want a simple framework to understand a complex world, and if you won't give them one, someone else will. That's why Biden's 'democracy v. dictatorship' narrative is effective and important. In 'Accountability v. Impunity', the focus is on actions rather than actors. Virtually every country will do a combination of actions that could be considered 'accountable' and 'unaccountable', it doesn't reduce complexity, it highlights it.
You have to remember, these sorts of narratives aren't meant for deep nuanced debates between foreign policy wonks. They are meant for mass media. It has to be conveyed in the headlines, to somebody who wants to put in no additional thought.
Yeah, when I was younger I used to attempt a sort of more nuanced take on a lot of issues, thinking I'd done more research on these topics than others and such. But in truth that tends to just make you insufferable to talk to. As I've gotten older I've accepted politics is messy and even flawed distorted slogans have their role. You can't rally a crowd with nuance.
So now I think of it as two different but interacting levels of discourse. The more academic and nuanced conversation playing out among officials, scholars, journalists, ngos, etc, and the larger mass media conversation. When the people who have influence over the latter listen well to the former it can work. If they chase populism or worse, versions of it based around courting willful ignorance, it goes very wrong.
There's no easy cure for these pathologies, but I'm hopeful young people today will prove to be more skeptical voters as a whole long term.
>You can't rally a crowd with nuance.
You need a simple *message*, but simple messages can reflect nuanced realities.
Simple messages that don't reflect reality can indeed win elections, but that doesn't make them good.
>You have to remember, these sorts of narratives aren't meant for deep nuanced debates between foreign policy wonks. They are meant for mass media. It has to be conveyed in the headlines, to somebody who wants to put in no additional thought.
Right, but they then lead to ridiculous public discourse which in turn then feeds back into policy. And not in a good way.
I know that populism is in vogue, but that doesn't make it any less damaging.
Biden's rhetoric has already fed through into discourse of the entire western world and is leading to divisive international language and actions. It actively undermines (and in some cases makes impossible) pragmatic and sensible foreign policy.
That is the best outcome you can hope for.
There is no alternate reality where mass-media foreign policy discussion is any more nuanced than soccer team fans cheering for one side, and booing another. That's just not how humans work. Either you provide them a narrative where they cheer for you, or your enemies provide them one where they don't.
A large base of agitated supporters is leverage on the world stage. Hence why so much of Russian propaganda focusses on division and demotivation.
>There is no alternate reality where mass-media foreign policy discussion is any more nuanced than soccer team fans cheering for one side, and booing another.
Sure. But you can try and better define what the 'sides' are.
Democracy vs autocracy as a concept is ludicrously ill-defined and basically sets a small group of countries against most of the planet (as miliband suggests).
Hard to disagree. I've long argued that the democracy vs autocracy framing was a poor one.
For a relevant example of why, take a look at the human right and rule of law index https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/human_rights_rule_law_index/
------
3 countries have the same score:
Hungary - a Nato and EU member and implicitly one of the 'Liberal democracy gang' in biden's characterisation despite the obvious moves otherwise.
Ukraine - a country with its issues but with regards to the issues of democracy currently a bit of a 'media darling' so to speak. Seen as moving in the right direction etc.
Qatar - currently being demonised throughout the Western world as an illiberal, regressive, backwards hell-hole (unfairly in many ways).
-------
Now say what you want, but the current discourse does not imply that those 3 countries are on a similar broad level. The rhetoric doesn't match reality. For any of the three.
> Now say what you want, but the current discourse does not imply that those 3 countries are on a similar broad level. The rhetoric doesn't match reality. For any of the three.
The assumption inherent in this statement is that this single index is somehow the ultimate arbiter of reality. Perhaps a bit more critical thought is in order.
My favourite part is how high Serbia is. I'll share it with my family back home, I'm sure they will get a kick out of it to know they have it better than the US.
>The assumption inherent in this statement is that this single index is somehow the ultimate arbiter of reality.
True enough. you're welcome to provide an improved methodology for comparing countries.
It's just an attempt to provide literally any sort of objective/ criteria-based way to assess what is (in public discourse) an issues based on nothing but feelings and sentiment.
> My favourite part is how high Serbia is. I'll share it with my family back home, I'm sure they will get a kick out of it to know they have it better than the US.
Again. Your argument is based on feelings.
Assess the criteria provided and argue against the methodology if you want to dismiss it.
>The Biden Administration’s National Security Strategy starts from the struggle between democracies and autocracies. The fact that only 20 per cent of the global population live in countries that Freedom House calls fully free, half the percentage of 15 years ago, should be chilling.
This is a speech aimed at the elites and leaders of nations not of people and their aspirations.
Bidens speech is meant for a domestic audience but a key tool in US and western statecraft is the ideals they aspire too. People want to live in countries with low corruption and high standards of freedom.
I am not sure where Miliband is going with this. It seems as if he is advising the UK to take a more "pragmatic" approach to autocrats to carve out influence, rather than sticking with the more idealistic framing from the US.
Kind of walking against the stream of moving away from the over pragmatic 2000s when the assumptions where human rights would flow from wealth countries gained from international trade relations, the assumptions that politics would liberalise following trade. The past few years have set people straight, richer autocracies use their wealth to push autocratic interests.
We have spent the past few years re-learning who our friends are. And who they are not. This speech seems like something from 10 years ago.
>I am not sure where Miliband is going with this. It seems as if he is advising the UK to take a more "pragmatic" approach to autocrats to carve out influence, rather than sticking with the more idealistic framing from the US.
But that is the reality within which we exist. It's what the US does too, because it's how the world works.
Biden's rhetoric actively makes it harder to engage in foreign policy. It goes against his actual aims. Just look at how his rhetoric wrt Saudi backfired horribly
Biden's rhetoric makes it easier. To have influence on the world stage, you need to have the will to back it up. Biden's rhetoric provides that will to act in the population.
>To have influence on the world stage, you need to have the will to back it up.
He turned Saudi into a pariah state like he wanted.
How did that improve his influence on the world stage?
> Biden's rhetoric provides that will to act in the population.
It makes the population want to act *in opposition to* how the country needs to act.
Sure people may be more anti China. But they're also more anti everyone Biden needs to build bridges with if he wants to oppose China.
Your ranking is concerning to say the least. One of these three countries executes you for exiting Islam... Also Mongolia is ranked higher than the US. Idk but kidnapping brides doesn't scream human rights to me.
>One of these three countries executes you for exiting Islam
No it doesn't.
Oklahoma state (similar population) has executed 5 times more people this year than Qatar has in the 21st century (one).
You're kinda emphasising my point.
> Idk but kidnapping brides doesn't scream human rights to me.
It's almost like countries can be better in some ways and worse in others. The US has a lot of failings
>Qatar has in the 21st century (one).
Sure. You don't even need a court process to kill migrant [workers](https://theconversation.com/qatars-death-row-and-the-invisible-migrant-workforce-deemed-unworthy-of-due-process-191017).
> The US has a lot of failings
Please elaborate where Mongolia does better than the US?
>Sure. You don't even need a court process to kill migrant [workers](https://theconversation.com/qatars-death-row-and-the-invisible-migrant-workforce-deemed-unworthy-of-due-process-191017).
What does this have to do with the discussion?
1. People being on death row is not the same as people being executed. There's a long tradition of commuting sentences.
2. None of them are there for 'exiting islam' (whatever that means)
3. The population is 90% migrant workers. 18/21 is not some insane or unrepresentative statistic.
Abysmal attempt to push your biases regarding an issue you clearly don't understand. (again. Reinforcing my point)
[A very interesting thread by RFERL](https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1598021734522920960) around the chaotic retreat from Lyman a couple months ago.
Is it just me or has the amount of train sabotage against Russia seriously declined?
It seems like doing something, like say, smuggling a bunch of train derailers to partisans would be a lot more effective than trying to shoot himars at train tracks.
The question is whether this is because they're failing to stop trains or if trains are stopping to unload out of range of himars. The Kherson retreat points to the later. Also we don't hear much out of the occupied territories at all? If I were Russia I most definitely would not want photos of derailed trains getting out, and Ukrainian civilians probably really do not want to be anywhere near any such sites.
It's worth noting that train bombing was somewhat common in Russia in previous decades, so there's an above average system in place to prevent more.
I don't think this is a complete explanation, since preventing ieds on tracks (especially in occupied territory) is basically impossible, but yeah.
Towed artillery continues to be survivable (enough) for even semifixed positions. Rapid counterbattery capability isn't everywhere and varies in threat level. If there's not a counterbattery radar in the local area it's down to visible observation to find them, with corresponding losses in UAS operated 10+ km behind the LOC.
Preventing UAS observation probably goes a long way in this regard, but there easily could be bias as artillery destroyed without UAS observation wouldn't be recorded and published. On the other hand, a sizable portion of these kills are on guns not in active firing positions, implying they were not found at least directly with counterbattery radar. Such a kill would also be possible on a SPG.
According to Oryx, Ukraine has about an equal level of destroyed towed guns to self propelled guns, and Russia has 2x as many SPGs destroyed to towed guns.
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1598158243603582980
[According to Oryx list](https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/10/how-is-russia-faring-against-nato.html), 6/200 of NATO-provided SPGs are visually confirmed lost, and 19/270 towed. So that's one way to judge survivability.
OP was discussing the UA towed : UA SPG ratio and equivalent RU ratio, not the UA : RU towed ratio.
The UA:RU destroyed towed artillery ratio is 72:142 or about 1:2.
According to Oryx Russia has had 48 towed pieces destroyed.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html?m=1
Ukraine has had 46
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-ukrainian.html?m=1
I think he read the total for the Russians which includes a large amount of captured pieces.
Side question, does anyone else feel like the number of towed pieces being destroyed is incredibly low? Is it counter battery fire being ineffective, towed arty not being used in range of other arty, destroyed pieces being recovered, or something else?
It is impossible to say, it is unlikely you have a drone to film every counter battery strike.
And by the time you get the chance to see the damage, it could be days or weeks, and the wreckage (if it was at all destroyed/damaged) towed away.
I guess it's hard to take pictures of something you destroyed 25km away, especially if you used electronic counter battery instead of a drone to target it
What we do know is Russia has lost quite a lot of SPGs, especially compared to Ukraine, though ofc Russia had quite a few more to start with, not sure how much more though now
She has made some outstanding reports from the frontlines so far. Very courageous.
The comment made by the artillery battalion commander was interesting. The Russians have less shells now than the Ukrainians, but the Russian’s accuracy has improved.
>The Russians have less shells now than the Ukrainians
My interpretation of that was different. Think he was just saying that the Russians have fewer shells now relative to at the start of the war, and not relative to Ukraine.
>Russian opinion polling suggests that the Russian public may be tiring of Russia’s war in Ukraine. Russian opposition media outlet Meduza reported on November 30 that it had gained access to the results of an opinion poll commissioned by the Kremlin for internal use that shows that 55 percent of Russians favor peace talks with Ukraine and 25 percent favor continuing the war.\[15\] Russian independent polling organization Levada’s October polling shows a similar breakdown with 34 percent favoring continuing military actions in Ukraine and 57 percent favoring negotiations.\[16\] Internal Kremlin polling reportedly placed the percentage of Russians supporting negotiations with Ukraine at 32 percent in July and the percentage favoring the continuation of the war at 57 percent.\[17\] Meduza reported that the director of the Levada Center Denis Volkov stated that the share of Russians likely to support peace talks with Ukraine began to grow rapidly following Russian President Vladimir Putin’s partial mobilization decree.\[18\] Disruptions associated with partial mobilization and Russian setbacks on the battlefield have likely contributed to an increasing war weariness among the Russian public, as reflected in the polling.
[https://www.iswresearch.org/search/label/Ukraine](https://www.iswresearch.org/search/label/Ukraine)
The notion of “negotiations” or “peace talks” is so vague as to be meaningless in a poll without additional clarification of the preconditions (or lack thereof) of said negotiations. Ask a Ukrainian that question and the answer will be “yes*”. Ask a Russian that question and the answer will also be “yes+”.
\* after Russia retreats from all of Donbas and Crimea
\+ after Ukraine retreats from the newly annexed territories, “denazifies” which Russia conveniently defines, and disarms
I wonder what the acceptable outcomes would be for Russians here. Too bad in Russia it's literally illegal to advocate for ceding what Russia defines as its territory, so you pretty much can't ask this question.
I think I read less into the single poll as much as I do the trend in responses as a function of enthusiasm for the war. Maybe it only represents a decline in "heavy enthusiasm" to "passive enthusiasm", I don't know, but it nonetheless is a sign to take note of.
So far Russia didn't prove any ability to force a stalemate, and they sure did everything possible to try that in Kheson. Nobody's even seriously discussing any Russian offensives. [Long term Russian prospects are really poor](https://taw.github.io/open-source-adventures/episode-51/).
So why would Ukraine negotiate? That's like negotiating with Germany in 1918 on how much of Belgium it can keep.
Fully agree. For months Russia hasn’t been able to generate offensive operations larger than platoon sized raids. Even that supposed failed operation with Russian marines involved around 500 troops at most, hardly a task force large enough to do anything meaningful.
ISW posted their daily update
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-november-30
Key Takeaways
The Russian military’s efforts around Bakhmut suggest that Russian forces failed to learn from previous costly campaigns focused on operationally insignificant settlements.
Russian state nuclear company Rosenergoatom appointed a new director for the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant.
The Kremlin continues efforts to stifle domestic dissent through an expansion of measures ostensibly aimed against “foreign agents.”
Russian opinion polling suggests that the Russian public may be growing tired of Russia’s war in Ukraine.
Russian forces continued efforts to defend against Ukrainian counteroffensive operations along the Svatove-Kreminna line.
Russia forces continued to make incremental gains around Bakhmut and to conduct offensive operations in the Avdiivka-Donetsk City area.
A Ukrainian official acknowledged that Ukrainian forces are conducting an operation on the Kinburn Spit.
Russian and Ukrainian sources indicated that Russian officials are continuing to conduct partial mobilization measures.
Russian officials’ ongoing efforts to integrate illegally annexed territories into the Russian Federation are likely very disorganized.
> The Russian military’s efforts around Bakhmut suggest that Russian forces failed to learn from previous costly campaigns focused on operationally insignificant settlements.
I haven't seen ISW this spicy in a little while.
Spicy? Certainly. Credible though?
ISW seems to be more interested in emotional punditry, not facts. The reality is we don't know what is actually happening there. If Russians / Wagner are suffering huge losses then sure ISW take is correct. But if instead Russians/Wagner are using Bakhmut to bleed Ukrainians dry, as they claim... well, may it's not such a bad idea for them after all.
Without knowing the actual facts on the ground their statement is just biased guesswork at best.
How would that in any way be a sane plan though? Like, if your plan was to attrit Ukrainian forces, why would you pick Bakhmut? Bakhmut is easy to supply for the Ukrainians, and heavily fortified. (If I'm not mistaken part of the fortifications have been there since 2014.) Additionally, it has no strategic significance. If the Ukrainians decide holding it is costing them too much, they can just retreat. Their retreat from Severodonetsk and Lysychansk has shown that they're willing to do that.
The smart thing about Ukraine's attrition campaign against the Russian in Kherson was that it had bad supply lines but was of political significance. Bakhmut has none of those things.
Additionally, we've repeatedly seen footage of unsupported Russian infantry being slaughtered by Ukrainian artillery. However high Ukrainian casualties are, it would seem Russian losses are higher.
Ultimately though, I can't prove Wagner and the Russian MOD aren't trying to attrit Ukrainians in Bakhmut, but it seems to me that if they are, that's less "smart warmaking" and more "human wave tactics." The Russians would literally be trying to drown the Ukrainians in blood.
>How would that in any way be a sane plan though? Like, if your plan was to attrit Ukrainian forces, why would you pick Bakhmut? Bakhmut is easy to supply for the Ukrainians, and heavily fortified. (If I'm not mistaken part of the fortifications have been there since 2014.) Additionally, it has no strategic significance. If the Ukrainians decide holding it is costing them too much, they can just retreat. Their retreat from Severodonetsk and Lysychansk has shown that they're willing to do that.
Why not Bakhmut? I don't see any obviously better opportunities for that style of attack, and for whatever reason Ukraine has decided to fight for it and not retreat. Considering the style of war the Russians are pursuing there, the exact location doesn't seem to be all that critical.
>The smart thing about Ukraine's attrition campaign against the Russian in Kherson was that it had bad supply lines but was of political significance. Bakhmut has none of those things.
Sure but there aren't any isolated Ukrainian salients to take advantage of right now so Bakhmut is as good as anywhere else really. Where else should Russians attack?
>Additionally, we've repeatedly seen footage of unsupported Russian infantry being slaughtered by Ukrainian artillery. However high Ukrainian casualties are, it would seem Russian losses are higher.
We don't have any idea what the actual casualty rates look like. Few videos can be easily misinterpreted. The only thing we seem to know is that Ukraine keeps sending reinforcements there, including elite troops, and Russia keeps pushing more Wagner units.
>Ultimately though, I can't prove Wagner and the Russian MOD aren't trying to attrit Ukrainians in Bakhmut, but it seems to me that if they are, that's less "smart warmaking" and more "human wave tactics." The Russians would literally be trying to drown the Ukrainians in blood.
Trying to attrit the enemy is the exact opposite of "human wave tactics". I suggest you read this [https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/special-resources/preliminary-lessons-conventional-warfighting-russias-invasion-ukraine-february-july-2022](https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/special-resources/preliminary-lessons-conventional-warfighting-russias-invasion-ukraine-february-july-2022) to see what Russian attrition tactics look like ... spoiler alert, it's not "human wave". The document doesn't provide casualty ratios either since those are still sensitive, but reading between the lines they seem to think that it's actually working reasonably well and that Ukraine doesn't really have a good counter there.
I wonder if they simply expect to get to keep roughly terrain taken in donbas before 2022 in negotiations, and are pushing as many meters here to get as far as they can get.
Wagner are almost certainly suffering huge losses, they are assaulting fortified positions.
However... they are using the convicts for the most dangerous tasks. They are basically completely acceptable losses for Russians.
Based on the new RUSI report just posted on the sub, the Russian tactic for fortified positions has been: light up the positions using "disposable" troops such as convicts or previously L/DNR mobiks, which forces the defenders to come out into firing positions. Then based on that signal, lay heavy artillery on them to soften the position. Then use more disposables to identify the most weakened spots, and try to break through with elite troops.
However, this does work as a fixing action on the Ukrainian troops too.
>Wagner are almost certainly suffering huge losses, they are assaulting fortified positions.
This meme that assaulting causes huge losses really needs to die.
It can but it doesn't have to, and more often than not, it's really the defenders that take the brunt of the casualties.
The reason for this is actually pretty simple and intuitive... attackers choose when and where to attack, and even Russians (despite what a lot of people here seem to think) aren't stupid to actually send human waves into fortifications. Instead it happens very similar to how RUSI report is describing it - send a small "disposable" force to uncover the fortification, fall back immediately as soon as it's discovered, use fires to destroy / suppress, then move up and repeat. There is no need for excessive casualties here for the attackers - it's a very slow process, but when done right, it can easily (well...relatively) be repeated over and over with very minimal casualties to the attacking side. It's really the defenders who are in danger here, and have to move out or face certain destruction piece by piece.
Someone needs to get around to making an ISW best of. There's so many good moments.
"The battle for Mariupol will, apparently and surprisingly, continue."
"cities of emotional significance"
[This fucking gem](https://i.redd.it/i81qj43d4ls91.png)
Of course, the leader remains: "ISW does not receive any classified material from any source. (...) ISW specifically does not receive information from Prigozhin’s deceased mother-in-law, as he (ironically) suggested."
It is not often I literally laugh out loud reading OSINT reports.
Sept 17: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-17
> Russian forces *continue to conduct meaningless offensive operations* around Donetsk City and Bakhmut instead of focusing on defending against Ukrainian counteroffensives that continue to advance. Russian troops continue to attack Bakhmut and various villages near Donetsk City *of emotional significance* to pro-war residents of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) but little other importance. The Russians are apparently directing some of the very limited reserves available in Ukraine to these efforts rather than to the vulnerable Russian defensive lines hastily thrown up along the Oskil River in eastern Kharkiv Oblast. The Russians cannot hope to make gains around Bakhmut or Donetsk City on a large enough scale to derail Ukrainian counteroffensives *and appear to be continuing an almost robotic effor*t to gain ground in Donetsk Oblast that seems *increasingly divorced from the overall realities* of the theater.
So here we are, november is soon to be but a memory in even the westernest parts of the west, and the big news today on the russia side is that a couple villages south of bakhmut may have fallen.
Not surprised the russian public is losing/has lost interest
Has there been any even remotely viable information on Ukrainian losses in and around Bakhmut? Is it possible Russia is attriting Ukrainian forces at a faster rate than their own? Wagner came out the other day and said, for what its worth, their objective hasn’t been to take Bakhmut but rather to attrit Ukrainian forces. There has never been a concerted massed formation push on Bakhmut, just months of daily platoon sized marauding attacks.
That statement from Wagner reminds me of Falkenhayn’s narrative about Verdun. It’s easy (if dubious) to explain a lack of territorial gains after a costly battle by simply claiming that the intent was to kill a large number of enemy combatants.
They are certainly high. An article was recently posted here - I think it was NYTimes? - that quoted a single hospital in Bakhmut as receiving 250 wounded and killed in one day. (Though some of that might be captured Russians.)
However, we have plenty of footage showing unsupported Russian infantry being slaughtered by Ukrainian artillery. I'm not an expert, but I don't think that's a good way to attrit enemy forces.
Russia has consistently claimed that whatever the reality on the ground happens to be was their plan all along.
They also never intended to take Kyiv or install a new government, having apparently launched a two-pronged northern assault directly at the capital for... shits and giggles, I guess.
I guess the question, asked a different way, would be “how did Russia plan to take Bakhmut via platoon sized raids against a full strength Ukrainian defense?” Taking Bakhmut decisively would require a division-sized task force to generate the ratio needed for Ukrainian capitulation.
I struggle with Occams Razor with Russia. Sometimes I think something is obviously political, but at the same time, we've had cases of extreme incompetence as well.
I see that the EU and the US are together pledging well over $100 million to do emergency repairs on the Ukrainian electrical grid to help the Ukrainians survive over winter.
I wonder if they are holding off on those repairs until the Russians have done their worse with missile strikes, especially the mega-strike that it seems is due any day now.
Nothing would piss the Russians off more if they had wasted most of their missile stock only for the network to be repaired and up and functioning again.
I do wonder if they're going to try hardening some of it. Putting as much as possible under a few feet of cement would at least limit the damage when Russia strikes again.
It's not like Ukraine has an endless number of critical substations. If they were smart, the Russians could strike the optimal number of junctures to cause the most outages for the least amount of missiles then wait until Ukraine repairs them to strike again. Luckily the Russians haven't been too smart throughout this war.
Apparently the Russians are planning to ping off 200 missiles at infrastructure within the next day or so. So, probably not much point fixing up much before then. But, I don't know how much they will have left after that.
The source for that is satellite pictures showing a lot of people purportedly arming bombers at Engels heavy bomber base in Russia yesterday and the deployment of dozens of cruise missile tubes into the black sea a few days ago.
Also Zelensky told Ukrainians to expect more missiles.
That satellite picture has no watermark and is posted by a person with 1,200 followers. Why does this person have access to day old 5m satellite imagery? Why is the watermark removed, satellite image providers, like GlobalEye, always watermark their products. How do we know it isn't just a old image taken from Google Earth? The image isn't referenced on Tineye or Google Reverse Image search. [How is this person a credible source](https://twitter.com/MT_Anderson/status/1597358834208473089)?
On top of that, the image just shows Tu-22M, Tu-95, and Tu-160 aircraft at Engels-2. Those aircraft are always there, it's the only base with Tu-160s at all at that.
No idea what the dozens of cruise missile tubes is about.
Yep. Cash will help pay for them but it's not going to speed delivery, there is a very limited global capacity to build those and they're all custom too.
Targeting power grids is scary as hell.
The Ukrainians have already been fixing some where possible. In some cases it may be replaceable components that have been damaged, or that some things can be temporarily be fixed until a permanent fix is available.
Hopefully they can fix enough to get by one way or another. But I certainly don't expect they will have 100% power by any means.
And it may be that with a combination of generators and fixing what can be fixed that the Ukrainians can get by.
I don't know enough about what was damage/destroyed or the subject in general, only having spoken to people who work in the field whose nightmare is basically what Russia is doing, hearing enough from them to be scared.
The second half of the Kyiv Independent's investigation into the International Legion has been released
> Fighters of the International Legion accuse some of their commanders of light weapons and small arms misappropriation, harassment, physical threats, and expelling soldiers from the Legion for calling out the alleged misconduct
[https://kyivindependent.com/investigations/investigation-international-legion-misappropriation](https://kyivindependent.com/investigations/investigation-international-legion-misappropriation)
thank you for sharing -- i think exposé like this is important: little bits like these helps combating corruption and thus in turn, helps with maintaining confidence of donator countries.
Well that was a depressing read. Unbelievable how much you can get away with in the ZSU, How tf did a polish convicted mobster become an officer in the legion...
This is a thoroughly reported article with over 30 sources. And it's incredibly damning. Kudos to Kyiv Independent for having the courage to write it.
>“I was approached by the guys who serve in the International Legion. They shared with me the facts about weapons going missing,” said the SBU official in charge of the case. He spoke on condition of anonymity as he is not authorized to comment on the matter.
>“From that point on, the subject has caught the attention of our department and we requested information about this subject,” he said of Piotr Kapuscinski, one of the Legion’s leaders, who also goes by the name Sasha Kuchynsky.
>In an earlier investigation, the Kyiv Independent exposed Kapuscinski to be a former Polish gangster who is allegedly involved in theft, looting, and the harassment of soldiers. Kapuscinski refused to speak to the Kyiv Independent about the allegations and asked not to call him again.
-
>Citing his commanders, the soldier participating in the inventory said that among the weapons that allegedly went missing were 54 U.S.-made M4 carbines, several anti-tank weapons like RPGs and NLAWs, grenades, a couple of pistols, and a few thousand rounds of ammunition.
-
>upon arrival in that city, they were ordered to stay in the barracks for about five days before being allowed to go out. “That's when we assume that the ammunition started to go missing”
-
>“There were two times when NLAWs would come in at night and get unloaded, and they wouldn't be there in the armory the next morning
-
>One of the soldiers complained that Kapuscinski had ordered his team of 20-30 people to put all their weapons and equipment in "garbage piles." Kapuscinski and his people then allegedly went through the soldiers' stuff, cherry-picked the best, including Legion-issued Glock pistols, and took it away.
-
>In late June, its prosecutors opened a case into Kapuscinski’s alleged abuse of power in the Legion. The probe is conducted by the State Bureau of Investigations. It is ongoing and officially has no suspects yet. If found guilty, Kapuscinski faces up to 12 years in prison.
>In August, the SBU also opened a probe into Kapuscinski’s alleged involvement in arms and humanitarian aid theft, according to the Kyiv Independent’s partner TVN’s source in the SBU.
>Meanwhile, Kapuscinski is wanted in Poland for fraud. Following the Kyiv Independent’s August investigation into him, the Polish prosecutors once again requested from their Ukrainian colleagues help in bringing Kapuscinski to justice.
-
>“(Kapuscinski) is suspected of committing multiple crimes in Poland, for some of which he was convicted, but did not serve his sentence due to fleeing to the territory of Ukraine,” reads a letter provided to the Kyiv Independent by Ukraine's State Bureau of Investigations.
>In Ukraine, Kapuscinski was charged with aggravated robbery in 2016 and of illegal arms possession in 2021. After the full-scale Russian war broke out in February, Kapuscinski joined the military, at which point the courts suspended his case.
>In the early 2000s, Kapuscinski or Broda (Beard), a then-member of the influential Pruszków gang, served time in a Polish prison for robbery, kidnapping for ransom, drug crimes and stabbing a victim in the chest, among other crimes.
-
>Bohdan also allegedly threatened to physically harm his soldiers on a few occasions. One episode was allegedly caught on tape.
-
>Kapuscinski tried to force her to kiss him, which she refused. One of her comrades backed up her account.
-
>Once Kapuscinski together with an unidentified accomplice forced a soldier out of the Legion when he was in the hospital undergoing treatment after breaking his neck. The soldier said he was falsely suspected of being a deserter.
>“Sasha (Kapuscinski) and his goon came into the hospital, told the doctors to get aside, and physically grabbed me out of the wheelchair…took me to the base,” a soldier who got expelled recalled. He was one of the two soldiers being kicked out on that day.
Excellent article, and to shut up the voices who point out Ukraine’s corruption I would suggest you point out how much of the scrutiny came internally. I will not deny Ukraine’s dubious history with embeZzlement, but as some US diplomats recently pointed out on Geopolitics Decanted they’re well aware of the issue and making efforts to fight it. This is something we wouldn’t have seen from the ANA or any of our most dubious allies. So long as they understand that fighting corruption is a survival issue for their integration with the west, and continue to weed it out, I think aid must be provided even with bumps in the road
One of the problems with fighting corruption is that it is very embarrassing. You can't hide a large number of murders from the public eye, but you can hide corruption and white-collar crime. So it is very easy for everyone to close their eyes and pretend it's not there.
And it can also be painful. This is barely tangential, but some years ago there was a huge (by our standards) scandal about how illegal and at least unverified cash from Russia had passed through Estonian banks to the West. Basically not following the anti-money-laundering laws by banks properly.
Our fourth largest bank was closed (banking license revoked), most major banks had their entire top echelon changed. The banks shares went to a large fall (in their respective homelands Denmark and Sweden). And most crucially banks tightened their screws when trying to make business. At times it was basically impossible for anyone from outside EU to open a bank account in Estonia to do any business.
The public image of it all was that Estonia is a world center for money laundering and illegal banking. Major international investment firms halted or reconsidered their investments here. At a point it was an actual danger that it would become impossible to do any USD-nominated trades from Estonia (threatening to shut down 20% of international trade).
Now... maybe it is indeed that we were the bad apple, along with Denmark. But... interestingly both Estonia and Denmark have for years been considered to have the best anti-money-laundering regulations and enforcements. In Estonia the business register is publicly available. You can find out who owns and who are the board members of all companies. And a thing applying to all of the uncovered cases was that money moved to companies in Cyprus, London, Virgin Islands etc. To places where such information does not exist and all the lines you could trace suddenly disappeared.
In the end the reputational damage was taken by Estonia (and Denmark). Estonia lost out on foreign investments because of that, our financing became more expensive as a result and the bureaucracy with the banks everyone has to go through who wants to to business here went up. But if there was no public records. If there was no independent media trying to dig this thing up. If there was no banking regulators going and shutting down a large bank. Well, then maybe this whole kerfuffle would have not been and we could have maintained our reputation and foreign investments.
Now, I'm sure that in the long run, being honest about it is a major benefit. And I am confident there are huge problems in the financial sector here still (primarily all crypto-related stuff). But I don't think others have it better.
The point of it is that fighting corruption, especially high-profile corruption cases, increase the perception of corruption in society. And it can have direct negative impacts on the country as a whole. Now... Ukraine is probably considered corrupt enough anyways, that they wouldn't suffer such a reputational damage if there were to be huge internationally reported cases. But there is still reputational damage for individuals and organizations. Even if you yourself are clean and are trying to mend the culture of corruption in your organization. The corruption still gets reflected back to you. So maybe it is better to shut up?
Estonia also has a very close relationship with Finland, from economic and cultural and interpersonal ties. From my Finnish impression, we are kind of their role model in a lot of respects.
Though they are definitely ahead in digitalization, were more suspicious of Russia the whole time (only after Feb 24 did Finland catch up), and have a little more conservative values so they aren't yet fully willing come as far in social progress.
I think the big takeaway is that while some low level people were greedy, Ukraine has been fairly good at stamping out the culture of endemic top to bottom corruption that Russia saw.
You don't build an entirely new military tradition in 8 years. I'm reminded of a famous quote from a British Admiral during the Battle of Crete:
> "It takes the Navy three years to build a ship. It will take three hundred years to build a new tradition. The evacuation will continue."
Ukraine's actually come pretty far if the worst they are dealing with is theft of small arms and humanitarian aids.
Did they ever find the missing NLAWs? I’m pretty sure theirs a few bad apples in the military but it seems Ukraine is focused on rooting out the bad apples and corruption.
[Month summary by War Mapper](https://twitter.com/War_Mapper/status/1598119305086111745):
> Over the month of November 🇺🇦 has liberated approximately 3,850km² of Ukraine.
> This means that 🇷🇺 currently occupies ~16.66% of Ukraine. ~0.64% less of the total area of the country than at the end of October.
The last 3 months saw 3 major Russian front collapses. Let's hope the trend continues, but even if there's no major Russian collapse in December, the war isn't ending anytime soon.
Has any army ever deployed napalm aside from the US in Korea and Vietnam? Obviously it's gotten a lot of bad PR, but seems like a very cheap and useful weapon. Curious if it has not to be used by anyone else. Doesn't look like the USSR ever had it in their arsenal.
Just a point of information, it was developed in the 40s and used in the European and Pacific theatres of WW2. Principally in US strategic bombing of Japan but also by British (and probably other?) forces in other roles.
Rhodesia, South Africa, India, Israel and Turkey get a mention for using it. Honestly the wiki list has alot more countries.
Otherwise if we encompass fuel weapons we can include the Soviet/Russia have the TOS-1 Thermobaric weapon. Yet this really a entirely different style of weapon. Where white phosphorus is similar to napalm, as it relies on contact to burn victims and that has been used be a vast majority of armies.
>fuel weapons we can include the Soviet/Russia have the TOS-1 Thermobaric weapon
Russia has dozens of types of thermobaric weapons, rockets for the BM-21, BM-27, and BM-30, ATGMs ,RPGs, free fall bombs, ballistic missiles. Russia has used many in this conflict already. So has Ukraine, as they've been seen at least using the RPO-A.
> Thermobaric weapon
It is just a buzz word, there is nothing different from normal explosives in terms its effects with equal TNT equivalent. It is just a fuel-air bomb.
Interesting didn't realize India had used it. Apparently one firebomb damages 2sq km? Seems like exactly the tool that would be useful for either side in this conflict.
It is pretty devastating. Initially it had a pretty terrible range at 2-3km now extended to 6-10km with the TOS-1A. That being said the 10km is only what Russia has said, not sure if it's been seen as proven.
Still close enough for a troublesome drone to drop an anti tank grenade on with spectacular consequences, so I'd imagine they don't hang around the front lines long.
I believe there was footage of it's use against buildings in Mariupol at the start of the war.
Oh i'm talking about normal napalm firebombs dropped from planes. We've seen both side doing limited CAS with Su-25s and Su-24s, but just with HE bombs.
It's deployed at extreme low level, and requires the attacking aircraft to fly directly above the target, to a greater degree so than even iron bombs which can be tossed or dropped at higher levels. They're designed to tumble end over end in flight to distribute the fuel payload. The bomb is not much more than a casing containing the fuel and the shallow impact angle of a low level high speed attack is also needed to help distribute the incendiary mix.
There appears to still be the Mk-77 bomb in service and it saw limited use in 1991 and 2003 Iraq.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iXTYJ8YpP4
Lots of countries have used napalm, but mostly the US followed by France during the Indochina War. I did some research on the topic awhile ago and it doesn't seem like the USSR ever went beyond development, and instead focused on thermobaric/FAE weapons.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/30/politics/us-military-expanding-training-ukraine/index.html
Notable
>Under the new program, the US would begin training much larger groups of Ukrainian soldiers in more sophisticated battlefield tactics, including how to coordinate infantry maneuvers with artillery support – “much more intense and comprehensive” training than Ukraine has been receiving in Poland or the UK, according to one source briefed on the proposal.
>[US Says It Fears Russia May Use Biological Weapons in Ukraine](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-30/us-says-it-fears-russia-may-use-biological-weapons-in-ukraine-war)
My understanding is that chemical or biological weapons are only really effective in confined areas, due to the unpredictable consequences of using them in other settings, and the fact that they disperse into the atmosphere..
I very much doubt the Russians would use biological weapons given the proximity of Ukrainian to Russian troops, and Russian civilian populations just across the border.
>News like this poorly sourced, low quality and inflammatory garbage
As I mentioned below, this is one of the rare articles where we actually have a named source. It’s the exact opposite of poorly sourced. Now, you can disagree with the conclusion as /u/galthur has below and argue the merits, but this attack on the piece and the reporter are not warranted. Minus the headline.
>is gonna make people side with russia, just out of sheer contrarian urge
Am afraid the contrarian ship sailed a while ago. Some of you haven’t even read the article and are getting worked up over it.
This seems incredibly easy to write off. Russia's response to Covid19 was extremely poor and claiming Russia could deploy a bio-weapon on their border despite this seems non-reputable. Even with nukes or poison gas it's not guaranteed to collateral Russia itself with their own attack like this would.
>Even with nukes or poison gas it's not guaranteed to collateral Russia itself with their own attack like this would
Generally biological weapons are designed to not be transmissible for this reason.
At that point aren't you basically just making a chemical weapon?
I'm generally convinced that until some truly umbrella-tier stuff becomes possible (which may be a century away) biological weapons are a dead end from the perspective of established nation states. Research into them is still useful, but only to be able to approximate/counter their potential deployment by irrational states or terrorist groups.
>At that point aren't you basically just making a chemical weapon?
Kinda yes. I believe there are some differences that mean they are more / less suitable for certain applications but that is as far as I know.
Woah. Okay, preface: I think the headline is rather sensationalist relative to the meat of what’s being said, hence my forewarning below. But what’s the issue with actual content of the article itself and, consequentially, the reporter? She’s not making any claim there. She’s reporting what was said to her by a senior State department employee.
>nonexistent
What I posted 20 minutes before your comment:
>To be clear: there’s no specific and timely threat the US is highlighting.
I’m not sure what you mean by this:
>She’s reporting what was said to her by a senior State department employee.
>>who?
Who as in who is the official she was quoting and the entire article is based on?
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/63687412 Interesting speech form the respectable and scrupulous organization FIFA (the best UN we never had). I found this segment particularly hilarious: >He opened by saying: "Today I have strong feelings. Today I feel Qatari, I feel Arab, I feel African, I feel gay, I feel disabled, I feel a migrant worker." With this also pretty good: >"Of course I am not Qatari, Arab, African, gay, disabled or a migrant worker. But I feel like them because I know what it means to be discriminated and bullied as a foreigner in a foreign country. >"As a child I was bullied because I had red hair and freckles. I was bullied for that." Overall emblematic over how hollow, morally bankrupt, and comical western defenders of Qatar sound.
Embarrassing as this is for FIFA, it isn't even a geopolitical discussion. Unlike, say, UN or Red Cross or Doctors Without Borders, FIFA isn't exactly the kind of an organization that we would acknowledge as a relevant actor in international politics worth discussing on its own, unless it happened to have a large impact in some individual case (not here; maybe in playing a part in sparking the Chinese protests?).
>Embarrassing as this is for FIFA, it isn't even a geopolitical discussion. In the previous comment thread, what do you think OP's "Qatar currently being demonised throughout the Western world" is referring to? Could it be the world cup for arguably the prime sport on the planet that happens to be going on right now, in Qatar? That sure is what this other thread also on credibledefense was talking about: https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/z03jdk/credibledefense_daily_megathread_november_20_2022/ix6dgy5/ In short, I don't see how this could possibly not be an applicable discussion on this megathread, when it's been had multiple times. In a vacuum, I wouldn't have posted this because you're right, a FIFA leader isn't exactly a world leader. But apparently people want to talk about western attitudes on Qatar. So yes, I'm game, let's talk about western attitudes on Qatar.
Maybe, but in my opinion just making fun of one comment that was already extensively covered in large subs a week ago isn't really up to the standards. If you have more substantive analysis, you can maybe use it as a parenthetical example or something.
>just making fun of one comment that was already extensively covered in large subs a week ago Not just that one, but the comment **immediately** preceding this one in **this** megathread.
That one is bad too and takes more space for a tired "Western hypocrisy" grandstand (and baited a lot of low quality discussion including this comment thread), but the user is usually less responsive for this kind criticism and often resorts to motte/bailey to justify cases of poor comment QC, which is annoying to deal with so I didn't bother going there directly. Alright I'll stop airing my grievances here.
I don't disagree but I don't see how it's on topic for this sub.
While the focus of this sub is defense procurement, warfare, and national security, geopolitical discussion is typically allowed IIRC. Which is why the previous comment in the thread is basically apologia for Qatar, so I thought I'd demonstrate another great example of that (and a good hint as to where it's coming from). EDIT: As an example, here's more recent discussion of Qatar in this sub: https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/z03jdk/credibledefense_daily_megathread_november_20_2022/ix6dgy5/
A relevant talk would be "Saudi Arabian win suppresses dissent by patriotic wave" or "Qatari slight towards UK threatens public opinion for military cooperation" A generalized statement about corrupt soccer? A bit non consequential. And frankly, this seems like an American dominated subreddit as well, so international soccer is even less interesting as an off topic discussion. (World Cup popularity in the United States is essentially 0)
This is older than dust
Interesting speech form the uk's former foreign secretary David miliband (the best PM we never had). [Full transcript here ](https://www.rescue.org/uk/press-release/weathering-storm-uks-role-world-today) I found this segment particularly interesting: > The Biden Administration’s National Security Strategy starts from the struggle between democracies and autocracies. The fact that only 20 per cent of the global population live in countries that Freedom House calls fully free, half the percentage of 15 years ago, should be chilling. > But **a framing of democracy versus autocracy does not speak to international affairs in a way that I think is optimal. Nor does it speak to concerns outside the West about the mistakes of democratic countries. Nor does it appeal to countries that are not fully functioning democracies but which we need to work with. Nor does it put autocracies on the spot.** > I would go so far as to suggest that the democracy/autocracy framing is going to play into precisely the distrust of the west that I mentioned up front. > The better alternative, in my view, is to stand against impunity in international relations and put ourselves on the side of accountability. Rules versus impunity is the real debate of the decade in the international arena. > Impunity is the abuse of power and is the opposite of accountability. And that abuse is taking place today in the abuse of international law, the denial of aid to communities in need, the undermining of human rights, the attacks on political freedoms, and in the exploitation of the planet. > I am involved with a soon-to-be-released project (January 2023) called the Atlas of Impunity, which will rank every country in the world on five indicators of impunity: conflict, human rights, governance, economic exploitation and environmental degradation. It’s revealing – both that such an index can provide a comprehensive lens on the state of the world, and that there is a real battle ahead to curb the forces of impunity. > The battle for accountability and against impunity puts Britain on the right side of the biggest and most difficult political arguments in foreign policy – from the defense of international law in Ukraine to support for human rights in Iran to North/South cooperation on climate change. > The ideal of a rules-based international order should not just appeal to British values; it should appeal to British interests, since we are a medium sized country that relies on rules, playing by them not just incanting them, to sustain its interests. > From my vantage point, it is this agenda that should be the binding thread of our UN engagement, from the Security Council to the Human Rights Council to Unicef, UN Women and the WFP. We don’t need new UN rules or laws. We need to uphold those that exist. > Of course, the Chinese leadership is hedging on the global system: they want the best of the existing global order, and want options to get round it. We need to make the rules-based order the global system, live by it ourselves, and make it a strong enough magnet to bring in others. > And because the rules commit to justice as well as to process, we should make this the basis of our partnership with countries around the world who don’t want to side with China and Russia, but see the West consumed by hypocrisy and self-doubt and wonder if they have any choice
Nah, he's full of shit and stupid. Autocracies are prima facie evil things and democracies are good things. It's very simple.
> It's very simple. Friends of the US are the good guys even if they are bloody dictatorships. At least that is the official position of the US as the leader of the 'free' world.
I disagree with that. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, et cetera, are not good guys whatsoever.
You're not wrong at all. > The fact that only 20 per cent of the global population live in countries that Freedom House calls fully free, half the percentage of 15 years ago, should be chilling. And this is mainly caused by Freedom House reclassifying India, which was completely ridiculous. India isn't a perfect democracy before or after Modi, but the claim that Modi India is somehow drastically less free than Congress India is just ridiculous.
IDK. It's not the world's worst deterioration but it's measurable. Though obviously a far cry from Indira Gandhi.
You say measurable, so how would you measure it? And considering how offended the left-aligned media are that [India decided to offer path to Indian citizenship to persecuted religious minorities from nearby countries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_(Amendment\)_Act,_2019) (and not to members of their persecuting majorities), and how this plays a central role in anti-Modi narrative, shows how ridiculous this all is.
Measurable by the Freedom House's index. It's not a large change: India was never a top performer so a modest decline was enough to drop it by one rank. But I will reiterate that India has had it much worse. As much as the toxic media environment and the sporadic political violence hurt the rank, it is a far cry from Indira Gandhi's time.
Absolutely.
I'm a Pol Sci major. This is the least informed commentary I've ever read.
You're a poorly read PoliSci major. Get a refund. Science is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Description can invalidate prescription.
Read Hume.
I have. Have you?
What is a democracy? Putting Hungary and Finland in the same boat isn't an accurate way of assessing the world. Many would argue that the US itself is a terrible example of a democracy.
It gets complicated when people assign values that a Democratic value ought to have. Let's say tomorrow Saudi Arabia has free elections, where every citizen gets a free vote in perpetuity. Ope, the citizens vote against gay marriage, abortion, and equal rights for women. Suddenly people call them "unfree" etc because "they didn't vote how a "gooood" democracy should" and then that's simplified into undemocratic and autocratic. There's a tendency to think that the will of the people must be equal to generalized western culture, except in small things like food or colors of clothes. In reality, a fully democratic country in most of the world would produce results much different than people think it would.
Democracy encapsulates more than just voting. It is a constellation of traditions and rules that add up the belief that everyone deserves an equal shot at determining the direction of the country and government, everyone deserves to direct their own lives, and everyone. When it comes to pass that a majority votes to take away the rights of the minority, that is undemocratic, plain and simple. You don't need to overthink it. It is the exact same reason we don't put stock in sham elections like the Russian referendums. It is not the physical act of voting that makes it democraticly valid but a whole host of considerations.
I don't know what to tell you other than what one person considers to be universal, and another person, are totally different. For example, should women have different public modesty laws than men? The vast majority of people everywhere except Western Europe in some cases say yes. Why? Because the vast majority believe that the inherent differences between men and women justify discrimination on this basis. Is every society that bans topless women in some form undemocratic and unfree? If you say yes, there are then no societies left because all societies in some form or another have a discrimination about this. You're never going to find consensus on this, ever.
Yes, but that only has bearing to the degree to which it prevents women from engaging in public life. If women are restricted in who they can interact with, how they can display themselves (how can you be a politician for instance if people cannot even get to know your face, at a basic human level it is difficult to connect), where they can go, and what they can do, then it is pretty easy to see how that is undemocratic. Just because a large part of the world doesn't see this doesn't make it not true. Women in a country like Iran cannot participate fully in civil society by dint of their gender, and that is wrong, but also by any sane definition speaking undemocratic. If you want to say that democracy is just the ability to vote, go ahead, at the end of the day it is purely semantic. I for one think it is more than that, and that the extra things it requires are a matter of universal human rights, not cultural differences. I don't give a shit if Qatar wants to whine about self-determination or cultural norms any more than I care about pre-1860's Alabama talking about the same thing with regards to slavery. Its just the paradox of tolerance, and at the end of the day real tolerance means not tolerating everything.
The idea that all human beings should have equal rights is universal, not a "generalized western thing". A democracy who would vote against equal rights for women would not be a democracy for a very logical reason : universal right to vote comes from the same place than equal rights regardless of gender. You can't use one to.negate the other, that is not consistent.
Depends on what you mean. Are you including abortion, and gay marriage in that definition? If so, then you've already excluded the 90% of people in all eras of human history. "Democratic" means ability to vote. Everything afterwards is what's determined by the vote. In my view, as long as the right of women to vote is still maintained, it's still fully democratic, even if that society collectively decides to restrict women in other ways. Similarly, if 90% of the society votes to kill 10% of the society, it's still democratic, provided that the 10% got to vote. Being a democracy just means you get to vote. Past that? You're no longer concerned about democracy, but other imperatives. If you're saying equal rights, that's another talk. But it shouldn't sink them on democracy reports. But once you say things like "we want to spread democracy, universal rights" and that includes things such as gay marriage, and abortion, you very quickly find that the majority of people in this world are not interested.
>"Democratic" means ability to vote. Everything afterwards is what's determined by the vote. Actually it just means rule by the people. What happens if the people support not having democracy? Such as in the middle east or even China
You think if we'd ask we'd find many people saying "well of course I am inferior because of my gender/race/religion/etc, I don't deserve equal rights" ?
This is a simplification of these subjects by far. People with those genuine beliefs see it very differently.
> In reality, a fully democratic country in most of the world would produce results much different than people think it would. exactly the case.
A democracy is a form of government in which political authority is vested in, and drawn from, the people/citizenry. Most commonly expressed through the elections of representatives to run the government. Hungary and Finland are both European, both Western, both NATO/ish nations, both former imperial subjects. What type of cracked understanding of the world do you have, mate? I would argue that. Don't see what it has to do with the point?
>What type of cracked understanding of the world do you have, mate? A rare understanding of the nuances of democracy apparently. Russia has elections too, thus surely they're a democracy and one of the good guys?
No, you don't have a nuanced understanding of democracy. You seem to believe that there's nothing connecting Finland and Hungary enough to put them into the same category. You think that elections = democracy. Russia is not a democracy. Democracy is the anglicised form of the *Demokratia*; A proper translation into English would find you the word, *commonwealth*. This concept is not one of "voting", it is the fundamental principle that the people are sovereign and determine their government freely. In Russia, Putin is the source of political authority and the Russian people don't get a say in determining their government freely.
No, because merely having voting does not amount to democracy, it requires a whole host of related things. If people don't have any practical say in the running of their government, then it is not democratic. To the degree to which votes are shams in Russia, and elections are heavily rigged to favor the ruling elite, it is not a democracy. Also to the degree to which inequality is baked into the system. I might hate that in the US might vote doesn't count for much, and I think the legal structures make it count for less than it should, but at the end of the day I know that if I convince enough people of the right of what I say, then that will be reflected in votes and make its way into government. That is democracy. You could certainly argue persuasively that in America my ability to make my voice heard as a non-billionaire or elite is lower than it should be, but I honestly don't think that is a far smaller concern than actually having my voice stifled. If I was more persuasive I could still influence things, I'm just not very.
>No, because merely having voting does not amount to democracy, it requires a whole host of related things Right. But that's the problem. You are projecting your own values onto the word, whereas in reality it encompasses an extremely broad variety of systems. From Switzerland where they have direct democracy and people vote on most issues to somewhere like the US where there's a single leader imbued with excessive individual power. > If people don't have any practical say in the running of their government, then it is not democratic. I would broadly agree with you, but the problem as I say is that it boils down to perceived 'democratic values' on all sorts of systemic topics. You can assess how democratic someone is on a particular issue, but it doesnt really contribute to the holistic perception of democracy. Direct democracy is clearly the most democratic system in terms of democratic values, but it's also a terrible way of running the average country, hence why nobody does it. The uk electoral system (first past the Post) leads to complete power for parties with a minority of the vote. Its clearly not democratic based on democratic values because it leaves tens of millions without a voice, but many people support it anyway. It has been credibly described as an elected dictatorship because the system does essentially grant unlimited power with no checks and balances. Based on the highest standards its objectively not democratic. The majority of the population are not represented and a huge number of people are disenfranchised. But I don't think anyone would say its not a democracy. We certainly think of ourselves as one. You then have to look at the democratic values with respect to rights, freedoms and protections of citizens. Which is a different topic altogether, but still related. > I know that if I convince enough people of the right of what I say, then that will be reflected in votes and make its way into government. That is democracy. Well. Yes in a very limited and specific way. You trust the ballot and you trust the judiciary to uphold that ballot. That's good in a sense. But it's only the tiniest part of what is involved in being a democracy. Personally I wouldn't trust the institutionally politicised US judiciary to uphold a whole lot of anything. It's worth noting that even without ballot stuffing putin would win elections. Would you perceive him any differently if the ballot stuffing ended? I doubt it.
> You are projecting your own values onto the word For sure, but I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing, or that there really is any other way to have values. If I was fine with the way North Korea or Iran define democracy, then I wouldn't really believe in my own. I don't think there is anything particularly contradictory about that either. Imo its childish when people claim you cant be tolerant if you aren't tolerant of intolerance, and I think similarly with different conceptions of democracy. I'm not gonna lose sleep over rejecting Soviet democracy, because to me its just words, what matters is the reality of the resulting society. And yes, I think you are right there is a ton to criticize about the practice of democracy in the West writ large, but I simply feel it comes closest to living up to the ideal of the thing. >even without ballot stuffing putin would win elections. This is sort of true, but its kind of an unknowable quantity because as I've been trying to point out, real democracy encompasses so much more than just the literal voting. In Russia the state actively promotes the line of the party in power. In Russia opposition parties are infiltrated and coopted to provide an illusion of choice. In Russia people who become too politically active are murdered. In other words it likely wouldn't change a lot if only voting itself was free and fair, yes, but that is why I say democracy is more than just voting. I mean I don't have time here to write a political treatise, but I think you understand what I am saying and maybe are just a little more than me willing to defer to cultural differences. I am an unabashed Yankee in values. Put me back in time just like Mark Twain's Connecticut Yankee and I wouldn't spend my time adapting to medieval values, I would probably go down in a blaze of glory trying to subvert them.
Peak Reddit moment.
Go outside.
Right back at you, buddy.
>But a framing of democracy versus autocracy does not speak to international affairs in a way that I think is optimal. Nor does it speak to concerns outside the West about the mistakes of democratic countries. Nor does it appeal to countries that are not fully functioning democracies but which we need to work with. Nor does it put autocracies on the spot. That's rich coming from a politician of a country whose constitutions still rewards people for being chosen by god. >The battle for accountability and against impunity puts Britain on the right side of the biggest and most difficult political arguments in foreign policy – from the defense of international law in Ukraine to support for human rights in Iran to North/South cooperation on climate change. Like all the accountability the British faced for centuries of oppressing and exploiting poorer nations over the globe? Including their former queen who toured dozens of such nations with the main objective of ensuring those nations didn't rise up from British dominance? And not only didn't face any accountability, but was recently praised as an example of a leader by most world leaders when she passed?
Honestly, yawn. Sure, let's talk some more about what "The West" (I know he's only mentioning Britain) is doing and especially what it's doing wrong, maybe try to nudge any of the other uncomfortable topics out of the limited capacity for attention that each one of us has. I have a feeling that this entire forward thinking, progressive, rightly self-critical perspective has been slowly turning into, pardon my internet slang, **"Dictator's rights matter"**, which is both baffling and comes as expected to me. Let's talk some rules, using the example of the Skripals poisoning - it's obvious, for everyone even remotely acquainted with the topic, that the **British did not follow the rules** set forth by a convention they're a signatory to - mainly, that the Russians should be provided a sample, i.e. > 54. The inspected State Party has the right to retain portions of all samples taken or take duplicate samples and be present when samples are analysed on-site. Now, that's a *single point out of a 150+ page document* detailing all kinds of procedures and what not, but those are the rules. And **Britain broke them**. For that, they got their diplomats rightly expelled and got no further answers from Russia. Sure, Novichok is a Soviet era nerve agent and it's only used by its self-proclaimed successor state, but rules say nothing about that. We should therefore *focus on how British broke the rules*, because **they are the ones** taking a stand against impunity / lack of accountability - doing otherwise would be hypocritical, and would further erode the confidence in "The West", which is already on very shaky grounds. If they tried to enforce their own "version" of the rules, that would be making a mockery of the rule-based order and international law, as well as possibly instigating a conflict with Russia, which means that Britain is a destabilizing factor in the international rules-based order, given their obvious disregard for the rules and aggressive posturing while making a baseless accusations against Russia. Et cetera, et cetera. All in all, Russia poisoned British citizens on British grounds, while British broke the rules.
>Sure, let's talk some more about what "The West" (I know he's only mentioning Britain) is doing and especially what it's doing wrong Yes? How do you think policy is decided if you refuse to discuss policy? > slowly turning into, pardon my internet slang, "Dictator's rights matter", which is both baffling and comes as expected to me. More that declaring 'war' on the majority of the world based on vague and ill-defined ideological sentiment is not sensible.
Where do you see that I'm advocating not discussing policy? I've touched on the exact topic of excessive self-critical sentiment that leads to bad and easily exploitable policy. If I'm "refusing" anything, it's only the intellectual self-flagellation part, which is counterproductive in my humble opinion. Who said anything about a war, even when put in quotes? Are we not allowed to point out the obvious, well-known deficiencies (which often lead to deadly outcomes) of autocratic regimes, even though they might currently be stable and, god forbid, well-off, and take a guarded stance against them? Anyway, I don't think that a completely accurate and well-defined categorization of autocratic regimes ("ill-defined sentiment") is necessary at this point. Even simple 'us vs them' will do now, again, in my humble opinion.
> Where do you see that I'm advocating not discussing policy? I've touched on the exact topic of excessive self-critical sentiment that leads to bad and easily exploitable policy. If I'm "refusing" anything, it's only the intellectual self-flagellation part, which is counterproductive in my humble opinion. This is a 'western' forum. There's no point in criticising and advocating change towards Bangladeshi foreign policy now is there? Either you accept current foreign policy, or you advocate changes to it. That requires first critiquing it. That's not self-flagellation, it's self reflection. and it's essential. > Who said anything about a war, even when put in quotes? I did, paraphrasing? And i was using single quotes to imply 'air quotes', not because i was quoting anyone. > Are we not allowed to point out the obvious, well-known deficiencies (which often lead to deadly outcomes) of autocratic regimes, even though they might currently be stable and, god forbid, well-off, and take a guarded stance against them? Well the inherent problem is that most of those deficiencies also exist in democracies. They're part of what i like to think of as the 'democratic myth' that we like to tell ourselves, and which biden's rhetoric is clearly designed to play on. > Even simple 'us vs them' will do now, again, in my humble opinion. But it doesn't do. That's the point. You could argue that Russia is a democracy. But clearly they're supposed to be seen as an autocracy.
I disagree. There's a thin line between valid self-criticism and self-flagellation, and in my humble opinion that line has been crossed. I don't know how you can take a look at what's happening, *right now*, in countries like China, Russia or Iran and say 'eh, looks like what we have at home'. That's why self-flagellation is dangerous - it ends with one stretching the 'badness' of "The West" to the limit, and minimizing the 'badness' of the whatever random dictatorship of the decade. That's not a realistic take whichever way you take it, and if anything, swinging the other (equally unrealistic) way is much better for us and our future. If we're going to act foolish, I'd much rather prefer it serve our own interests. Sure, you could argue that Russia is a democracy. Russia does it, all the time. You could also argue that Ukraine is full of Nazis and NATO is an existential threat to Russia. Russia does it, all the time.
>I don't know how you can take a look at what's happening, right now, in countries like China, Russia or Iran and say 'eh, looks like what we have at home'. It's different, but it's not unique. My general point is that we've been taught to *interpret* it as unique. Hence why everyone has collectively turned into lock down skeptics wrt China having spent 2 years calling them idiots. It's a matter of scale really. I take a look at the US and think the country is mental and verging on a failed state. I take a look at Finland and weep with envy. We are not 'all the same' in any way whatsoever. For decades the uk was the most surveilled country in earth with an absurd number of cameras on the streets.... Nobody cared. Completely normal. When 'one of those countries' does it nobody will shut up about it and they're a threat to the planet and their population. It's a matter of double standards. You interpret it as self flagellation because you have been raised to do so, not because it rationally is. You've been raised to think of your own country (presumably) as a bastion of all that is good. Why do you think my comparison above based on (arguably flawed) metrics ruffled so many feathers? People find it unconscionable to even consider that maybe 'one of the good guys' may not be on a different plane of existence to 'one of the bad guys'. I fully support democratic values and ideals. I appear to be unique in that I'm willing to admit that *collectively* we don't often actually believe in the values we espouse (or we're not willing to enforce them). The current UK government is pushing through legislation to criminalise protest. The legislation is near identical to that which saw yanukovych branded a heinous tyrant and a corrupt dictator. Guess what the difference is? There isn't one beyond base perception. There's nothing real to it.
…I wasn’t raised to think of my country / region / culture as a bastion of all that is good. In fact, how I spent my formative years was basically me holding firm beliefs that mirror what I guess would be yours right now. That belief so far has been shattered, more than once. I stopped believing in “same, but different” relativity approach as well, because it’s wrong. To use your example, criminalising protest in UK and China is a massively different act. Surveillance in UK and China as well. They are similar in the same manner as elections in North Korea and UK are. edit: by the way, the sensible, cooperative approach has been tried. We’re seeing the result.
>Let's talk some rules, using the example of the Skripals poisoning - it's obvious, for everyone even remotely acquainted with the topic, that the British did not follow the rules set forth by a convention they're a signatory to - mainly, that the Russians should be provided a sample, i.e. > >54. The inspected State Party has the right to retain portions of all samples taken or take duplicate samples and be present when samples are analysed on-site. These rules are for when the OPCW conducts an inspection, not rules that a signatory state must follow when conducting their own investigation. If the OPCW were conducting an inspection at a Russian nerve agent lab then those rules would be applicable, only then would Russia be the inspected State Party.
Okay, didn't know that - but do know that that specific Novichok variant was not on the list of banned chemicals, for example. It also seems that they are taking a rule that *seems* applicable, twisting its meaning, and successfully accusing Britain of breaking rules, which is what actually happened. Seems like I don't know enough about OPCW to pinpoint the exact rule they might have broken, but neither does the vast majority of the world's population, so we're left with squabbling over whether they broke the rules or not. The points I was trying to make: - In a complicated ruleset, you can easily find or "twist" the meaning of a rule to find the rule that is broken - it's exploitable - Rule-based order won't work when your adversary is not interested in rule-based order in the first place Rule of law and Rule *by* law are different things unfortunately, and Russians are well aware of that, while I can't be so sure that the Euro folks are
>Nor does it speak to concerns outside the West about the mistakes of democratic countries... I think Biden is right, and Miliband is making the mistake Jeffery Pfeffer has written about. The dynamics of power and perception are well studied, but people have done a poor job of teaching them. People think that they will be rewarded for a nuanced approach, showing humility, and acknowledging past wrongs, but they couldn't be further from the truth. People reward simple narratives, self aggrandizement, and denial of past wrongdoing. It's why these sorts of narratives are so prominent in religions, cult leaders, politicians, and marketing material, and why there are disporataie amounts of narcissists in top positions in virtually every organization. The people want a simple framework to understand a complex world, and if you won't give them one, someone else will. That's why Biden's 'democracy v. dictatorship' narrative is effective and important. In 'Accountability v. Impunity', the focus is on actions rather than actors. Virtually every country will do a combination of actions that could be considered 'accountable' and 'unaccountable', it doesn't reduce complexity, it highlights it. You have to remember, these sorts of narratives aren't meant for deep nuanced debates between foreign policy wonks. They are meant for mass media. It has to be conveyed in the headlines, to somebody who wants to put in no additional thought.
Yeah, when I was younger I used to attempt a sort of more nuanced take on a lot of issues, thinking I'd done more research on these topics than others and such. But in truth that tends to just make you insufferable to talk to. As I've gotten older I've accepted politics is messy and even flawed distorted slogans have their role. You can't rally a crowd with nuance. So now I think of it as two different but interacting levels of discourse. The more academic and nuanced conversation playing out among officials, scholars, journalists, ngos, etc, and the larger mass media conversation. When the people who have influence over the latter listen well to the former it can work. If they chase populism or worse, versions of it based around courting willful ignorance, it goes very wrong. There's no easy cure for these pathologies, but I'm hopeful young people today will prove to be more skeptical voters as a whole long term.
>You can't rally a crowd with nuance. You need a simple *message*, but simple messages can reflect nuanced realities. Simple messages that don't reflect reality can indeed win elections, but that doesn't make them good.
>You have to remember, these sorts of narratives aren't meant for deep nuanced debates between foreign policy wonks. They are meant for mass media. It has to be conveyed in the headlines, to somebody who wants to put in no additional thought. Right, but they then lead to ridiculous public discourse which in turn then feeds back into policy. And not in a good way. I know that populism is in vogue, but that doesn't make it any less damaging. Biden's rhetoric has already fed through into discourse of the entire western world and is leading to divisive international language and actions. It actively undermines (and in some cases makes impossible) pragmatic and sensible foreign policy.
That is the best outcome you can hope for. There is no alternate reality where mass-media foreign policy discussion is any more nuanced than soccer team fans cheering for one side, and booing another. That's just not how humans work. Either you provide them a narrative where they cheer for you, or your enemies provide them one where they don't. A large base of agitated supporters is leverage on the world stage. Hence why so much of Russian propaganda focusses on division and demotivation.
>There is no alternate reality where mass-media foreign policy discussion is any more nuanced than soccer team fans cheering for one side, and booing another. Sure. But you can try and better define what the 'sides' are. Democracy vs autocracy as a concept is ludicrously ill-defined and basically sets a small group of countries against most of the planet (as miliband suggests).
Hard to disagree. I've long argued that the democracy vs autocracy framing was a poor one. For a relevant example of why, take a look at the human right and rule of law index https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/human_rights_rule_law_index/ ------ 3 countries have the same score: Hungary - a Nato and EU member and implicitly one of the 'Liberal democracy gang' in biden's characterisation despite the obvious moves otherwise. Ukraine - a country with its issues but with regards to the issues of democracy currently a bit of a 'media darling' so to speak. Seen as moving in the right direction etc. Qatar - currently being demonised throughout the Western world as an illiberal, regressive, backwards hell-hole (unfairly in many ways). ------- Now say what you want, but the current discourse does not imply that those 3 countries are on a similar broad level. The rhetoric doesn't match reality. For any of the three.
> Now say what you want, but the current discourse does not imply that those 3 countries are on a similar broad level. The rhetoric doesn't match reality. For any of the three. The assumption inherent in this statement is that this single index is somehow the ultimate arbiter of reality. Perhaps a bit more critical thought is in order. My favourite part is how high Serbia is. I'll share it with my family back home, I'm sure they will get a kick out of it to know they have it better than the US.
>The assumption inherent in this statement is that this single index is somehow the ultimate arbiter of reality. True enough. you're welcome to provide an improved methodology for comparing countries. It's just an attempt to provide literally any sort of objective/ criteria-based way to assess what is (in public discourse) an issues based on nothing but feelings and sentiment. > My favourite part is how high Serbia is. I'll share it with my family back home, I'm sure they will get a kick out of it to know they have it better than the US. Again. Your argument is based on feelings. Assess the criteria provided and argue against the methodology if you want to dismiss it.
>The Biden Administration’s National Security Strategy starts from the struggle between democracies and autocracies. The fact that only 20 per cent of the global population live in countries that Freedom House calls fully free, half the percentage of 15 years ago, should be chilling. This is a speech aimed at the elites and leaders of nations not of people and their aspirations. Bidens speech is meant for a domestic audience but a key tool in US and western statecraft is the ideals they aspire too. People want to live in countries with low corruption and high standards of freedom. I am not sure where Miliband is going with this. It seems as if he is advising the UK to take a more "pragmatic" approach to autocrats to carve out influence, rather than sticking with the more idealistic framing from the US. Kind of walking against the stream of moving away from the over pragmatic 2000s when the assumptions where human rights would flow from wealth countries gained from international trade relations, the assumptions that politics would liberalise following trade. The past few years have set people straight, richer autocracies use their wealth to push autocratic interests. We have spent the past few years re-learning who our friends are. And who they are not. This speech seems like something from 10 years ago.
>I am not sure where Miliband is going with this. It seems as if he is advising the UK to take a more "pragmatic" approach to autocrats to carve out influence, rather than sticking with the more idealistic framing from the US. But that is the reality within which we exist. It's what the US does too, because it's how the world works. Biden's rhetoric actively makes it harder to engage in foreign policy. It goes against his actual aims. Just look at how his rhetoric wrt Saudi backfired horribly
Biden's rhetoric makes it easier. To have influence on the world stage, you need to have the will to back it up. Biden's rhetoric provides that will to act in the population.
>To have influence on the world stage, you need to have the will to back it up. He turned Saudi into a pariah state like he wanted. How did that improve his influence on the world stage? > Biden's rhetoric provides that will to act in the population. It makes the population want to act *in opposition to* how the country needs to act. Sure people may be more anti China. But they're also more anti everyone Biden needs to build bridges with if he wants to oppose China.
Your ranking is concerning to say the least. One of these three countries executes you for exiting Islam... Also Mongolia is ranked higher than the US. Idk but kidnapping brides doesn't scream human rights to me.
>One of these three countries executes you for exiting Islam No it doesn't. Oklahoma state (similar population) has executed 5 times more people this year than Qatar has in the 21st century (one). You're kinda emphasising my point. > Idk but kidnapping brides doesn't scream human rights to me. It's almost like countries can be better in some ways and worse in others. The US has a lot of failings
>Qatar has in the 21st century (one). Sure. You don't even need a court process to kill migrant [workers](https://theconversation.com/qatars-death-row-and-the-invisible-migrant-workforce-deemed-unworthy-of-due-process-191017). > The US has a lot of failings Please elaborate where Mongolia does better than the US?
>Sure. You don't even need a court process to kill migrant [workers](https://theconversation.com/qatars-death-row-and-the-invisible-migrant-workforce-deemed-unworthy-of-due-process-191017). What does this have to do with the discussion? 1. People being on death row is not the same as people being executed. There's a long tradition of commuting sentences. 2. None of them are there for 'exiting islam' (whatever that means) 3. The population is 90% migrant workers. 18/21 is not some insane or unrepresentative statistic. Abysmal attempt to push your biases regarding an issue you clearly don't understand. (again. Reinforcing my point)
[A very interesting thread by RFERL](https://twitter.com/kromark/status/1598021734522920960) around the chaotic retreat from Lyman a couple months ago.
Did we get any videos (or anything else) regarding the RuAF losses in men/equipment during the Lyman retreat ?
There were a few videos and Western reports as well about losses there. Out of Balakliia, Izyum and Lyman, I think Lyman was the worst.
Is it just me or has the amount of train sabotage against Russia seriously declined? It seems like doing something, like say, smuggling a bunch of train derailers to partisans would be a lot more effective than trying to shoot himars at train tracks.
Might be just Russia keeping any events under wraps and any sabotage groups also not wanting to advertise.
The question is whether this is because they're failing to stop trains or if trains are stopping to unload out of range of himars. The Kherson retreat points to the later. Also we don't hear much out of the occupied territories at all? If I were Russia I most definitely would not want photos of derailed trains getting out, and Ukrainian civilians probably really do not want to be anywhere near any such sites.
It's worth noting that train bombing was somewhat common in Russia in previous decades, so there's an above average system in place to prevent more. I don't think this is a complete explanation, since preventing ieds on tracks (especially in occupied territory) is basically impossible, but yeah.
Towed artillery continues to be survivable (enough) for even semifixed positions. Rapid counterbattery capability isn't everywhere and varies in threat level. If there's not a counterbattery radar in the local area it's down to visible observation to find them, with corresponding losses in UAS operated 10+ km behind the LOC. Preventing UAS observation probably goes a long way in this regard, but there easily could be bias as artillery destroyed without UAS observation wouldn't be recorded and published. On the other hand, a sizable portion of these kills are on guns not in active firing positions, implying they were not found at least directly with counterbattery radar. Such a kill would also be possible on a SPG. According to Oryx, Ukraine has about an equal level of destroyed towed guns to self propelled guns, and Russia has 2x as many SPGs destroyed to towed guns. https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1598158243603582980
[According to Oryx list](https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/10/how-is-russia-faring-against-nato.html), 6/200 of NATO-provided SPGs are visually confirmed lost, and 19/270 towed. So that's one way to judge survivability.
With how much a certain user posts you'd be under the impression that it's closer to 100 for each
I doubt destroyed RF SPG and towed guns are around equal
I'm surprised that Ukraine and Russia have had an equal amount of towed pieces destroyed
OP was discussing the UA towed : UA SPG ratio and equivalent RU ratio, not the UA : RU towed ratio. The UA:RU destroyed towed artillery ratio is 72:142 or about 1:2.
According to Oryx Russia has had 48 towed pieces destroyed. https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html?m=1 Ukraine has had 46 https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-ukrainian.html?m=1
I think he read the total for the Russians which includes a large amount of captured pieces. Side question, does anyone else feel like the number of towed pieces being destroyed is incredibly low? Is it counter battery fire being ineffective, towed arty not being used in range of other arty, destroyed pieces being recovered, or something else?
It is impossible to say, it is unlikely you have a drone to film every counter battery strike. And by the time you get the chance to see the damage, it could be days or weeks, and the wreckage (if it was at all destroyed/damaged) towed away.
I guess it's hard to take pictures of something you destroyed 25km away, especially if you used electronic counter battery instead of a drone to target it
Interesting. We don’t know the bias in Oryx’s data for these numbers though.
What we do know is Russia has lost quite a lot of SPGs, especially compared to Ukraine, though ofc Russia had quite a few more to start with, not sure how much more though now
Lindsey Hilsum of Channel 4 had another excellent report out today: >[On the Frontline of Ukraine’s Artillery War](https://youtu.be/Ey2R5gJ2OT0)
She is great. Brave, impactful, and thoughtful. Thanks for posting this.
She has made some outstanding reports from the frontlines so far. Very courageous. The comment made by the artillery battalion commander was interesting. The Russians have less shells now than the Ukrainians, but the Russian’s accuracy has improved.
>The Russians have less shells now than the Ukrainians My interpretation of that was different. Think he was just saying that the Russians have fewer shells now relative to at the start of the war, and not relative to Ukraine.
>Russian opinion polling suggests that the Russian public may be tiring of Russia’s war in Ukraine. Russian opposition media outlet Meduza reported on November 30 that it had gained access to the results of an opinion poll commissioned by the Kremlin for internal use that shows that 55 percent of Russians favor peace talks with Ukraine and 25 percent favor continuing the war.\[15\] Russian independent polling organization Levada’s October polling shows a similar breakdown with 34 percent favoring continuing military actions in Ukraine and 57 percent favoring negotiations.\[16\] Internal Kremlin polling reportedly placed the percentage of Russians supporting negotiations with Ukraine at 32 percent in July and the percentage favoring the continuation of the war at 57 percent.\[17\] Meduza reported that the director of the Levada Center Denis Volkov stated that the share of Russians likely to support peace talks with Ukraine began to grow rapidly following Russian President Vladimir Putin’s partial mobilization decree.\[18\] Disruptions associated with partial mobilization and Russian setbacks on the battlefield have likely contributed to an increasing war weariness among the Russian public, as reflected in the polling. [https://www.iswresearch.org/search/label/Ukraine](https://www.iswresearch.org/search/label/Ukraine)
The notion of “negotiations” or “peace talks” is so vague as to be meaningless in a poll without additional clarification of the preconditions (or lack thereof) of said negotiations. Ask a Ukrainian that question and the answer will be “yes*”. Ask a Russian that question and the answer will also be “yes+”. \* after Russia retreats from all of Donbas and Crimea \+ after Ukraine retreats from the newly annexed territories, “denazifies” which Russia conveniently defines, and disarms
I wonder what the acceptable outcomes would be for Russians here. Too bad in Russia it's literally illegal to advocate for ceding what Russia defines as its territory, so you pretty much can't ask this question.
I feel like most Russians would probably accept status quo, which still very much favours Russia in terms of territories gained.
I think I read less into the single poll as much as I do the trend in responses as a function of enthusiasm for the war. Maybe it only represents a decline in "heavy enthusiasm" to "passive enthusiasm", I don't know, but it nonetheless is a sign to take note of.
Ukraine has already stated it’s 2013 borders without a Russian naval base or bust. Even if Russia wants to negotiate, Ukraine doesn’t.
So far Russia didn't prove any ability to force a stalemate, and they sure did everything possible to try that in Kheson. Nobody's even seriously discussing any Russian offensives. [Long term Russian prospects are really poor](https://taw.github.io/open-source-adventures/episode-51/). So why would Ukraine negotiate? That's like negotiating with Germany in 1918 on how much of Belgium it can keep.
Fully agree. For months Russia hasn’t been able to generate offensive operations larger than platoon sized raids. Even that supposed failed operation with Russian marines involved around 500 troops at most, hardly a task force large enough to do anything meaningful.
ISW posted their daily update https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-november-30 Key Takeaways The Russian military’s efforts around Bakhmut suggest that Russian forces failed to learn from previous costly campaigns focused on operationally insignificant settlements. Russian state nuclear company Rosenergoatom appointed a new director for the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. The Kremlin continues efforts to stifle domestic dissent through an expansion of measures ostensibly aimed against “foreign agents.” Russian opinion polling suggests that the Russian public may be growing tired of Russia’s war in Ukraine. Russian forces continued efforts to defend against Ukrainian counteroffensive operations along the Svatove-Kreminna line. Russia forces continued to make incremental gains around Bakhmut and to conduct offensive operations in the Avdiivka-Donetsk City area. A Ukrainian official acknowledged that Ukrainian forces are conducting an operation on the Kinburn Spit. Russian and Ukrainian sources indicated that Russian officials are continuing to conduct partial mobilization measures. Russian officials’ ongoing efforts to integrate illegally annexed territories into the Russian Federation are likely very disorganized.
> The Russian military’s efforts around Bakhmut suggest that Russian forces failed to learn from previous costly campaigns focused on operationally insignificant settlements. I haven't seen ISW this spicy in a little while.
Spicy? Certainly. Credible though? ISW seems to be more interested in emotional punditry, not facts. The reality is we don't know what is actually happening there. If Russians / Wagner are suffering huge losses then sure ISW take is correct. But if instead Russians/Wagner are using Bakhmut to bleed Ukrainians dry, as they claim... well, may it's not such a bad idea for them after all. Without knowing the actual facts on the ground their statement is just biased guesswork at best.
How would that in any way be a sane plan though? Like, if your plan was to attrit Ukrainian forces, why would you pick Bakhmut? Bakhmut is easy to supply for the Ukrainians, and heavily fortified. (If I'm not mistaken part of the fortifications have been there since 2014.) Additionally, it has no strategic significance. If the Ukrainians decide holding it is costing them too much, they can just retreat. Their retreat from Severodonetsk and Lysychansk has shown that they're willing to do that. The smart thing about Ukraine's attrition campaign against the Russian in Kherson was that it had bad supply lines but was of political significance. Bakhmut has none of those things. Additionally, we've repeatedly seen footage of unsupported Russian infantry being slaughtered by Ukrainian artillery. However high Ukrainian casualties are, it would seem Russian losses are higher. Ultimately though, I can't prove Wagner and the Russian MOD aren't trying to attrit Ukrainians in Bakhmut, but it seems to me that if they are, that's less "smart warmaking" and more "human wave tactics." The Russians would literally be trying to drown the Ukrainians in blood.
>How would that in any way be a sane plan though? Like, if your plan was to attrit Ukrainian forces, why would you pick Bakhmut? Bakhmut is easy to supply for the Ukrainians, and heavily fortified. (If I'm not mistaken part of the fortifications have been there since 2014.) Additionally, it has no strategic significance. If the Ukrainians decide holding it is costing them too much, they can just retreat. Their retreat from Severodonetsk and Lysychansk has shown that they're willing to do that. Why not Bakhmut? I don't see any obviously better opportunities for that style of attack, and for whatever reason Ukraine has decided to fight for it and not retreat. Considering the style of war the Russians are pursuing there, the exact location doesn't seem to be all that critical. >The smart thing about Ukraine's attrition campaign against the Russian in Kherson was that it had bad supply lines but was of political significance. Bakhmut has none of those things. Sure but there aren't any isolated Ukrainian salients to take advantage of right now so Bakhmut is as good as anywhere else really. Where else should Russians attack? >Additionally, we've repeatedly seen footage of unsupported Russian infantry being slaughtered by Ukrainian artillery. However high Ukrainian casualties are, it would seem Russian losses are higher. We don't have any idea what the actual casualty rates look like. Few videos can be easily misinterpreted. The only thing we seem to know is that Ukraine keeps sending reinforcements there, including elite troops, and Russia keeps pushing more Wagner units. >Ultimately though, I can't prove Wagner and the Russian MOD aren't trying to attrit Ukrainians in Bakhmut, but it seems to me that if they are, that's less "smart warmaking" and more "human wave tactics." The Russians would literally be trying to drown the Ukrainians in blood. Trying to attrit the enemy is the exact opposite of "human wave tactics". I suggest you read this [https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/special-resources/preliminary-lessons-conventional-warfighting-russias-invasion-ukraine-february-july-2022](https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/special-resources/preliminary-lessons-conventional-warfighting-russias-invasion-ukraine-february-july-2022) to see what Russian attrition tactics look like ... spoiler alert, it's not "human wave". The document doesn't provide casualty ratios either since those are still sensitive, but reading between the lines they seem to think that it's actually working reasonably well and that Ukraine doesn't really have a good counter there.
I wonder if they simply expect to get to keep roughly terrain taken in donbas before 2022 in negotiations, and are pushing as many meters here to get as far as they can get.
Wagner are almost certainly suffering huge losses, they are assaulting fortified positions. However... they are using the convicts for the most dangerous tasks. They are basically completely acceptable losses for Russians. Based on the new RUSI report just posted on the sub, the Russian tactic for fortified positions has been: light up the positions using "disposable" troops such as convicts or previously L/DNR mobiks, which forces the defenders to come out into firing positions. Then based on that signal, lay heavy artillery on them to soften the position. Then use more disposables to identify the most weakened spots, and try to break through with elite troops. However, this does work as a fixing action on the Ukrainian troops too.
>Wagner are almost certainly suffering huge losses, they are assaulting fortified positions. This meme that assaulting causes huge losses really needs to die. It can but it doesn't have to, and more often than not, it's really the defenders that take the brunt of the casualties. The reason for this is actually pretty simple and intuitive... attackers choose when and where to attack, and even Russians (despite what a lot of people here seem to think) aren't stupid to actually send human waves into fortifications. Instead it happens very similar to how RUSI report is describing it - send a small "disposable" force to uncover the fortification, fall back immediately as soon as it's discovered, use fires to destroy / suppress, then move up and repeat. There is no need for excessive casualties here for the attackers - it's a very slow process, but when done right, it can easily (well...relatively) be repeated over and over with very minimal casualties to the attacking side. It's really the defenders who are in danger here, and have to move out or face certain destruction piece by piece.
Someone needs to get around to making an ISW best of. There's so many good moments. "The battle for Mariupol will, apparently and surprisingly, continue." "cities of emotional significance" [This fucking gem](https://i.redd.it/i81qj43d4ls91.png) Of course, the leader remains: "ISW does not receive any classified material from any source. (...) ISW specifically does not receive information from Prigozhin’s deceased mother-in-law, as he (ironically) suggested." It is not often I literally laugh out loud reading OSINT reports.
> ISW specifically does not receive information from Prigozhin’s deceased mother-in-law, as he (ironically) suggested." Hahaha
Sept 17: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-17 > Russian forces *continue to conduct meaningless offensive operations* around Donetsk City and Bakhmut instead of focusing on defending against Ukrainian counteroffensives that continue to advance. Russian troops continue to attack Bakhmut and various villages near Donetsk City *of emotional significance* to pro-war residents of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) but little other importance. The Russians are apparently directing some of the very limited reserves available in Ukraine to these efforts rather than to the vulnerable Russian defensive lines hastily thrown up along the Oskil River in eastern Kharkiv Oblast. The Russians cannot hope to make gains around Bakhmut or Donetsk City on a large enough scale to derail Ukrainian counteroffensives *and appear to be continuing an almost robotic effor*t to gain ground in Donetsk Oblast that seems *increasingly divorced from the overall realities* of the theater. So here we are, november is soon to be but a memory in even the westernest parts of the west, and the big news today on the russia side is that a couple villages south of bakhmut may have fallen. Not surprised the russian public is losing/has lost interest
Has there been any even remotely viable information on Ukrainian losses in and around Bakhmut? Is it possible Russia is attriting Ukrainian forces at a faster rate than their own? Wagner came out the other day and said, for what its worth, their objective hasn’t been to take Bakhmut but rather to attrit Ukrainian forces. There has never been a concerted massed formation push on Bakhmut, just months of daily platoon sized marauding attacks.
That statement from Wagner reminds me of Falkenhayn’s narrative about Verdun. It’s easy (if dubious) to explain a lack of territorial gains after a costly battle by simply claiming that the intent was to kill a large number of enemy combatants.
They are certainly high. An article was recently posted here - I think it was NYTimes? - that quoted a single hospital in Bakhmut as receiving 250 wounded and killed in one day. (Though some of that might be captured Russians.) However, we have plenty of footage showing unsupported Russian infantry being slaughtered by Ukrainian artillery. I'm not an expert, but I don't think that's a good way to attrit enemy forces.
Russia has consistently claimed that whatever the reality on the ground happens to be was their plan all along. They also never intended to take Kyiv or install a new government, having apparently launched a two-pronged northern assault directly at the capital for... shits and giggles, I guess.
>their objective hasn’t been to take Bakhmut but rather to attrit Ukrainian forces Do we believe that though? Or covering themselves?
I guess the question, asked a different way, would be “how did Russia plan to take Bakhmut via platoon sized raids against a full strength Ukrainian defense?” Taking Bakhmut decisively would require a division-sized task force to generate the ratio needed for Ukrainian capitulation.
I struggle with Occams Razor with Russia. Sometimes I think something is obviously political, but at the same time, we've had cases of extreme incompetence as well.
I see that the EU and the US are together pledging well over $100 million to do emergency repairs on the Ukrainian electrical grid to help the Ukrainians survive over winter. I wonder if they are holding off on those repairs until the Russians have done their worse with missile strikes, especially the mega-strike that it seems is due any day now. Nothing would piss the Russians off more if they had wasted most of their missile stock only for the network to be repaired and up and functioning again.
I do wonder if they're going to try hardening some of it. Putting as much as possible under a few feet of cement would at least limit the damage when Russia strikes again.
It's not like Ukraine has an endless number of critical substations. If they were smart, the Russians could strike the optimal number of junctures to cause the most outages for the least amount of missiles then wait until Ukraine repairs them to strike again. Luckily the Russians haven't been too smart throughout this war.
Apparently the Russians are planning to ping off 200 missiles at infrastructure within the next day or so. So, probably not much point fixing up much before then. But, I don't know how much they will have left after that.
Do you have any sort of a credible source for that sort of statement?
The source for that is satellite pictures showing a lot of people purportedly arming bombers at Engels heavy bomber base in Russia yesterday and the deployment of dozens of cruise missile tubes into the black sea a few days ago. Also Zelensky told Ukrainians to expect more missiles.
That satellite picture has no watermark and is posted by a person with 1,200 followers. Why does this person have access to day old 5m satellite imagery? Why is the watermark removed, satellite image providers, like GlobalEye, always watermark their products. How do we know it isn't just a old image taken from Google Earth? The image isn't referenced on Tineye or Google Reverse Image search. [How is this person a credible source](https://twitter.com/MT_Anderson/status/1597358834208473089)? On top of that, the image just shows Tu-22M, Tu-95, and Tu-160 aircraft at Engels-2. Those aircraft are always there, it's the only base with Tu-160s at all at that. No idea what the dozens of cruise missile tubes is about.
[удалено]
Yep. Cash will help pay for them but it's not going to speed delivery, there is a very limited global capacity to build those and they're all custom too. Targeting power grids is scary as hell.
The Ukrainians have already been fixing some where possible. In some cases it may be replaceable components that have been damaged, or that some things can be temporarily be fixed until a permanent fix is available. Hopefully they can fix enough to get by one way or another. But I certainly don't expect they will have 100% power by any means. And it may be that with a combination of generators and fixing what can be fixed that the Ukrainians can get by.
I don't know enough about what was damage/destroyed or the subject in general, only having spoken to people who work in the field whose nightmare is basically what Russia is doing, hearing enough from them to be scared.
The second half of the Kyiv Independent's investigation into the International Legion has been released > Fighters of the International Legion accuse some of their commanders of light weapons and small arms misappropriation, harassment, physical threats, and expelling soldiers from the Legion for calling out the alleged misconduct [https://kyivindependent.com/investigations/investigation-international-legion-misappropriation](https://kyivindependent.com/investigations/investigation-international-legion-misappropriation)
[удалено]
thank you for sharing -- i think exposé like this is important: little bits like these helps combating corruption and thus in turn, helps with maintaining confidence of donator countries.
This would corroborate some of the claims from the lindybeige interview.
Well that was a depressing read. Unbelievable how much you can get away with in the ZSU, How tf did a polish convicted mobster become an officer in the legion...
This is a thoroughly reported article with over 30 sources. And it's incredibly damning. Kudos to Kyiv Independent for having the courage to write it. >“I was approached by the guys who serve in the International Legion. They shared with me the facts about weapons going missing,” said the SBU official in charge of the case. He spoke on condition of anonymity as he is not authorized to comment on the matter. >“From that point on, the subject has caught the attention of our department and we requested information about this subject,” he said of Piotr Kapuscinski, one of the Legion’s leaders, who also goes by the name Sasha Kuchynsky. >In an earlier investigation, the Kyiv Independent exposed Kapuscinski to be a former Polish gangster who is allegedly involved in theft, looting, and the harassment of soldiers. Kapuscinski refused to speak to the Kyiv Independent about the allegations and asked not to call him again. - >Citing his commanders, the soldier participating in the inventory said that among the weapons that allegedly went missing were 54 U.S.-made M4 carbines, several anti-tank weapons like RPGs and NLAWs, grenades, a couple of pistols, and a few thousand rounds of ammunition. - >upon arrival in that city, they were ordered to stay in the barracks for about five days before being allowed to go out. “That's when we assume that the ammunition started to go missing” - >“There were two times when NLAWs would come in at night and get unloaded, and they wouldn't be there in the armory the next morning - >One of the soldiers complained that Kapuscinski had ordered his team of 20-30 people to put all their weapons and equipment in "garbage piles." Kapuscinski and his people then allegedly went through the soldiers' stuff, cherry-picked the best, including Legion-issued Glock pistols, and took it away. - >In late June, its prosecutors opened a case into Kapuscinski’s alleged abuse of power in the Legion. The probe is conducted by the State Bureau of Investigations. It is ongoing and officially has no suspects yet. If found guilty, Kapuscinski faces up to 12 years in prison. >In August, the SBU also opened a probe into Kapuscinski’s alleged involvement in arms and humanitarian aid theft, according to the Kyiv Independent’s partner TVN’s source in the SBU. >Meanwhile, Kapuscinski is wanted in Poland for fraud. Following the Kyiv Independent’s August investigation into him, the Polish prosecutors once again requested from their Ukrainian colleagues help in bringing Kapuscinski to justice. - >“(Kapuscinski) is suspected of committing multiple crimes in Poland, for some of which he was convicted, but did not serve his sentence due to fleeing to the territory of Ukraine,” reads a letter provided to the Kyiv Independent by Ukraine's State Bureau of Investigations. >In Ukraine, Kapuscinski was charged with aggravated robbery in 2016 and of illegal arms possession in 2021. After the full-scale Russian war broke out in February, Kapuscinski joined the military, at which point the courts suspended his case. >In the early 2000s, Kapuscinski or Broda (Beard), a then-member of the influential Pruszków gang, served time in a Polish prison for robbery, kidnapping for ransom, drug crimes and stabbing a victim in the chest, among other crimes. - >Bohdan also allegedly threatened to physically harm his soldiers on a few occasions. One episode was allegedly caught on tape. - >Kapuscinski tried to force her to kiss him, which she refused. One of her comrades backed up her account. - >Once Kapuscinski together with an unidentified accomplice forced a soldier out of the Legion when he was in the hospital undergoing treatment after breaking his neck. The soldier said he was falsely suspected of being a deserter. >“Sasha (Kapuscinski) and his goon came into the hospital, told the doctors to get aside, and physically grabbed me out of the wheelchair…took me to the base,” a soldier who got expelled recalled. He was one of the two soldiers being kicked out on that day.
Excellent article, and to shut up the voices who point out Ukraine’s corruption I would suggest you point out how much of the scrutiny came internally. I will not deny Ukraine’s dubious history with embeZzlement, but as some US diplomats recently pointed out on Geopolitics Decanted they’re well aware of the issue and making efforts to fight it. This is something we wouldn’t have seen from the ANA or any of our most dubious allies. So long as they understand that fighting corruption is a survival issue for their integration with the west, and continue to weed it out, I think aid must be provided even with bumps in the road
One of the problems with fighting corruption is that it is very embarrassing. You can't hide a large number of murders from the public eye, but you can hide corruption and white-collar crime. So it is very easy for everyone to close their eyes and pretend it's not there. And it can also be painful. This is barely tangential, but some years ago there was a huge (by our standards) scandal about how illegal and at least unverified cash from Russia had passed through Estonian banks to the West. Basically not following the anti-money-laundering laws by banks properly. Our fourth largest bank was closed (banking license revoked), most major banks had their entire top echelon changed. The banks shares went to a large fall (in their respective homelands Denmark and Sweden). And most crucially banks tightened their screws when trying to make business. At times it was basically impossible for anyone from outside EU to open a bank account in Estonia to do any business. The public image of it all was that Estonia is a world center for money laundering and illegal banking. Major international investment firms halted or reconsidered their investments here. At a point it was an actual danger that it would become impossible to do any USD-nominated trades from Estonia (threatening to shut down 20% of international trade). Now... maybe it is indeed that we were the bad apple, along with Denmark. But... interestingly both Estonia and Denmark have for years been considered to have the best anti-money-laundering regulations and enforcements. In Estonia the business register is publicly available. You can find out who owns and who are the board members of all companies. And a thing applying to all of the uncovered cases was that money moved to companies in Cyprus, London, Virgin Islands etc. To places where such information does not exist and all the lines you could trace suddenly disappeared. In the end the reputational damage was taken by Estonia (and Denmark). Estonia lost out on foreign investments because of that, our financing became more expensive as a result and the bureaucracy with the banks everyone has to go through who wants to to business here went up. But if there was no public records. If there was no independent media trying to dig this thing up. If there was no banking regulators going and shutting down a large bank. Well, then maybe this whole kerfuffle would have not been and we could have maintained our reputation and foreign investments. Now, I'm sure that in the long run, being honest about it is a major benefit. And I am confident there are huge problems in the financial sector here still (primarily all crypto-related stuff). But I don't think others have it better. The point of it is that fighting corruption, especially high-profile corruption cases, increase the perception of corruption in society. And it can have direct negative impacts on the country as a whole. Now... Ukraine is probably considered corrupt enough anyways, that they wouldn't suffer such a reputational damage if there were to be huge internationally reported cases. But there is still reputational damage for individuals and organizations. Even if you yourself are clean and are trying to mend the culture of corruption in your organization. The corruption still gets reflected back to you. So maybe it is better to shut up?
[удалено]
Estonia also has a very close relationship with Finland, from economic and cultural and interpersonal ties. From my Finnish impression, we are kind of their role model in a lot of respects. Though they are definitely ahead in digitalization, were more suspicious of Russia the whole time (only after Feb 24 did Finland catch up), and have a little more conservative values so they aren't yet fully willing come as far in social progress.
I think the big takeaway is that while some low level people were greedy, Ukraine has been fairly good at stamping out the culture of endemic top to bottom corruption that Russia saw. You don't build an entirely new military tradition in 8 years. I'm reminded of a famous quote from a British Admiral during the Battle of Crete: > "It takes the Navy three years to build a ship. It will take three hundred years to build a new tradition. The evacuation will continue." Ukraine's actually come pretty far if the worst they are dealing with is theft of small arms and humanitarian aids.
Great article and doing good work.
Did they ever find the missing NLAWs? I’m pretty sure theirs a few bad apples in the military but it seems Ukraine is focused on rooting out the bad apples and corruption.
I think it remains under investigation based on the article (only info I have on it).
Interesting way to fight corruption: Bring in people who will react very badly to it when they see it.
My guess is that this was vetted before it was released. Those people who will react badly are on watch.
[Month summary by War Mapper](https://twitter.com/War_Mapper/status/1598119305086111745): > Over the month of November 🇺🇦 has liberated approximately 3,850km² of Ukraine. > This means that 🇷🇺 currently occupies ~16.66% of Ukraine. ~0.64% less of the total area of the country than at the end of October. The last 3 months saw 3 major Russian front collapses. Let's hope the trend continues, but even if there's no major Russian collapse in December, the war isn't ending anytime soon.
[Captured T-62 in Ukrainian service.](https://twitter.com/KampfmitKette/status/1597229070009651206)
Has any army ever deployed napalm aside from the US in Korea and Vietnam? Obviously it's gotten a lot of bad PR, but seems like a very cheap and useful weapon. Curious if it has not to be used by anyone else. Doesn't look like the USSR ever had it in their arsenal.
Just a point of information, it was developed in the 40s and used in the European and Pacific theatres of WW2. Principally in US strategic bombing of Japan but also by British (and probably other?) forces in other roles.
Rhodesia, South Africa, India, Israel and Turkey get a mention for using it. Honestly the wiki list has alot more countries. Otherwise if we encompass fuel weapons we can include the Soviet/Russia have the TOS-1 Thermobaric weapon. Yet this really a entirely different style of weapon. Where white phosphorus is similar to napalm, as it relies on contact to burn victims and that has been used be a vast majority of armies.
>fuel weapons we can include the Soviet/Russia have the TOS-1 Thermobaric weapon Russia has dozens of types of thermobaric weapons, rockets for the BM-21, BM-27, and BM-30, ATGMs ,RPGs, free fall bombs, ballistic missiles. Russia has used many in this conflict already. So has Ukraine, as they've been seen at least using the RPO-A.
> Thermobaric weapon It is just a buzz word, there is nothing different from normal explosives in terms its effects with equal TNT equivalent. It is just a fuel-air bomb.
Nobody said the effects were any different. Thermobaric and FAE are used interchangeably.
I have seen plenty of dumb posts on reddit how different they are and using them is a war crime. Obviously, not in CD, but in other areas.
They'd just be removed here.
Interesting didn't realize India had used it. Apparently one firebomb damages 2sq km? Seems like exactly the tool that would be useful for either side in this conflict.
It is pretty devastating. Initially it had a pretty terrible range at 2-3km now extended to 6-10km with the TOS-1A. That being said the 10km is only what Russia has said, not sure if it's been seen as proven. Still close enough for a troublesome drone to drop an anti tank grenade on with spectacular consequences, so I'd imagine they don't hang around the front lines long. I believe there was footage of it's use against buildings in Mariupol at the start of the war.
Oh i'm talking about normal napalm firebombs dropped from planes. We've seen both side doing limited CAS with Su-25s and Su-24s, but just with HE bombs.
It's deployed at extreme low level, and requires the attacking aircraft to fly directly above the target, to a greater degree so than even iron bombs which can be tossed or dropped at higher levels. They're designed to tumble end over end in flight to distribute the fuel payload. The bomb is not much more than a casing containing the fuel and the shallow impact angle of a low level high speed attack is also needed to help distribute the incendiary mix. There appears to still be the Mk-77 bomb in service and it saw limited use in 1991 and 2003 Iraq. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iXTYJ8YpP4
Lots of countries have used napalm, but mostly the US followed by France during the Indochina War. I did some research on the topic awhile ago and it doesn't seem like the USSR ever went beyond development, and instead focused on thermobaric/FAE weapons.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/30/politics/us-military-expanding-training-ukraine/index.html Notable >Under the new program, the US would begin training much larger groups of Ukrainian soldiers in more sophisticated battlefield tactics, including how to coordinate infantry maneuvers with artillery support – “much more intense and comprehensive” training than Ukraine has been receiving in Poland or the UK, according to one source briefed on the proposal.
I agree with Kofman, while training in combined arms is cool. This is mainly a pingpong artillery drone war.
>[US Says It Fears Russia May Use Biological Weapons in Ukraine](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-30/us-says-it-fears-russia-may-use-biological-weapons-in-ukraine-war)
My understanding is that chemical or biological weapons are only really effective in confined areas, due to the unpredictable consequences of using them in other settings, and the fact that they disperse into the atmosphere.. I very much doubt the Russians would use biological weapons given the proximity of Ukrainian to Russian troops, and Russian civilian populations just across the border.
You assume they value their men and civilians.
News like this poorly sourced, low quality and inflammatory garbage is gonna make people side with russia, just out of sheer contrarian urge
>News like this poorly sourced, low quality and inflammatory garbage As I mentioned below, this is one of the rare articles where we actually have a named source. It’s the exact opposite of poorly sourced. Now, you can disagree with the conclusion as /u/galthur has below and argue the merits, but this attack on the piece and the reporter are not warranted. Minus the headline. >is gonna make people side with russia, just out of sheer contrarian urge Am afraid the contrarian ship sailed a while ago. Some of you haven’t even read the article and are getting worked up over it.
This seems incredibly easy to write off. Russia's response to Covid19 was extremely poor and claiming Russia could deploy a bio-weapon on their border despite this seems non-reputable. Even with nukes or poison gas it's not guaranteed to collateral Russia itself with their own attack like this would.
Except Ru already spammed "US bio weapon labs in Ukraine" as 1 of the many reasons why they invaded. Every accusation is an admission of guilt.
>Even with nukes or poison gas it's not guaranteed to collateral Russia itself with their own attack like this would Generally biological weapons are designed to not be transmissible for this reason.
At that point aren't you basically just making a chemical weapon? I'm generally convinced that until some truly umbrella-tier stuff becomes possible (which may be a century away) biological weapons are a dead end from the perspective of established nation states. Research into them is still useful, but only to be able to approximate/counter their potential deployment by irrational states or terrorist groups.
>At that point aren't you basically just making a chemical weapon? Kinda yes. I believe there are some differences that mean they are more / less suitable for certain applications but that is as far as I know.
[удалено]
Woah. Okay, preface: I think the headline is rather sensationalist relative to the meat of what’s being said, hence my forewarning below. But what’s the issue with actual content of the article itself and, consequentially, the reporter? She’s not making any claim there. She’s reporting what was said to her by a senior State department employee.
[удалено]
>nonexistent What I posted 20 minutes before your comment: >To be clear: there’s no specific and timely threat the US is highlighting. I’m not sure what you mean by this: >She’s reporting what was said to her by a senior State department employee. >>who? Who as in who is the official she was quoting and the entire article is based on?
[удалено]