[Ukraine] another dawn is breaking in Mosciv and it's still Russian

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > [Ukraine] another dawn is breaking in Mosciv and it's still Russian

«‹›21 »

What is the most powerful flying bug? This poll is closed.
🦋	15	3.71%
🦇	115	28.47%
🪰	12	2.97%
🐦	67	16.58%
dragonfly	94	23.27%
🦟	14	3.47%
🐝	87	21.53%
Total:	404 votes

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

really queer Christmas posted:

I hope this war ends in peace and an overthrow of the capitalist order

ArmZ posted:

i love the nuanced skepticism here that says everything is nato's fault

this

# ¿ Nov 3, 2022 23:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 13, 2024 15:32

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

does it seem weird to anyone else that we're mostly talking about the war in terms of russia, ukraine and nato/other countries instead of class

# ¿ Nov 4, 2022 00:09

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

SplitSoul posted:

Oh, by the way, somebody hacked the Danish rail system this weekend and apparently our critical rail infrastructure is dependent on an app.

digitalization going well

# ¿ Nov 4, 2022 00:41

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

Ytlaya posted:

I think people need to define what they mean by "imperialist" (or come up with another term). In this content, the term is almost always used to attempt to draw some sort of parallel with the US.

uncop posted:

You could slightly oversimplify it as self-perpetuating dependence. You start from a position where dependence relations between nations have become pretty one-sided, there's no equal exchange of favors between them but instead one expects the other to give tribute to it in some form, in exchange for not messing with it in some serious fashion. The favors demanded, in turn, are calculated to perpetuate the existing dependence relation and produce new ones.

The pre-capitalist form was principally a military dependence similar to the dependence relation within tributary societies between their state and population: the obviously superior military force demands the other to pay them what they want in exchange for not loving their poo poo up and defending them from rivals instead. It worked in the Americas because the native peoples either weren't very organized or their societies happened to be in disarray, so a small force was enough to get a snowball effect going. To do the same for most other places, technology had to develop to the point where some countries could build these naval forces that could function autonomously far away and for long periods of time, blockade countries and bombard their trade hubs. This imperialism was pre-capitalist because the tribute it extracted was for consumption rather than production. Of course it enabled capitalism to quickly develop within and around the empires because they were spending like crazy and hungry for goods from anyone who could supply them.

Capitalist economic relations altered the field by creating the world economy. Countries were no longer mostly autarkic, trading mainly for convenience and luxury, each was dependent on imports for basic necessities or their production. The autarky used to be why e.g. China could tell the British to piss off, confident that since the British couldn't invade, there was nothing they could do that would have been worse than submission. But yeah, so the world economy emerged from the context of pre-capitalist imperialism, where countries had been divided into "workshops of the world" turbocharged by free stuff shipped in, courtesy of genocidal below-subsistence slave labor, on one side, and those that still mostly subsisted off of tribute from peasants on the other. At this point trade and investment became the primary lever of dependence.

Imperialism started to become more about entering countries to invest in the cheap labor power of their poor populations and sell exotic manufactured products to their wealthier people, independent producers extracting wealth from supply and demand imbalances. Eventually it started dawning to empires that keeping a military presence on dependent countries wasn't paying for itself anymore since economic dependence was doing the heavy lifting. A close enough effect could be had by denying them the ability to produce things things they needed for for consumption or export, forcing them to subsist off of selling cheap and buying dear. Being able to threaten naval blockade and bombing of productive infrastructure was typically weapon enough if force of arms was needed. People used to think they could escape imperialism by expelling the militaries and officials of the colonists, but that wasn't the case anymore. There were only two ways out, striving for an industrial autarky under a blockade and denial of foreign investment (the Soviet & early PRC way) or finding some weak point in the structure of the global system that could enable them to force foreign investors to serve the independent rather than the dependent development of their economy (South Korea, Taiwan, modern China).

# ¿ Nov 4, 2022 01:37

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

Dixon Chisholm posted:

Anyone excited about the fact that world war 3 has started? Because it has.

i hope russia and nato lose.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2022 01:49

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

Homeless Friend posted:

euros love warring eachother for mostly no benefit, they love that crap

it's true, I do

# ¿ Nov 4, 2022 02:32

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

Lostconfused posted:

_{(from t.me/montyan2/3284, via tgsa)}

I am too lazy to actually check if they're listed here https://privatization.gov.ua/

The site sucks poo poo to navigate on mobile, someone else can do the needful if they care that much.

an official government website for selling off the state to foreign capital online is the kind of thing i would come up with as an over-the-top joke.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2022 22:16

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

gradenko_2000 posted:

I was at a wedding this afternoon.

Unknowingly walking into a Latin mass is a weird way to find out your brother's new in-laws might be TradCath, but the part that's relevant to this thread is that at the end of the ceremony, there's a special prayer for the intercession of the Lord for the conversion of Russia.

so that's why ff is so invested in this war

# ¿ Nov 5, 2022 12:09

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

Frosted Flake posted:

I was thinking about a good way to explain what happened in terms readily comparable to the English-speaking world and I think I have one.

Canada has an Irish culture totally at odds, as in diametrically opposed, to how it's understood in Ireland and the rest of the English-speaking world. The reason is that Canada all-but banned immigration of Irish Catholics but went out of the way to encourage the immigration of Irish Protestants so that uniquely the vast majority of Irish in (English) Canada are Proddies. This is opposed to the demographics of the two Irelands, past and present, but also contrasts with Australia, who received mostly transported Irish Catholics and the US, which received mostly Irish Catholics fleeing the Great Famine. Even during the Great Famine, when there was a great deal of traffic to Montreal, what Irish Catholics that landed here went to the States as soon as they were able, or stayed in Montreal if they were too poor or sick to travel to the US.

So, what it means to be "Irish" in Canada (the Belfast of the North) is very different than what it means anywhere else, just like what it means to be "Ukrainian" in Canada is very different than what it meant in the majority of Ukraine. We have an Irish culture created by Ulstermen in the image of Ulster, similarly we have allowed Galicians to create a picture of Ukraine in the image of Galicia. Canadian Irish were militant supporters of the Orange Order, the Political activities of the Ukrainian diaspora here are well known. Iirc Canadian support for the UDR/RUC and Crown was much higher than it ever was for the IRA and I only ever heard the IRA referred to as terrorists, in the media and by everyone I knew, growing up in the 90's and 2000's. In the same way that being Irish means to fight for King and Country, the Ukrainian "national struggle" as understood here, means to have fought against the USSR, rather than having been part of it.

Most, and by that it's got to be 90% these days, of Canadians are oblivious to this, because how would they know? We have Irish bars, just like Australia and the US, and how would you know which names are Scots Gaelic instead of Irish or that the Red Hand of Ulster is not the kind of ticky tacky Irish pub decoration found in Ireland? It's totally normal for the Union Jack to be generic pub decoration in Irish pubs and nobody would really think about that or even notice. As far as anyone here is concerned, that's just what Irish culture is, it's uncontroversial. "Irish" dress here is as often as not Lowland Scot, most places have "Scottish and Irish" Stores (so, Scots-Irish), but who is going to know if people wear trews in Ireland? You just go there to get plum pudding to bring to Christmas or to look for a tartan scarf or cable knit sweater, or an outfit for a wedding, and there's not much to it.

Same thing with Ukraine. People see flower crowns and "national costume" and hear the "national story" and that's it. Ukrainian culture is pretty common in Canada, I grew up knowing pierogis as varenyky, and understanding all Ukrainians are Catholic, and that's all there was to it.

So, you know, these things happen. People aren't going to interrogate these assumptions and it lets a lot of stuff go by under the radar.

tower of babel rear end civilization

# ¿ Nov 7, 2022 17:46

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

euphronius posted:

maybe for like a local school fund raiser or self improvement program at a local gym but not war

have you ever read Sun tzu ??: �no war plan survives first contact with the enemy�

pretty sure that's clausewitz

edit: it's Moltke

# ¿ Nov 9, 2022 16:24

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

Frosted Flake posted:

lol @ all this Mickey Mouse bullshit. Is Kherson Russia or not? What was the point of the referendums? It�s one thing to start a war you aren�t resolved to win, but one you aren�t even willing to fight?

It would be better to enter talks today than to wait until Russian forces have withdrawn to Crimea or the Kerch Peninsula because their commanders are unwilling to throw men into battle. Every turned flank or situation with a numerical disadvantage turns out the same way, and while tactically and operationally it makes sense, it�s impossible to win a war that way, which points to still more political bullshit.

They�ve consigned thousands of civilians to execution and not fired a shot in their defence.

Greece is the Fourth Rome, long live Greece, I guess.

turns out russia is a real liberal democracy after all.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2022 19:07

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

the general theme of productive forces receding behind national boundaries is the consolidation of local power in the system by catabolism of absolute system power. as a whole, each directly involved capitalist polity has become weaker in absolute terms via destruction of capital and depletion of military forces. at the same time, the western bourgeoisie wins because ukraine's national assets and the ukrainian working class have been sold to finance the defense. the russian ruling class wins because it has nationalized industries and grown fat on energy crisis money. the ukrainian ruling class wins because they are gorging themselves on nato money and weapons. absolute losers are the larger system of Capital and the working classes writ large, the relative winners are the uninvolved. imo there are no absolute winners except China.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2022 20:27

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

Alpha 1 posted:

My takeaway from this debacle is that neoliberal austerity states are incapable of fighting full-scale industrial wars. It doesn't matter what resources they have on paper, because they don't have the capacity mobilize their societies for the fight or demand sacrifices from their people. As soon as Russia crossed the border, it was in the final battle to the death with NATO. Russia needed to mobilize in a way it hasn't mobilized since WW2, but these limitations forced it to fight the way America fought Iraq, with similar results.

Outside of Ukraine, this bodes poorly for America's plan to fight China over Taiwan. I doubt America's leadership can see how much their country has in common with Russia though.

yep.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2022 20:54

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

OctaMurk posted:

what type of state is ukraine? they have mobilized to a total war footing

im gonna get a bunch of replies saying nazi i bet. but really, isnt ukraine basically a neoliberal state

ukraine is a nation-state in the mold of pre-ww2 countries that the ukrainian ruling class is transforming into a neoliberal state by privatizing everything and selling the working class in order to get the western bourgeoisie to finance their defense, much like the other nato-aligned eastern european states have done over the last 30 years.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2022 21:33

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

dk2m posted:

my only comment to this is that this war has kicked off the multipolar world where US hegemony has weakened considerably by showing how easy it is to have your foreign reserves confiscated and creating the conditions needed to have bilateral trade in local currencies, like the ruble/rupee.

capital itself is being re-organized under different rules with different goals - from one of hegemony to something more like protected self interest

it�s also shown that US sanctions, and therefore capital flows, cannot work on export rich, self-sufficient countries like Russia and has given countries like India influence by forcing the US to confront the limits of its economic power. forcing a country like Russia to develop internally by cutting it off from the world will, in the long term, strengthen it (assuming the whole thing doesn�t collapse, which could also happen) while Ukraine becomes a vassal state for the west

yes, exactly, though, the war is a consequence of the reorganization, i.e., the recession of productive forces, rather than the cause of it. the root of all this is that the USSR provided a key constraint on the maximization function of cybernetic capitalism, and with the removal of this constraint, capitalism entered a runaway growth phase that necessarily led to its growing increasingly unstable. systems where everything is connected to everything are highly prone to cascading failure. when there are no internal constraints, no internal structures to contain error, it may spread freely through the entire system until the failure state becomes global and irreversible. at that point, it dominates system behavior.

thus, where all the bourgeoisie were as one in growing the global system of Capital, now the recession of productive forces causes the bourgeoisie undivided to fracture and splinter, in turn causing the preservation of their self-interests to spur conflict between capitalists acting to stabilize their local systems both within and between nations. in many ways, it's a similar dynamic to how the highly interconnected economic systems of the late 19th and early 20th century led to the world wars. we even had a pandemic! pandemics are cascading failure incarnate: too much interconnection literally leading to unbounded spread. here, too, China provided an extremely strong contrast in how they were and remain able to systematically contain the problem by acting on multiple scales with a high level of granularity, such as locking down a neighborhood, a city, a region, etc. until containment succeeds, and likewise have no need to rush on the Taiwan or any other issue.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2022 23:33

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

genericnick posted:

Is even China an absolute winner? Europe is now much more under the US thump compared to if the crisis had blown up over the Taiwan straight. Honestly without the war I'd expect everything to end up the same, but the EU China relations explode later and Viennese Universites simulate weird semi conductors for Chinese companies a few years longer.

they absolutely are. the point is precisely that it didn't blow up over Taiwan because the process is not random or stochastic such that it could have gone either way. it blew up over Ukraine because the system phase is making inter-capitalist conflict inevitable, but China isn't capitalist and so only indirectly subject to these forces. they already have all the productive forces they need behind national boundaries. what the CPC needs to maintain stability is an uncontested source of energy and raw materials, and it's difficult to imagine a bigger prize in this regard than Russia, while stability for the western bourgeoisie requires them to break either China or Russia.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2022 00:21

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

Weka posted:

I thought China was capitalist. They're a mixed market economy. Pretty similar economically to many of the liberal democracies historically. You're much smarter at that stuff than me though.

Hatebag posted:

China's state owned enterprises account for only 40% of china's gdp. Is 50% state enterprise the cutoff for communism?

the juxtaposition between western and chinese covid responses finally convinced me that China is not capitalist. it's a question of control. the cardinal trait of a capitalist country is a lack of it, a slavish pursuit of capital expansion and growth at all scales, i.e., a capitalist country produces capital for the sake of producing capital--hence capitalism, because capital controls the state. the cardinal trait of a socialist country, i.e., a country that is actively working to move past capitalism, is the state's ability to control capital; to stop and start the expansion of capital at all scales, because the state controls capital.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2022 01:16

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

gradenko_2000 posted:

the USSR fought the Great Patriotic War

that doesn't mean the Soviet Union was nationalist

china is not capitalist, but they are nationalist. unlike the USSR they are explicitly not leading or supporting an international struggle for socialism, they are building socialism with chinese characteristics.

Majorian posted:

Nah, not really. It's playing out before our eyes. The U.S. empire's only being strengthened by this, at least in the medium-term.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2022 18:51

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

Majorian posted:

I just spent several posts explaining that claim my dude.

there's no american empire, and the capitalist empire is not getting stronger.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2022 19:11

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

Majorian posted:

Well, I agree on the second point in the long-term, but on the first point, I'm afraid it's my term to

just had this exact discussion with ardennes in doomsday econ.

Zodium posted:

it is just about capitalism. the post-ww2 state, whether capitalist or communist, is in the business of maximizing stability so as to serve as a more effective attractor--in the capitalist state, to maximize production of capital, and in the socialist state, to maximize control of the means of production. thus, while america may be the origin of cybernetic capitalism, it isn't remotely american, because the national scale is not meaningful to Capital. does Capital reward americans over and above, say, germans? no. did it hesitate to brutally deindustrialize the US when Deng signaled to it a better profit to stability ratio in China? again, no. what materially anchors Capital to the US? nothing. the US is simply a very stable place defended by two oceans.

Zodium posted:

of course the capitalist empire exists. that is exactly my point: even though it began there, it isn't american capitalism, because the US is a province no different from any other. the US state isn't invested with any additional power over it, it can only serve or fail to serve, as any other state. american industry moved to China because it had to. it was compelled by the feedback the system received, not because the american ruling class had a choice between China or some other place and arbitrarily went with China. any member of the ruling class who resisted deindustrialization, and there were many now-forgotten capitalists too invested in their nation to serve without hesitation, were simply removed from power and replaced by Capital.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2022 19:27

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

Al-Saqr posted:

me when I look at American imperialism

me when I look at Russian imperialism

me when I read Xi Jinping thought

this

# ¿ Nov 10, 2022 19:28

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

Majorian posted:

It seems to me like you're arguing that it's not an American empire because it doesn't directly benefit American citizens (at least as much as it used to), but that's hardly a necessary criterion for a geopolitical entity being an empire. The fact of the matter is, it's American defense contractors that are going to be raking in the boatloads of money for Europe's defense over the coming decades, and it's the American government that's going to be able to exert undue influence over European countries' foreign and defense policies. That's an empire, my dude.

defense contractors are going to be raking in boatloads of money for Europe's defense. american, european, israeli, all going to be raking in the dough. the error in your analysis stems from an underlying assumption that nationality matters to Capital. it doesn't. and that's who's in charge of the american, german, british and other bourgeois governments.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2022 19:44

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

Majorian posted:

I'm not assuming that at all, though. What I am saying is that geopolitics still matter to some degree, and one of the outcomes of this war is that the American government and MIC now have more leverage over their wealthiest client-states than they did previously.

owning a billion euros worth of capital affords more power over what the american state does than being american ever could. that is the fact of the matter. "american" counts for nothing.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2022 19:49

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

Majorian posted:

Again, you're making the mistake of treating the American Empire and the American citizenry as synonymous. They are not. That which serves the American Empire does not necessarily serve the American citizenry (in fact, it usually doesn't). Defense contractors and governments all over the world may all serve "Capital" in a theoretical sense, but the fact of the matter is, in the world we currently inhabit, there are still competing military-industrial complexes (namely, the U.S. and China). This war has very clearly strengthened the American MIC and its geopolitical sway over Europe.

your american empire seems to be american in the sense the holy roman empire was roman.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2022 19:59

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

or possibly in the sense it was holy.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2022 20:00

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

Majorian posted:

It is! They've played their cards very cleverly in this conflict so far.

...no? The HRE was "Roman" in an ideological sense, ie: it traced its legitimacy back to Charlemagne, who was Augustus in the West. Obviously it wasn't Roman in any real, material sense, but its behavior and its role in Europe were partially determined by that ideological conception of itself as "Roman."

The American Empire is very much an empire in a material sense. Client states around the world rely upon its MIC for their defense, the dollar is still the international reserve currency, and its government is still able to dictate the foreign policies of its client states to some degree. Again, that's an empire. You may say that that's all in service of Capital, and I agree, but as I just pointed out, "Capital" isn't as unified as you're portraying it. There are still competing MICs that have monopolized their respective chunks of the planet's surface (again, the US and China are the big ones).

the american empire is an empire that's orthogonal to being from america or having american citizenship, doesn't work to further american interests, and isn't controlled by americans.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2022 20:09

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

Majorian posted:

It seems to me like it furthers the interests of the American state, and it is controlled to some degree by American defense contractors. You're welcome to tell me where I'm wrong in this assessment.

the american state works to facilitate the expansion of capital, not the american state. it is controlled by Capital's maximization function for stability and profitability, not american defense contractors.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2022 20:21

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

Majorian posted:

No, it's driven by Capital's maximization function for stability and profitability, not controlled. The American MIC is still controlled by its billionaire masters, who are still competing with other MICs' billionaire masters. They are happy to empower the American state insofar as the state facilitates their conquest of foreign markets. (ie: Europe)

i don't understand what you mean by "it's driven by Capital's maximization function." it's driven by extracting surplus value from the working class.

Azathoth posted:

wouldn't a reasonable interpretation be that there's an american empire, one which absent any other consideration looks out specifically for american interests, but that said empire isn't the highest level and that above it exists something for which we don't have decent words, a kind of non-state made up of constantly vying capitalist interests that in all things seeks to further the aims of capital? like, the american empire will do its empire poo poo and capital is happy to let it as those interests often align with capital or at least are indifferent to capital, but like an ancient subkingdom it is beholden to an overkingdom, when the subkingdom acts against overkingdom it gets an aggressive reaction from the overkingdom.

you could say that if you were married to the phrase "american empire," but it's much less awkward to say there's a bourgeois or capitalist empire in which america is a province.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2022 20:45

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

Majorian posted:

I honestly didn't mean for it to come off as smug; I was more bewildered, since Zodium literally seemed to be arguing that America can't be an empire if it doesn't benefit its citizens in the core. But I apologize for assuming you were making the same argument.

i wasn't arguing that the american empire can't be american because it doesn't benefit its citizens, i was arguing there was nothing american about the american empire at all.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2022 21:07

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3 posted:

was there something british about the british empire?

it's complicated, but as a short answer, the aristocracy.

Majorian posted:

Okay, but as Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3 just pointed out:

So I dunno, if you want to call it the Boeing-Raytheon-Lockheed-Martin Empire or whatever, feel free. "American Empire" serves as pretty good shorthand for that, though, imo.

the bourgeois or capitalist empire is fine.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2022 21:18

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3 posted:

If we're talking Lenin here, it's Empire. And it's national in character. Capitalists do relate to each other in a similar way as Feudal lords did, in the sense that they will absolutely drop their conflicts in order to quash an uprising by the peasants or the working class, but then it's back to business as usual.

If you're arguing that that there is no National Character, then it's not Lenin anymore, so whose definition are you using?

at heart, i'm advancing the notion that Capital has become self-organized. it still has a national character, but the national character of the capitalist empire after ww2 is progressively better understood as "bourgeois." the national religion of the capitalist empire is capitalism, the national pastime is working at your job, etc. basically a totalitarian state focused on producing capital. i think this state of affairs came about because, as you say, capitalists will drop their conflicts in order to quash an uprising, and when the world wars brought the world to the brink of communism, the american capitalists' solution to the problem was to cease being american through applying cybernetic principles to political economy.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2022 21:48

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

Not So Fast posted:

https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1590818260504973313?t=5XeO-8PTogOi67o3yi3dzA&s=19

looks pretty grim

lmao

# ¿ Nov 10, 2022 22:57

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

https://twitter.com/asdj_l/status/1590828878939189248

:kstare:

# ¿ Nov 10, 2022 23:53

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

Frosted Flake posted:

People talk about Austria-Hungary being a brittle state but they had successive armies wiped out in Galicia, Serbia and Italy in debacles that would be funny if they weren't so tragic, and while it ultimately led to the dissolution of the Empire, it was not before turning the hard core of Austrians, Hungarians and slavs into the future SS, Arrow Cross and Usta�e*. In Italy, twelve Battles of the Isonzo created Fascism. The reaction to defeat after defeat is usually not "end the war in defeat and humiliation" but "victory will come through blood alone", the destruction of civil society as a weakening influence etc. The Russian Army that went back to Chechnya was not just different in tactics and operations, they were a lot more heavy handed because they believed that only their resolve and firepower would bring victory. There was no more handing out candy to kids or idling tanks waiting for instructions outside of city limits.

* "Pučki-usta�a" (German: Landsturm) was a military rank in the Imperial Croatian Home Guard (1868�1918). The same term was the name of Croatian third-class infantry regiments (German: Landsturm regiments) during World War I (1914�1918)

this was my immediate thought as well, right after "lmao"

# ¿ Nov 11, 2022 00:04

Zodium: Jun 19, 2004

Azathoth posted:

The only explanation that makes sense to me is that they actually thought it would be a short, contained war where they would take a bunch of territory initially, which they did, and then sit at the gates of Kyiv while Zelensky and the Ukrainian populace collectively poop themselves and quickly sue for peace on favorable terms. In that scenario, Russia walks away with not just their prewar goals completed, but Ukraine and everyone else who would think of playing hardball suitably chasened and ready to negotiate favorable terms for whatever Russia wants the next time they come knocking.

When Ukraine didn't capitulate and sue for peace, they didn't have a plan B, they were genuinely shocked and have since been desperately trying whatever they can to force them to the negotiating table under conditions favorable to Russia. But the same material reasons they couldn't actually take Kyiv at the start of the war are the same reasons they can't force them to the table.

As you point out, Russia doesn't have the political will to endure the kind of heavy casualties necessary to force Ukraine to the table under favorable conditions. Ading conscripts to the effort isn't going to work, because well...dead conscripts add to the political pressure in a way that dead volunteer soldiers do not.

genericnick posted:

Yeah, I agree with this. Russia seems to have been looking for the one weird trick that will get it an advantageous political settlement all the way back since they first started massing troops.
Did they really expect the West would set Europe's economy on fire and risk everything coming down so Ukraine could walk away from Minsk2? After we all had signed up to it once? Did they expect to have to fight a total war against Ukraine? Of course not, in and out in two weeks tops, Zelensky eats his tie and and the tap water in Crimea flows again. After that failed, Zelensky owns no ties, and Ukraine walked away from negotiations they tried to: Hold a gun to their economic life-line's head instead of their capital with the Black Sea ports, sit back and let them run into artillery until they get tired of it, successively make the offered deal worse by formally annexing regions, and now attacking electrical infrastructure while talking up their enormous mobilized forces that will arrive any day now.

Also this. I'd like the Kremlin to be destabilized and a reinvigorated communist party come out in front, but it's not going to happen. It's gonna be the psychos.

Wonder who's the mark since they wrote in the WP that peace talks would be for European consumption.

stephenthinkpad posted:

I like this theory. It explains why Putin's full scale mobilization was so late.

So Russia tried to sneak in Ukraine at night and do some special force ninja stuff with *not special force but regular untrained troops*, tried to back out with some face saving political settlement (which would also secure Putin's next election); but mastermind grandpa Biden saw an opportunity "to put Russia down permanently", triggered the financial war nuclear option; 2 months later, the whole world found out financial war nuclear weapon was really not that deadly. LOL what a clown show.