Russia mobilises - consequences and reactions

[RD2003]

Says the amateur geopoliticist.

Amateur military strategists, amateur geo-political experts, amateur psychologists...

We're all amateurs on here.

As for me, I'm your typical white, male underachiever.

 

[kabbes]

We're all amateurs on here.

I mean, that’s not true for a start. You keep saying it, but it’s just projection.

 

[RD2003]

I mean, that’s not true for a start. You keep saying it, but it’s just projection.

 

[The39thStep]

Well, you are left with a choice. Either you agree with RD2003’s statement that the West’s reaction to the collapse of the USSR truly comprises the “whole context” of this war. Or you conclude that he is indeed an example of having a blind spot. A blind spot that I am suggesting is due to a common subjective sense that it must be “all about us”.

And that’s fine and all, but it’s a bit rich for him to then lecture us that we need to take the context into account

Sorry kabbes , whilst I thought your post about the former states 156 had some merit ,you later promoted it as being an example of 'the whole context. Not an edited and politically directed subset of that context'

I'd like to think I have far more choices than choosing between your post and his in considering or constructing context.

 

[kabbes]

Sorry kabbes , whilst I thought your post about the former states 156 had some merit ,you later promoted it as being an example of 'the whole context. Not an edited and politically directed subset of that context'

No I didn’t. I in no way promoted it as being the whole context. Quite the reverse, in fact — I offered it as part of the context being ignored by others

I'd like to think I have far more choices than choosing between your post and his in considering or constructing context.

It’s a choice between his post as the “whole context” or his post NOT being the “whole context”. They are mutually exclusive.

 

[rutabowa]

it's a bit impossible to include the "whole context" in every single post/sentence. That is the nature of context, it is big.

 

[JimW]

Then there's your known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

 

[maomao]

Then there's your known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

Everyone laughed at Rumsfeld but surely he was paraphrasing Confucius:

子曰。由、誨女知之乎。 知之爲知之、不知爲不知。是知也。

 

[kabbes]

it's a bit impossible to include the "whole context" in every single post/sentence. That is the nature of context, it is big.

Which is why it’s probably not a good idea to claim that you have included it, no?

 

[The39thStep]

Then there's your known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

and in between there are the doors

 

[JimW]

Everyone laughed at Rumsfeld but surely he was paraphrasing Confucius:

子曰。由、誨女知之乎。 知之爲知之、不知爲不知。是知也。

Yeah, I'd read it was standard terminology in your strategy circles.

 

[A380]

Everyone laughed at Rumsfeld but surely he was paraphrasing Confucius:

子曰。由、誨女知之乎。 知之爲知之、不知爲不知。是知也。

i didn't know that. But I never laughed at this Rumsfeld comment. I always felt it made a lot of sense.

 

[RD2003]

it's a bit impossible to include the "whole context" in every single post/sentence. That is the nature of context, it is big.

I was going to say similar. It's a bit difficult to include the whole context on a forum most of us probably contribute to often in haste, in between doing real life, mostly with the aim of reinforcing our own bias.

With long, well thought-out posts, you just get the feeling that hardly anybody will be bothered reading them, or else skim them and then accuse you of saying something other than what you did, and so you've just wasted a small chunk of your day. Better to rant for a sentence or two, and then sign off with an insult (yes, you know who you are).

As for myself, I just like to remind people that there are causes to Russia's actions, and of the way the war could have been avoided (which apparently makes you a 'Putin Bot' who relishes bloodshed and torture.) I prefer to think of myself as the conscience of this forum.

 

[Cid]

it's a bit impossible to include the "whole context" in every single post/sentence. That is the nature of context, it is big.

Not a reason to indulge in single-factor explanations or shoddy counter-factuals (or counter-factuals at all really, they're a blight).

 

[JimW]

I was going to say similar. It's a bit difficult to include the whole context on a forum most of us probably contribute to often in haste, in between doing real life, mostly with the aim of reinforcing our own bias.

With long, well thought-out posts, you just get the feeling that hardly anybody will be bothered reasding them, or else skim them and then accuse you of saying something other than what you did, and so you've just wasted a small chunk of your day. Better to rant for a sentence or two, and then sign off with an insult (yes, you know who you are).

As for myself, I just like to remind people that there are causes to Russia's actions, and of the way the war could have been avoided (which apparently makes you a 'Putin Bot' who relishes bloodshed and torture.) I prefer to think of myself as the conscience of this forum.

I like to think of myself as a dashing blade, stout fellow and comfort to the meek.

 

[The39thStep]

I was going to say similar. It's a bit difficult to include the whole context on a forum most of us probably contribute to often in haste, in between doing real life, mostly with the aim of reinforcing our own bias.

With long, well thought-out posts, you just get the feeling that hardly anybody will be bothered reading them, or else skim them and then accuse you of saying something other than what you did, and so you've just wasted a small chunk of your day. Better to rant for a sentence or two, and then sign off with an insult (yes, you know who you are).

As for myself, I just like to remind people that there are causes to Russia's actions, and of the way the war could have been avoided (which apparently makes you a 'Putin Bot' who relishes bloodshed and torture.) I prefer to think of myself as the conscience of this forum.

Lets not go that far please

 

[rutabowa]

Which is why it’s probably not a good idea to claim that you have included it, no?

Clearly it would be ridiculous for anyone to ever claim that a single post is providing the "whole context" for something like a war. You need at least a 4 parter on Netflix to give the whole context.

But it is equally ridiculous to expect any post to provide the "whole context"

 

[rutabowa]

No I didn’t. I in no way promoted it as being the whole context. Quite the reverse, in fact — I offered it as part of the context being ignored by others

As far as I can see that is exactly what rd2003 is attempting (with varying success) to do in their posts.

 

[Dystopiary]

Anybody who went to these places, or some of them, at the end of the cold war, or in the period leading up to it, would know that most of their people were not particularly traumatised. The younger elements quite the opposite in most cases. After Stalin, life wasn't that traumatic for most people for long periods. Certainly it wasn't as traumatic as where people had to contend with US/western-induced bloodthirsty regimes. Furthermore, there was already a large amount of anti-Russian solidarity between most of the ex-Soviet bloc states (if that's what you're referring to, as opposed to components of the ex-USSR), particularly their political elites. It's stretching it a lot to suggest that without NATO expansion there would have been widespread bloodshed between them.

See, you are so wrong here. That's what pisses me off about some of the stuff you post. You quote westerners in the Guardian that fit with your line, but never Ukrainians, but it's not difficult to listen to them. There are online translate tools that're pretty good and lots write in English now anyway.

I implore you read up on Russian colonialism. (Now I'm gonna do that thing too where we pre-emptively justify ourselves: I've no love for NATO at all; the UK and America are responsible for atrocities and cosy up to murderous regimes. Whataboutism won't change the point.) No, I'm no expert. But there's no way many, many people who live next to Russia have not been traumatised ffs. There are loads of examples from people saying as much.

 

[xenon]

But but he met some East Europeans when travelling in his 20s...

 

[RD2003]

See, you are so wrong here. That's what pisses me off about some of the stuff you post. You quote westerners in the Guardian that fit with your line, but never Ukrainians, but it's not difficult to listen to them. There are online translate tools that're pretty good and lots write in English now anyway.

I implore you read up on Russian colonialism. (Now I'm gonna do that thing too where we pre-emptively justify ourselves: I've no love for NATO at all; the UK and America are responsible for atrocities and cosy up to murderous regimes. Whataboutism won't change the point.) No, I'm no expert. But there's no way many, many people who live next to Russia have not been traumatised ffs. There are loads of examples from people saying as much.

I didn't say nobody was traumatised. However, when I was in several of those countries, including Ukraine, just before and just after the end of the Cold War, I met people who had no love for Russia, but nobody who appeared, or claimed to be, traumatised. Nor could you observe any signs of such generally. This is understandable in that while a Russian-dominated SU held those societies in its grip, it was locals who did its bidding most of the time. Russia was something inescapable but in the background. This is the case even in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Many of those who claimed opposition afterwards were willing collaborators at all levels (people in all countries change the narratives of their lives when it suits.) There was also resistance to Moscow from within the Communist regimes.

 

[RD2003]

But but he met some East Europeans when travelling in his 20s...

Whereas plenty on here pontificate about this stuff having never met any, or having met them only in their heads.

As it happens, I regularly socialised with Russians and Ukrainians over here until fairly recently. The Russians (mostly very much anti-Putin) are keeping a low profile atm, while the Ukrainians stopped speaking to me after I enrolled in the Putinbot army.

 

[redsquirrel]

Mostly, wars happen anyway because of the decisions of handfuls of people.
......
Class war was not a factor in either of those decisions. Nor were there underlying material factors necessitating action either way in either case. Yeltsin was not such an autocrat as Putin. Putin so much more autocratic. You only had to watch that session where he was asking his ministers their opinions in public, all quaking in their boots.

The class war was not a factor in the break up the the Soviet Union and fallout! The expansion of opportunities for capital, another plundering of commons, was not a factor?
Wars happen because of the decision of handfuls of people. Christ.
Which handful of people where responsible for the first world war BTW?

The 'big men' view of history (it should really be called the 'big person' view) is not incompatible with a materialist view. The more power individuals have the more influence their personalities, backgrounds and beliefs have on world events. When it comes to starting wars it would seem to be particularly true.

I don't agree that a big man view of history is compatible with a materialist one. And certainly your view of history is a rejection of the foundation of socialism.

The whole starting point of socialism rests on the fact that capitalism is defined by the fact the interaction of labour, capital and the state(s) is the key driver of events.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

The class war was not a factor in the break up the the Soviet Union and fallout!
Wars happen because of the decision of handfuls of people. Christ.
Which handful of people where responsible for the first world war BTW?

I don't agree that a big man view of history is compatible with a materialist one. And certainly your view of history is a rejection of the foundation of socialism.

WW1 is a pretty big topic, and just a bit of a derail. There were all kinds of reasons why countries might or might not have gone to war in 1914, but the decisions to do so, and who was going to fight who, were made by a couple of hundred people at most. There was no mass movement in favour of war. Lots of opposition. Lots of ignorance too, from generals and presidents and kings who had grown up in the era of cavalry and knew nothing of trench warfare, tanks, airplanes etc. If the leaders of Russia, Germany or Austria-Hungary had had any idea what they were embarking upon they would not have got involved, as it meant the downfall of their own rule. It took Italy a while to decide which horse to back, and Rumania changed sides.

My view of history. Underlying materialist causes for big changes in the world. If a deterministic universe, another derail, then materialist causes for absolutely everything. But it is more than possible to say that major events can be caused or influenced by the actions, beliefs, idiosyncrasies and ineptitudes of powerful persons. That is not to deny socialism or anarchism at all. If you think it does you'd better tell me how.

 

[redsquirrel]

That is not to deny socialism or anarchism at all. If you think it does you'd better tell me how.

You've argued that the class war was not a factor in the break up of the Soviet Union. If you can square that with any sort of anarchist communist or socialist thought tell me how.
The class war is always a factor in capitalism, how could it be otherwise. The whole changing of events is inexplicably linked to the interaction of capital and labour, if it was not then we would be living under capitalism but another political system.

WW1 is a pretty big topic, and just a bit of a derail. There were all kinds of reasons why countries might or might not have gone to war in 1914, but the decisions to do so, and who was going to fight who, were made by a couple of hundred people at most. There was no mass movement in favour of war. Lots of opposition. Lots of ignorance too, from generals and presidents and kings who had grown up in the era of cavalry and knew nothing of trench warfare, tanks, airplanes etc.

But it wasn't, it was the result of the increasingly violent systematic class conflict that was occurring in many countries, the alliance of states (the Triple Alliance & Triple Entente), railway timetables, etc. Millions of people taking decisions in the light of the material factors that surrounded them, if the strikes of 1911/12 had succeeded then the UK may not have been able to send the BEF.

And I disagree strongly with your second sentence, there was not a lot of opposition to the war initially. In 1914 there was a good deal of popular support for the war in many countries.

 

[existentialist]

Well, that's this thread gone to shit.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

You've argued that the class war was not a factor in the break up of the Soviet Union. If you can square that with any sort of anarchist communist or socialist thought tell me how.
The class war is always a factor in capitalism, how could it be otherwise. The whole changing of events is inexplicably linked to the interaction of capital and labour, if it was not then we would be living under capitalism but another political system.

But it wasn't, it was the result of the increasingly violent systematic class conflict that was occurring in many countries, the alliance of states (the Triple Alliance & Triple Entente), railway timetables, etc. Millions of people taking decisions in the light of the material factors that surrounded them, if the strikes of 1911/12 had succeeded then the UK may not have been able to send the BEF.

And I disagree strongly with your second sentence, there was not a lot of opposition to the war initially. In 1914 there was a good deal of popular support for the war in many countries.

I haven't got time right now to respond to all this in depth (cooking duties call). So I'll just answer your last point first. (Still a derail, I'm afraid).

There was widespread opposition to the war before it began, from the labour movement in particular, in Britain, Germany, France etc. Mass demonstrations and protests. That seemed to vanish after war broke out, but it didn't. Instead it was suppressed. Opposition was censored out of existence. Newspapers and magazines censored or closed down. Printing presses shut down or destroyed. Militants imprisoned. Demonstrations not reported. Strikes and protests banned.

In Russia there was widespread rioting against the war and against conscription, as well as anti-German and anti-Semitic rioting.

There was also mass displays of patriotism, indicating a very divided continent. Some of that can be misinterpreted. When your son is being sent off to war you might well turn up to see him off, waving whatever flag, not as a patriot but a worried parent. Systems of conscription and national service were also quite efficient in some countries, ensuring that the initial military cannon fodder requirements were easily met. That broke down pretty darn quick.

Most countries had a supply of willing volunteers at first, but that didn't last long. Once conscription was brought in that showed the depth of opposition (Australia, Quebec, Russian Turkestan are good examples). In Brazil opposition was so strong it came close to outright rebellion. And then there was Ireland, of course.

Bye for now. More later if you really want to continue the derail. If not, go to the WW1 thread.

 

[strung out]

Trying to get the thread back on topic - an interesting and depressing article on how Crimean Tatars are predictably being disproportionately targeted by Russia in Crimea.

This is just a continuation of Russia's ethnic cleansing of the Tatars, going back decades.

‘A way to get rid of us’: Crimean Tatars decry Russia’s mobilisation

Members of ethnic group, which has largely opposed Russian rule since 2014, say they are being disproportionately targeted

www.theguardian.com

 

[Dystopiary]

In Tatarstan (where over half the population are Volga Tatars), reservists have been banned from leaving, or even moving within the region.

Russia’s Tatarstan Bans Reservists From Leaving as Mobilization Underway - The Moscow Times

The ban on movement is a part of Tatarstan’s effort to maintain good relations with the federal government by fulfilling the Kremlin’s manpower requests for the war in Ukraine, Tatar political expert and journalist Ruslan Aysin said.

“Tatarstan always has to prove to the federal government that it is the best region…and can fulfill all orders from Moscow,”

According to The Moscow Times’ sources, all eligible employees of the Tatarstan-based Kazanorgsintez plant, one of Russia’s largest chemical producers, received summons to local enlistment offices when they arrived at work Thursday.

“I think Tatarstan will choose an easy route and mobilize [mostly] employees of state enterprises…and residents of small towns and villages where people basically have no rights and are heavily dependent on the government and have nowhere to hide,” said Aysin.

A total of 300,000 Russian reservists are expected to be called up for military service nationwide under the partial mobilization, according to Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu. But the real number of people to be drafted is classified and could be much higher, some experts fear.

Leyla Latypova

 

[Cid]

Dagestan protests seem to be continuing, including some pushback against police. Obviously tricky to tell how substantial that is.

Graun live below... Or google around Makhachkala protests to see videos reposted on the usual Twitter feeds.

Russia-Ukraine war live: 2,000 detained during protests in Russia – as it happened

Latest updates: all the news and developments from the war in Ukraine

www.theguardian.com