Better than the sinkholes formerly known as Iraq/Afghanistan, sure, but we didn't sabotage our future growth potential to ruin either of those places. The American economy kept on chugging, we didn't institute a draft, we didn't mobilize the economy for war.

Sanctions are tough, but the biggest threat in the long run is brain drain. The Russians are facing down a demographic crisis as is, even if they come out of this will all of Ukraine, the ROI to break even will be measured in decades.

some very interesting insight from a (danish) russia expert, and some perspective as to the long term cost of this war to russia's society and economy:

Absolutely dreadful commentary. Trying to conflate 2 separate conflicts is lazy arguing at best.
Not to mention the US economy alone is a factor 15x as large as Russia, so the financial cost is relative.

As if Russia needed land or resources before this invasion. Putin could not have remained if Russians began seeing Ukrainians lifes improving as they moved towards the west.
The same way China wants a buffer zone from South Korea and its allies. Putin needs a buffer zone, not from NATO but from a functioning democracy in a country with very similar slavic heritage.
Saying they have benefited in the parameters of land and resource from the invasion is the height of copium.

To scrape the barrel of positives for Russia.
Putin has avoided Ukraines immediate accession to NATO by creating a frozen conflict.
Does that benefit normal Russians? I'd argue not.
In exchange of that Finland and Sweden have joined. Both having highly motivated civilian populations and robust defence industries.
A net loss for Russia.

Insurgencies in Afghanistan and Chechnya had the Russians retreating with their tails between their legs, bloodied and defeated. The Taleban had support from the CIA and the Chechens likely the same and Islamic countries.
Ukraine has the backing of the entire defence industry of NATO and NATO plus.

Does anyone really think that Russia will have anything short of a disastrous insurgency after any ceasefire is negotiated?

They are dreaming if they think that.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Aug 13 2023 09:41am

That's because we faced a much more inferior adversary, not one that's been armed with hundreds of billions in western weapons.

As you say the demographic thing is an issue and people fleeing Russia whether to avoid the draft/stigma/sanctions whatever is also a problem. The former is an issue impacting many countries not just Russia (Japan, China, Spain, Italy, etc actually have it much worse and Russia is generally in line with the rest of Europe that has it's population artificially increased through net inflows in immigration).

The latter is also an issue but it's temporary IMO. They had an exodus at the onset, but many of those Russians are treated shitty in Europe and as risk of getting mobilized is decreased, good portion will go back. They are actually probably going to have a boost in their overall population. Not something that's mentioned often in the MSM but quick back of the napkin math:

~2.4 million in Crimea
~3 million in refugees from Ukraine went to Russia (of the overall 10 million)
~millions of left over living in the Donbas (to give you an example, greater Donetsk metro was one of the largest in Ukraine pre-war with about $2 million people, won't count any other because hard to say how many people are still there)

So anywhere from maybe like 4-5 million on low end to 7 million is my guess, but like i said impossible to know for sure.

I generally agree that this war is negative for Russia, especially for it's population but I don't buy into the doom, sky is falling scenario. They have enough natural resources 'till kingdom come, energy and food being the two largest ones (which are also the most crucial). If the last 5 years have shown us anything is that real things are actually the best stores of value as we've had our purchasing power slashed by 20-30% because of garbage economic policies (which will only get worse as the debt spirals out of control).



If you are going to behave like a child pming me rage essays and talking about how certain demographics should have less to say based on where they come from, I have no interest in engaging you. Learn to be civil instead of getting frustrated because your arguments are garbage.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Aug 13 2023 09:57am

This is what happens when you get rid of bullying ^

I didn't have more than 1 hour to watch it but i would like to share what my summarizing bot did with the transcript:

According to the document, the Russian government and society are segmented into three main groups. The first group is the opportunistic politicians, followed by the technocrats who try to make the bureaucracy function. The third group is the silaviki or the strongman, which includes the military leadership, the National Guard, and the police forces. The document also mentions that Russia is ruled through informal structures, such as personal alliances and groups of people that help each other. Putin's system is described as a divide and rule kind of system, where different groups in the government system compete with each other, and Putin ensures his own power. It is also mentioned that Russia is very much decoupled from the political processes, and the Russian population does not see themselves as someone with political agency.

=> Funny how the russian population has finally not a word to say about this mess.

Don't look up. All is fine. We are apolitical.

Sounds about right actually.

Who’s the 2nd group though?

Sorry, deleted everything now, but i posted myself the different groups 3 hours ago...


Here's another shot with the bot: the ESCALATION video



**Summary**

The document discusses the concept of escalation in conflict scenarios and how it can be managed. It highlights the importance of narrative and perception in shaping the outcome of a conflict, and how aid can be used as a tool to influence the situation. The document also touches on the theory of escalation ladder and the different categories of aid that can be provided in a conflict. Overall, the document emphasizes the need for careful consideration and strategic planning in managing conflicts.

What is the "boiling the frog" approach in escalation risk?

The "boiling the frog" approach in escalation risk is a cautious incrementalism strategy. It involves making one or two small escalations and assessing how the opponent responds through intelligence apparatus. This process is useful because opponents may not know how they will respond until they are put in a stressful situation. As gentle increases in pressure are applied, their position on further escalation becomes knowable, and the pressure is slowly amped up. The approach is named after the old story that you could slowly turn up the temperature on a frog in a pot of water, and it wouldn't notice that it was being cooked.

What are the three categories of aid mentioned in the presentation?

The presentation mentions three categories of aid: economic aid, humanitarian aid, and military aid. Economic aid is provided to sustain the Ukrainian economy under wartime conditions, while humanitarian aid is aimed at reducing the suffering caused by the war to the populations involved. Military aid, on the other hand, refers to the type of weapons and military equipment provided to Ukraine by its allies. The presentation explains that each type of aid has its own distinct strategic role, and the degree to which countries are comfortable with each of them differs greatly.

What is the danger of escalation landmines in international conflicts?

The danger of escalation landmines in international conflicts is that they can lead to an irrational and devastating counter-escalation. Human beings are not always rational, and this can be especially true for those running countries. Even if one side believes they have more than enough military power to deter their opponent, the opposing leadership may mistakenly believe that their military is stronger than it actually is. This can lead to a situation where one side chooses to escalate the crisis, resulting in asymmetric costs and potentially giving one side an advantage in negotiations. Additionally, if a nuclear power is involved, the risk of uncontrolled escalation is even greater. Therefore, some argue that the only option is to avoid escalation altogether, while others argue that flat-out appeasement can be even more dangerous.

=>
Interesting: Escalation is provoked by "leadership may mistakenly believe that their military is stronger than it actually is" This was nice thought (at least for me)


-------------------------


Ukraine's Counter Offensive (So far) - Attrition, Adaptation & What Next?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olH2-_Gtczw

=> Want the "summary" ?

This post was edited by Meanwhile on Aug 13 2023 10:28am

recommending:

Report: Biden Admin Aid To Ukraine Amounts To Nearly $900 Per American Household

https://ground.news/article/report-biden-admin-aid-to-ukraine-amounts-to-nearly-900-per-american-household

Maybe it's 100% sad, but it's also 100% cope !