American Journalist Gonzalo Lira Has Died While Imprisoned In Ukraine

FriendBesto , 6 months ago

He was arrested as he was planning to leave. There was a video he had made right before he was arrested at the border on his way out on his bike. There is a video of it out there somewhere.

Not defending him, did not watch much of him aside a couple of clips. So, I cannot really opinionate either way.

neidu2 , 7 months ago (edited 7 months ago)

Yeah, FYI, he was given every opportunity to leave, and was kicked out at one point, but chose to return. He was shilling for an invading foreign power, and deliberately chose to continue despite being given every warning and chance there is. Calling his arrest unfair is some impressive mental gymnastics. So is calling him a journalist.

brain_in_a_box , 7 months ago

“It’s OK to kill journalists if you give them a chance to flee the country first”

neidu2 , 7 months ago

I never said that. I especially did not call him a journalist. What I did say was that his arrest was justified, contrary to what some others claim in this comment section.

He should not have died, that part we can probably agree on. I’m looking forward to more info on the circumstances of his death.

brain_in_a_box , 7 months ago

“It’s OK to imprison journalists if you give them a chance to flee the country first”

Karyoplasma , 7 months ago

I still fail to see which “journalists” you are talking about.

brain_in_a_box , 7 months ago

“It’s OK to imprison journalists if you declare that they aren’t ‘real’ journalists when you do it.”

Karyoplasma , 7 months ago

Be obnoxious asshole that does not contribute anything

“Hey I’m a journalist, you can’t touch me. Just like the bad guy from Lethal Weapon 2, I got diplomatic immunity!”

Meanwhile, the Z gang is shooting at actual journalists, but that’s ok because they are on your side. They shouldn’t have come to an active war zone. Oh sorry, special military operation zone.

brain_in_a_box , 7 months ago

Why would journalists need Diplomatic Immunity?

Meanwhile, the Z gang is shooting at actual journalists

Whataboutism.

Karyoplasma , 7 months ago

Why would journalists need Diplomatic Immunity?

Exactly.

Whataboutism.

Same conflict, so why does “don’t go into an active war zone” work for one side but not the other? Hypocrisy? Martial law sucks, so you get arrested for dumb shit. Nihil sub sole novum.

brain_in_a_box , 7 months ago

Exactly.

?

so why does “don’t go into an active war zone” work for one side but not the other

Unlike you, I don’t support Russia prosecuting journalists.

mozz , 7 months ago

According to the Post Millennial, Lira was arrested by Ukrainian security in May 2023 after he was reportedly critical of President Vladimir Zelensky’s handling of the war being fought against Russian forces in Eastern Ukraine.

Lira’s comments included claims that Ukraine’s efforts to win the captured territory back have gone nowhere and their people are dying for a war that is already lost.

Describing him as a "journalist" is an Elastigirl-level stretch.

I haven't seen any indication that he did anything other than post wildly and transparently wrong pro-Russian claims about the war. E.g., quoting from the DB article, that Ukraine "deliberately tried to have a nuclear accident" to pin it on Russia and possibly drag America into his war, or that the Russian invasion was “one of the most brilliant invasions in military history.”

If that's really all he did, then it's hard for me to say that he deserved to die in prison for it. But maybe someone inside a country where around 200,000 people have been killed or wounded by the invasion might feel differently. Also, why is this article being so dishonest about what it was he said that got him in trouble?

Lira’s comments included claims that Ukraine’s efforts to win the captured territory back have gone nowhere and their people are dying for a war that is already lost.

See above.

According to the BBC, which spoke to a Ukrainian soldier on the frontlines in December, Lira’s comments appear to have contained some truth, as Russian forces have repelled numerous Ukrainian counter-offensive attempts, which have depleted large portions of their experienced fighting force. The soldier stated the troops feel left behind at this point, saying, “No one knows the goals. Many believe that the command simply abandoned us. The guys believe that our presence has more political than military significance. But we just did our job and didn’t get into strategy.”

The BBC reported that the Ukrainian force’s ability to man the frontlines could soon end as over 20,000 men have fled Ukraine since the start of the war, which has led Ukraine to only secure small victories in recent months, which included the recapture of small pieces of territory that were strategically abandoned by Russian forces.

Why is this in the article about Lira? If the article is Russian (or, anti-Ukrainian at least) propaganda, then it makes perfect sense to include these paragraphs. I'm a little hard-pressed for any other reason it would be here.

freagle , 7 months ago

So it’s propaganda to say Ukraine is losing and was pretty much always losing?

mozz , 7 months ago (edited 7 months ago)

Nice strawman. Specifically what I highlighted in my comment were:

• Describing this guy as a "journalist"
• Wildly misrepresenting the reason for his imprisonment
• Inserting one-sided commentary on the progress of the war overall into an article that has nothing to do with "How well is the war going?"

All of those, I would say, represent propaganda, because none of them would have any business whatsoever in the article if it were an attempt at honest journalism.

But yes, in addition, I would say that it's propaganda to say that Ukraine is losing. If I had to point to a single objective assessment of how the war is going, it'd be this map (from this article). There's a bunch of Ukrainian territory captured by Russia since the start of the war, and a bunch of territory recaptured by Ukraine. Ukraine could still "win" the war in the end, or they could "lose." But for the Russians to have been fighting for almost 2 years and only have rolled from 0-150 km into Ukraine at the nearest and furthest points of the border makes it hard for me to say the Ukrainians are "losing" the war.

(Edit: Here's the BBC article quoted in the OP article)

freagle , 7 months ago

One sided commentary about how the war is going? What kind of fantasy world do you live in where reality and unreality have equal journalistic weight.

As for your understanding of how war works, it’s about as bad as your understanding of journalism and propaganda. The fact that Russia pushes past the areas that it now occupies is how it came to occupy those areas. You don’t march your forces to a line and just stop. You clear far ahead of what’s defensible, set up your defenses, and hold. That’s what you’re seeing in that map and the idea the Russia is losing because of that is, quite literally, lying Western propaganda.

mozz , 7 months ago (edited 7 months ago)

One sided commentary about how the war is going? What kind of fantasy world do you live in where reality and unreality have equal journalistic weight.

I could send you ten different accounts of Russian soldiers going through their own version of the hell this guy was going through. If I did that, would you say they should have equal "journalistic weight" as this guy's (assumedly very real) suffering?

Edit: I ask this because your separation of what information into "reality" and "unreality" is a very, very effective propaganda technique when those terms are given a certain type of definition. My suspicious is that accounts of suffering Russian soldiers or Russian losses, no matter how well-documented, would be classed as "unreality" or rejected for some other reason. My way of looking at the world is that as long as it's pretty well-documented, either "side" of information can be accepted. A propagandistic view of the world is that only one "side" can be accepted, and the other side is "unreality" or has some similar reason for being dismissed. For that reason it's a pretty important question.

You clear far ahead of what's defensible, set up your defenses, and hold.

The west side of the Dnieper river is "cleared" by Russian forces, is it? Is that what you're saying?

Edit: Actually, let me ask it differently. So your assertion is that "winning" a war looks like pushing your forces over a river, advancing a few tens of km, then engaging in fighting and pulling back to the far side of the river, then having your enemy's troops cross the river and entering into a protracted monthslong stalemate on your own side of the river. That's the intended goal of the operation ("how war works") when you're winning; is that your assertion?

freagle , 7 months ago

You mean holding the ethnically Russian territory and then settling in for a long conflict to drain your opponent of materiel? When your primary advantages are size, production, population, and patience? Yes. I would say that the particular position of the Russian army is achieving it’s strategic objectives quite well.

mozz , 7 months ago

So the intended strategy is to "settle in" on their own side of the border and spring-2022 frontline, to patiently drain Australia, the EU, Canada, and the USA of materiel, until we are all exhausted by the limitless might of the Russian industrial economy?

Ukraine has problems in the war, to be sure. (A shortage of men in the war of attrition being one of them, absolutely.) But that way of explaining the strategy doesn't make it sound like winning to me.

freagle , 7 months ago

Considering the US is clawing back munitions from allies, UK has announced multiple shortfalls of ammo and personnel, Germany has deindustrialized, and multiple fronts have opened up against the West (Niger, Palestine, etc) and Russian production is in full swing, it sounds like a winning strategy to me. Every war the West has lost they lost against an entrenched enemy.

mozz , 7 months ago

the US is clawing back munitions from allies

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

UK has announced multiple shortfalls of ammo and personnel

Probably true. Russia has suffered more severe shortfalls, although since their government and military aren't subject to Western-democracy-style oversight, I doubt they've "announced" anything. This is another one-sided approach, where one (accurate) aspect of the problem gets magnified as if it existed in isolation without putting it in context or examining counterbalancing factors on "the other side."

Want me to make an effort to compare and contrast supply levels on the Russian vs Western side?

Germany has deindustrialized

What on EARTH are you talking about?

multiple fronts have opened up against the West (Niger, Palestine, etc)

Yeah, we'll have to pull all our troops out of Ukraine if it keeps up, and we might need to pull some warships out too, so we can send them to the Red Sea, and supplement all our existing forces in Palestine.

So: I'm starting to notice a pattern in the flow of this conversation. Honestly, I'm comfortable with calling it a day with the viewpoint I've laid out so far. If you don't want to agree, and feel like Russia is dominating in this war, that's your right to think that, and I won't stop you.

freagle , 7 months ago (edited 7 months ago)

I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about.

defense.gov/…/us-department-of-defense-statement-…

Russia has suffered more severe shortfalls

Citation needed

although since their government and military aren’t subject to Western-democracy-style oversight, I doubt they’ve “announced” anything

newsweek.com/russia-increases-weapons-production-…

reuters.com/…/russia-ramps-up-output-some-militar…

businessinsider.com/russia-increased-stock-long-r…

Because Russia is not subject to the anarchy of production for profit that the West is, weapons manufacturing is nationalized and directed by strategic plans and oversight to ensure more efficient and more effective production.

This is another one-sided approach, where one (accurate) aspect of the problem gets magnified as if it existed in isolation without putting it in context or examining counterbalancing factors on “the other side.”

You haven’t done this (putting it context / counterbalancing). You made no attempt at sourcing anything. You only demand to hear things that make you feel better and when you only hear things that make you feel worse you automatically assume ill intent from the message.

Want me to make an effort to compare and contrast supply levels on the Russian vs Western side?

I would actually.

Germany has deindustrialized

What on EARTH are you talking about?

2022 economist.com/…/germany-faces-a-looming-threat-of…

2023 politico.eu/…/rust-belt-on-the-rhine-the-deindust…

Late 2023 ft.com/…/7095e5d7-7a72-483f-9464-52d36bac03f7

What on EARTH have you been reading?

Honestly, I’m comfortable with calling it a day with the viewpoint I’ve laid out so far

That’s because you don’t have a viewpoint based in reality but instead prefer to live in the world of comfortable narratives masquerading as fact.

If you don’t want to agree, and feel like Russia is dominating in this war, that’s your right to think that, and I won’t stop you.

And here’s my evidence. You leap to strawman. No one ever said Russia is dominating, least of all me. I said Russia is achieving its strategic objectives (no country can join NATO while engaged in an active border dispute), Russia is not running out of munitions, the West is running out of munitions, the West is suffering economically, the West failed to open multiple fronts against Russia et. al, and multiple fronts have successfully been opened up against the West. None of this stuff is in dispute and none of it says Russia is dominating. If that’s what you think it says, that’s on you. What it says to me is the West is failing to meet its strategic objectives, militarily and economically. If you can’t handle that and require all journalism to also write some narrative about how those resisting the West are inevitably losing and suffering just as badly or worse and also they’re stinkydoodoo heads, well, then I think you’re making the right choice by ending the conversation here.

Edit: hot off the presses

aljazeera.com/…/ukraine-says-russia-launched-barr…

mozz , 7 months ago

(1/2)

Hey so: You gave me a detailed factual argument with citations, so I'm taking some significant time to respond to it factually. I actually really like this type of debate even if I'm obviously gonna disagree with your conclusions.

I also think it's ridiculous that you're accusing me of arguing unfactually. Pretty much every fact you've cited, I've agreed with (when you give citations you've been drawing largely on sources that are clearly based in reality), and then made the argument that there are other things that need to be added to the equation. You can agree or disagree with conclusion obviously, and it's definitely fair for you to ask for me to add citations, but IDK how at all you got from that to that I was doing any of the bad-faith things you accuse me of towards the end of your message.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3625683/us-department-of-defense-statement-on-japans-decision-to-transfer-patriot-missi/

This is, again, what I was talking about before: Taking one soldier's experience, or one single "clawback" of however-many interceptors, without putting it in context of the other 99.9% of the situation. Basically, you can construct any type of little propaganda universe, if you're allowed to pick individual anecdotes and blow them up context-less to create the whole picture you're trying to create.

Any quantitative measurement of how much this is going on, versus the total? Similar to what I do down below? I'd assert that this with Japan is a weird one-off thing and not America "running out of weapons" or anything, but you're free to prove me wrong.

Russia has suffered more severe shortfalls

Citation needed

Want me to make an effort to compare and contrast supply levels on the Russian vs Western side?

I would actually.

Okay, happy to. So, it's actually remarkably difficult to find open-source numbers on how much materiel over time Russia is supplying to its frontline troops. All I can point to is things like this or this as good examples of Russia struggling with supply levels.

But, those are anecdotes, similar to the ones of yours that I complained about before. They don't really mean anything. If you want to get an idea of what the actual big picture is, the best way I can see to do it is just to add up the total numbers involved. The 2023 wartime Russian military budget is roughly $100 billion, significantly up from their pre-war spending.

That's something like 10 times the domestic Ukrainian spend on their military, but obviously that's not the whole story. Total direct military assistance to Ukraine was a little under $100 billion in the first year-and-a-half of the war, with most of that coming from the US. So, you're correct that Russia is outspending Ukraine+allies by a certain amount.

I would also say that what you're saying about the grim situation for the Ukrainians right now is accurate in the short term. But that's not because the west is running out of money. The Ukrainian side of the war started going worse for them around October 2023, when $60 billion worth of aid was held up in the US congress, and they started running out of stuff, and it's now gotten pretty bad. Some of the stories you highlight are talking about examples of that, and they're accurate.

That single $60 billion US aid package, though, represents more than half of Russia's total military budget even in their fully mobilized economy. The total military budget of the US alone is around $842 billion -- which dwarfs Russia's military budget by a factor similar to how much Russia's dwarfs Ukraine's. They're not comparable. The US has money. Our congress is just a shit show right now, so the Ukrainians aren't getting any, and they need it to be able to fight the war.

That's why I say that I wouldn't agree that Russia can simply sit back and wait and outspend the west. If you want to argue that they can outwait Ukraine's ability to depend on aid from the west... yeah, maybe. It's definitely possible. That's why I say it's not a settled question whether Ukraine will win or lose.

mozz , 7 months ago

(2/2)

2022 https://www.economist.com/business/2022/09/11/germany-faces-a-looming-threat-of-deindustrialisation

2023 https://www.politico.eu/article/rust-belt-on-the-rhine-the-deindustrialization-of-germany/

Late 2023 https://www.ft.com/content/7095e5d7-7a72-483f-9464-52d36bac03f7

What on EARTH have you been reading?

Germany's "has deindustrialized" industrial sector currently stands at 23% of their $4.4 trillion GDP, or about a trillion dollars. They're still among the top exporters of things like vehicles and armaments in the world.

This article about the threat of a certain amount of deindustrialization, similar to what happened (in a much bigger way) in the American rust belt, is a real story. But if you're going to hold up that side of the story and then use it to say why Russia can outproduce the whole of the West, then the "deindustrialized" (past tense apparently) industrial sector of the German economy should be put in context; it's more than half of the entire Russian GDP (all sectors) of about $1.8 trillion. So it's a little weird to extrapolate from "problems in Germany compared to Germany's baseline" to "Russia's in the dominant spot economically in Ukraine."

And here's my evidence. You leap to strawman. No one ever said Russia is dominating, least of all me. I said Russia is achieving its strategic objectives (no country can join NATO while engaged in an active border dispute)

So -- I actually agree with you that Russia is achieving its actual objectives.

Putin said that the objectives are demilitarization, deNazification, and "neutrality." At those, he's failed miserably. There's not a chance in hell now that whoever winds up on Russia's border at the end of this will be demilitarized or neutral.

But, I don't think those were the objectives. I think the objectives were to wreck Ukraine to teach the world a lesson about what happens when you make Russia feel threatened. Whatever happens now in the war going forward, that objective is achieved. Clickbaity title aside, I think this talk actually lays out a pretty compelling case for what is Putin's real strategic thinking about the war.

So like I said -- I actually really like this type of factual back-and-forth argument. I'm going to keep calling out stuff that you're doing that seems to me like improper argumentation (extrapolating from one datum all the way back to the whole situation being by far the the biggest example), but you're clearly interested in some level of factual discussion, so cool, let's rock.

freagle , 6 months ago

I also think it’s ridiculous that you’re accusing me of arguing unfactually.

Perhaps you doth protest too much.

but IDK how at all you got from that to that I was doing any of the bad-faith things you accuse me of towards the end of your message.

Because I’ve seen people debate like you before and it’s exhausting.

Taking one soldier’s experience, or one single “clawback” of however-many interceptors, without putting it in context of the other 99.9% of the situation. Basically, you can construct any type of little propaganda universe, if you’re allowed to pick individual anecdotes and blow them up context-less to create the whole picture you’re trying to create.

It’s pretty well contextualized if you are up-to-date on the reporting from even the most propaganda riddled US news. The USA is slowing or potentially even stopping it’s shipments of weapons to it’s proxy, Ukraine. The deliveries from all of the NATO countries have been riddled with delays, small batch sizes, and difficulties in repairs. Despite the weapons shipments, Ukraine was still repairing Soviet-era systems because they were so low on supplies. Ukraine has been complaining about running low on supplies for over a year now.

Then you’ve got the Palestinian resistance reporting that indicated there was concern in the USA/Israel that the Iron Dome could be depleted because of the limited availability of missiles for the batteries. It was reported that it was clearly possible for rocket attacks to overwhelm the Iron Dome, and that if enough rockets were fired the Iron Dome could be significantly depleted because each missile in the Iron Dome was orders of magnitude more expensive than the rockets they were defending against.

And again that same low-tech quantity beats hi-tech quality was reported on when discussing the conflict in the Red Sea. The cost of producing munitions to enforce the blockade in the Red Sea was orders of magnitude cheaper than the missiles that the USA used in defense.

It’s been unsustainable for a long time. It’s why IEDs were such an effective weapon against USA occupation in West Asia. Cheap, deadly, high quantity. The USA has never won a guerilla conflict. Contemporary guerilla conflicts are now armed with things that 50 years ago seemed like dream weapons to everyone.

So when the USA starts actually taking missiles out of the Pacific theater, where 60% of their Navy is deployed, while the USA has spent the last 2 decades in a “Pivot to Asia”, while current USA military doctrine is “Near-Peer Great Power Conflict”, it’s a pretty important development. And not merely an anecdote. It’s evidence of a strained inventory.

All I can point to is things like this or this as good examples of Russia struggling with supply levels.

Business Insider and CNN are hardly what I consider legitimate news sources, given how much influence the USA government has over mainstream news media.

The 2023 wartime Russian military budget is roughly $100 billion, significantly up from their pre-war spending.

It’s going to be really hard to compare military budgets when the USA is spending $100Bn/year over 10 years on upgrading it’s nuclear arsenal and the cost of fighter jets and individual missiles. The exact point I’m trying to make here is that Russia is spending far less on its military than the USA is but isn’t running into supply issues, as evidenced by the upward trend of production numbers over the course of the war when compared to NATO countries, like Germany, seeing a flatline or even a decline in production.

Total direct military assistance to Ukraine was a little under $100 billion in the first year-and-a-half of the war, with most of that coming from the US. So, you’re correct that Russia is outspending Ukraine+allies by a certain amount.

I’m not talking about outspending. The USA provided lethal aid in dollar value that was greater than Russia’s entire military budget. And most of it has been destroyed.

The US has money. Our congress is just a shit show right now, so the Ukrainians aren’t getting any, and they need it to be able to fight the war.

This is just ostrich behavior. The POTUS has overridden Congress on lethal aid to its allies/proxies multiple times. Congress has nothing to do with it. The DoD has never passed an audit, they have more money untouched by oversight than entire national GDPs around the world. The USA will send weapons to whomever it needs in order to achieve its military goals. It’s not political. The military does not live or die by what the morons in Congress are doing.

That’s why I say that I wouldn’t agree that Russia can simply sit back and wait and outspend the west.

That’s not what I said. I said they can hold the territory they need to hold because Ukraine is spent and there aren’t enough munitions to in the NATO countries to turn the tide while defending multiple fronts. There certainly aren’t enough Ukrainian soldiers left to do it either. It would require deploying soldiers, which, given the reporting from the UK, there also aren’t enough in the NATO countries. Evidence that there aren’t enough munitions? Read above (Iron Dome depletion threat, Patriot missile clawback, deindustrialization of Germany, multiple active fronts, US slowing aid, etc). Evidence that there aren’t enough soldiers? UK reporting not enough soldiers to run even their current Navy, which is 2 years after demands for the Navy to double in size, and after 18 months of recruitment crisis.

Russia doesn’t need to outspend the West. Russia able to align Russian production with Russia’s strategic aims better than the West has been able to align the West’s production with the West’s strategic aims. Those big dick waving numbers are being shown for what they are - corruption.

Germany’s “has deindustrialized” industrial sector currently stands at 23% of their $4.4 trillion GDP, or about a trillion dollars. They’re still among the top exporters of things like vehicles and armaments in the world.

And yet, during war time, after needing to send weapons to an ally, under heavy pressure to expand NATO, German industry is in decline. So yes, German industry is big and shrinking while Russian industry is growing. These trend lines do not lead to the conclusion that Germany has what it takes to compete with Russia. It says the opposite. It shows that during the conflict, Russia is benefiting and getting stronger and Germany is suffering and getting weaker. There’s not really another way to spin that except to say the suffering’s not that bad and the shrinkage is just an adjustment while Germany gears up to really leap forward next year, or whatever.

This article about the threat of a certain amount of deindustrialization

The earliest one I linked is about the threat, yes. The subsequent articles are about the actual deindustrialization happening. But here’s evidence as of July 2023 that it was already happening, and here we see their economy faltering in an analysis from Sept 2023.

Remember, sanctions are part of the war, and Russia is winning the sanctions war.

So it’s a little weird to extrapolate from “problems in Germany compared to Germany’s baseline” to “Russia’s in the dominant spot economically in Ukraine.”

Again, absolute dollar values are a signal, they are not reality. If 2 militaries go to war, one with 2x the money, and the poorer one wins, what does that tell us? This is what happened to the USA in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Yes, the USA had larger budgets than those countries. They still lost. That means we have to see dollar value as a signal, but not as reality. We have to look at the reality and then look at the dollar value and then dig deeper for insight. What have we seen? We’ve seen the USA provide lethal aid equivalent to the entire national military budget of Russia and we saw Russia destroy all of that lethal aid with only a fraction of its national force while simultaneously increasing production, growing its economy, and likely providing material support for the subsequent new fronts against the West (remember Wagner group saying they were heading to Africa next?). Meanwhile, multiple NATO countries are suffering from Russian sanctions and the USA is clawing back munitions from allies and reducing or possibly eliminating support for Ukraine.

So you can keep trying to isolate things and argue technical details against each of them, but you’re not going to get useful insight that way when the trends we’re talking about span at least the last 3 years and the direction of the trends matter far more than any individual talking point.

mozz , 6 months ago

Because I've seen people debate like you before and it's exhausting.

Okay, but they're not me. If you see me doing bad faith things, please accuse me of them. If you don't, then don't.

It's pretty well contextualized if you are up-to-date on the reporting from even the most propaganda riddled US news.

I asked specifically for an overview of the problem similar to what I provided, not just a bunch of examples. You gave me back a bunch more examples, and a big assertion that if I was informed, I would agree with you. Hopefully it is clear why I'm not into the idea of just suddenly agreeing with you based only on that.

Business Insider and CNN are hardly what I consider legitimate news sources, given how much influence the USA government has over mainstream news media.

What that's cited in the sources I listed would you factually disagree with? I was actually pretty careful to rely on pro-Western sources (especially the wildly pro-Western ones like CNN or Newsweek) only for points that were tangential to my main argument ("anecdotes") or points that I don't think would really be under any kind of factual disagreement (size of the aid packages to Ukraine).

Claiming that I'm using a "biased" source and rejecting my whole argument because of it, without substantively disagreeing with any of the information I'm sourcing, is another type of flawed argumentation (close to the "reality" / "unreality" technique I was talking about earlier).

as evidenced by the upward trend of production numbers

Do you have a cite for this?

The POTUS has overridden Congress on lethal aid to its allies/proxies multiple times. Congress has nothing to do with it.

Do you have a cite for this? The last guy got impeached for overriding Congress's determinations on aid. It was a lot more complex than that, obviously, but that was one of the big factors: Congress decided one thing and he was unilaterally attempting to decide a different thing (unsuccessfully, though he did delay the aid).

there aren't enough munitions to in the NATO countries

Do you have a cite for this? How much munitions does NATO have? Roughly speaking.

NATO countries, like Germany, seeing a flatline or even a decline in production.

The earliest one I linked is about the threat, yes. The subsequent articles are about the actual deindustrialization happening. But here's evidence as of July 2023 that it was already happening, and here we see their economy faltering in an analysis from Sept 2023.

You get what I'm saying, though, that if Russia is fighting an enemy with a collective production capacity 10 times greater, and one of its enemies (which is suffering most from the sanctions, since it draws so much energy from Russia) has its economy drop by 0.4%, the news stories about what a bad thing the 0.4% is, don't suddenly mean that Russia can outspend its enemies?

(The AP link is one of the sources in the article you linked me to)

Again, absolute dollar values are a signal, they are not reality. If 2 militaries go to war, one with 2x the money, and the poorer one wins, what does that tell us? This is what happened to the USA in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Yes, the USA had larger budgets than those countries. They still lost.

Yes, these are important lessons. There are indeed a bunch of other factors at play besides raw dollar values. One of the biggest in Russia's favor is purchasing power parity, which I haven't touched because this is already a complex enough discussion.

So, let's look at the examples of the USA in Vietnam and Afghanistan as excellent examples of how an invading country's raw industrial and military advantage, even to an overwhelming degree, can't always overcome determined resistance. Would you say the lessons of these examples could also apply to Russia's invasion of Ukraine? Why or why not?

freagle , 6 months ago

as evidenced by the upward trend of production numbers

Do you have a cite for this?

Yeah, I gave you 3 in my earlier comment:

newsweek.com/russia-increases-weapons-production-…

reuters.com/…/russia-ramps-up-output-some-militar…

businessinsider.com/russia-increased-stock-long-r…

The last guy got impeached for overriding Congress’s determinations on aid.

No he didn’t. He got impeached for quid pro quo.

Here’s your requested sources:

nytimes.com/…/us-israel-tanks-ammunition.html

apnews.com/…/us-israel-gaza-arms-hamas-bypass-con…

And here’s bonus ones for when Obama did it:

abcnews.go.com/Blotter/…/story?id=12192558

And for 45:

washingtonpost.com/…/yes-trump-can-override-congr…

So, let’s look at the examples of the USA in Vietnam and Afghanistan as excellent examples of how an invading country’s raw industrial and military advantage, even to an overwhelming degree, can’t always overcome determined resistance. Would you say the lessons of these examples could also apply to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine? Why or why not?

And you think I’m drawing from the right wing playbook? Jesus Christ. You cannot concede a single point lost in the debate. You ask for sources on claims I’ve already sourced. And you think your assessment of how much deindustrialization is noteworthy supersedes the analysis of journalists and economists so that you can hang on by your attempt at distilling a complex economy to a single fungible number that rhetorically feels like it supports your position. And you continue to argue about the ability to outspend when what I have been clearly saying, repeatedly, is that outspending is not the same as outproducing and it’s certainly not the same as producing more appropriately.

Of course the West is outspending literally everyone, they stole over 50% of the world’s wealth. The point is that even with all this money, they operate a capitalist arms industry and the profit motive is a terrible mechanism for national defense. So, despite it being literally impossible for Russia to ever outspend the West, Russia is still producing more relevant and strategically aligned munitions, that are more reliable, and more cost effective, such that they are defeating Ukraine with only a portion of their national force while facing a paper dollar value that exceeds their entire military budget.

Can the lessons of American losses be applied to the Ukrainian context? Absolutely. The US military is full of weapons systems that maximize profit. That means their cost-effectiveness ratio is terrible compared to even improvised munitions. Except in the few instances where Russia used Kinzhal, Russia’s not fielded anything terribly hi-tech. From very low cost drones, old tech that was designed for exactly this theater and these enemies, and Soviet-era armor. All of these reports are from early on when the Western propaganda machine was using this as evidence that Russia was a failed state with no military power and inability to achieve its objectives. Meanwhile, Russia has managed to burn through multiple waves of Ukraine’s army, funded to the scale of the entire Russian military, with only a portion of its national force.

Other lessons? Russia’s strategic use of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant. Russia’s ability to succeed against entrenched urban warfare, likely from lessons learned watching the US get fucked in similar situations. Russia’s neutralization of likely sleeper cells in Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Chechnya.

Again, all part of the larger tapestry of Russia being well organized at multiple levels against the West: military production (not spending, trending better than the West), foreign policy (allies and supply chains), economics (thriving under sanctions, the West harmed by sanctions), intelligence (clearly Russia has enough intelligence to operate), counter-intelligence (evidenced by the multiple failed attempts to open new fronts against Russia and the multiple fronts opened up against the West), and domestic policy (Russian domestic sentiment is higher than ever). Meanwhile, the West is massively divided, public sentiment is terrible, approval of leaders, governmental bodies, and domestic and foreign policies are terrible. And, versus Ukraine, Russia did all this with a fraction of its military power compared to Ukraine going all out with the backing of arms at a dollar equivalent of the entire Russian military budget.

I don’t know how else to present this to you. The debate about German deindustrialization only being 0.4% of its total economy just doesn’t cut it. First off, you fail to use that number correctly. The 0.4% reduction in the last 3 months of 2022. In Q1 of 2023, it dropped another 0.1%. But again, that’s total economy, not industry. www.vdma.org/viewer/-/v2article/render/81411795 shows a net 10% decrease in orders across the entire machinery and plant engineering sector as of June 2023, but that net comes from an increase in domestic orders of 9% and decrease in global orders of 18%. It also indicates that there were over 30% fewer orders from all of Europe. Meanwhile, kloepfel-consulting.com/…/vda-umfrage-automobilin… shows that, in May 2023, in a survey of 128 automotive industry companies, 0% planned to increase their investment in Germany with 27% planning to shift their investments out of Germany. And here we have evidence that total energy consumed in Germany dropped 8% in 2023, mostly because of high energy industry doing less.

I’m sorry if you think pulling 2022Q4 total economic delta is a valid rebuttal to what I’m presenting. I’m calling you out, like you asked me to, your ability to source facts and contextualize facts is not developed. Let’s recap:

Russia:

• despite using a fraction of its total military power
• is achieving its military objectives
• while facing a nation with more military funding than all of Russia (Western aid + what Ukraine contributed)
• despite Ukraine using 100% of its military power
• while using predominantly low-tech tactics (combined with hypersonics that the West does not have)
• avoided multiple fronts against it (Chechnya, Azerbaijan, Georgia)
• while multiple fronts open up against the West (Niger, Palestine, Yemen)
• strengthened its economy
• despite maximal sanctions
• while the West suffered from sanctions
• increased military production
• while the USA claws back munitions from allies
• while the UK can’t staff its navy
• while German industry is shrinking significantly despite demand from Ukraine and NATO allies for weapons
• while increasing strategic ties with its allies
• while increasing domestic sentiment
• while the West suffers decreasing domestic sentiment and increasing domestic strife

I don’t really know how much more you need to see the pattern here. Nearly everything is sourceable from just being on Lemmy regularly and reading the news. Everything you want sources for I can get you. But you’ve got to do better than just saying I’m taking things out of context while simultaneously trying to give me 1 quarter’s national economic numbers from 2022 as evidence that German industry isn’t shrinking. You’re the one taking things out context. You can’t accuse me of crafting whatever narrative I want while simultaneously claiming I’m not contextualizing things. The narrative emerges from contextualizing things. If you think that just because the narrative is at odds with your beliefs then this means the evidence is being decontextualized, you might just have a bias that needs to be evaluated.

mozz , 6 months ago

So the sources you already sent about Russian increases in weapons production or about German relative difficulties, those are perfectly good. I wasn't saying you needed to prove that stuff again. I was saying, do you have an idea of how much total armaments NATO produces versus Russia? Total number of shells, total number of bullets, drones, things like that? You're right that dollars are a poor way of measuring it; they're just the best I could find.

Yes, I understand that Germany's economy is having some difficulties. The 0.4% number is from your source; I followed one of the links from the source you sent. I didn't pick it out to send to you; I just explored your source a little to try to find out, okay, what are we actually talking about quantitatively?

Regardless of Germany, the UK's Navy, all of that. Do you have an idea of what is the total armaments production, in a form that reflects it more accurately than dollars?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/09/world/middleeast/us-israel-tanks-ammunition.html

https://apnews.com/article/us-israel-gaza-arms-hamas-bypass-congress-1dc77f20aac4a797df6a2338b677da4f

These are sales, not gifts. And they are valued at $106 million and $147 million respectively, around 1,000 times smaller than what's being proposed in the current aid package. And that was still a big deal with stories in the paper and all (the first story notes that it's the first time Biden did it).

And you think I'm drawing from the right wing playbook? Jesus Christ. You cannot concede a single point lost in the debate. You ask for sources on claims I've already sourced.

So, I do get why you think this; I think I was a little unclear. But no, I'm not trying to say you're wrong in the examples you're giving or need to send proof for the same examples again. I'm saying: If you're going to say Russia is outproducing the West in terms of weapons, what are the numbers you're claiming? For total Russian armaments produced vs. NATO armaments produced? Artillery shells or drones are a good metric if it's too complex to get a whole complete picture without falling back into measuring dollars.

You're also saying Russia's using them more effectively, which is a different discussion which is a lot more complex which I'll leave alone for right now.

Meanwhile, Russia has managed to burn through multiple waves of Ukraine's army, funded to the scale of the entire Russian military, with only a portion of its national force.

What happened in the north of the country?

are defeating Ukraine

burn through multiple waves of Ukraine's army

Let me ask you a question. If some middle eastern countries formed into a bloc, funded and armed by Russia, and NATO invaded that bloc, and then the invasion remained within 100 km of the border for 2 years, would you say that represented NATO "defeating" the mideast bloc? Because we were holding off multiple waves?

I honestly have not a ton of nationalistic feeling towards the US. I do have some, yes. Particularly what you're saying about the West being disorganized is true, although I'd much rather have that than a Russia-style "organization."

Mostly I just feel a lot for the people in Ukraine getting invaded, although the honest truth is, US troops have done the same to any number of small countries throughout the world. I'm not "proud" per se of the US if the West wins this fight, although I'll be happy if Ukrainians (and Russian conscripts, for that matter) stop dying. Mostly, I just look at the war the way I look at it, and I think Russia is the aggressor, and so I tend to be opposed to what they're doing in the same way I'm opposed to the US doing it when we're in the invader role.

You can't accuse me of crafting whatever narrative I want while simultaneously claiming I'm not contextualizing things. The narrative emerges from contextualizing things. If you think that just because the narrative is at odds with your beliefs then this means the evidence is being decontextualized, you might just have a bias that needs to be evaluated.

Oh, no doubt. The narrative arrives from details, and it's a lot more complex then just big numbers. But you get what I'm saying, that the truth doesn't come from sheer number of bullet points, but by testing your big conclusions against big objectively true things, right? That's why I keep coming back to things like "the invasion's gone on for 2 years and hasn't gone much of anywhere yet" and "NATO's industrial capacity is $X and Russia's is $Y." You can't just contextualize from details only, and then decide whatever you arrived at is true. Sometimes it will be, sometimes not. Surely that makes sense?

freagle , 6 months ago (edited 6 months ago)

I was saying, do you have an idea of how much total armaments NATO produces versus Russia?

I don’t. I am using front-line armament scarcity as an indicator. It’s entirely possible that NATO/USA is not sending what it’s producing in an effort to mask its production numbers from foreign intelligence. I find that unlikely. Therefore, either NATO/USA triggered a proxy war and then withheld munitions deliberately or NATO/USA isn’t producing enough to supply active conflicts. Can you think of a third option?

The 0.4% number is from your source

It’s not the source that’s bad, it’s the way you used it. How do you not understand that?

These are sales, not gifts.

All arms transfers from the USA are sales. There are no gifts. It’s part of how the USA financially traps its “allies”. Show me an example of the USA giving weapons to anyone for free.

And they are valued at $106 million and $147 million respectively, around 1,000 times smaller than what’s being proposed in the current aid package. And that was still a big deal with stories in the paper and all (the first story notes that it’s the first time Biden did it).

It’s one order of magnitude less than you say (100MM vs 10BN). I’m not sure why the size matters. Are you saying that the President has authorization limits? Can you find them? Are you saying that the press has any real effect on how the USA distributes weapons? That if Biden had given more the press would have been worse and therefore he would have been stopped? What kind of analysis of executive power is that?

You cannot concede a single point lost in the debate

But no, I’m not trying to say you’re wrong in the examples you’re giving or need to send proof for the same examples again

That has no bearing on what concession means. Conceding a point is to say “OK, you’re correct 0.4% is of total GDP for 2022Q4 and isn’t indicative of the amount of deindustrialization happening in Germany. I was unaware of the automotive survey, of the reduced order volume, and the reduced electricity consumption. Those are valid points that indicate an active deindustrialization.”

You could then go on to say how that deindustrialization doesn’t actually matter, but you never actually concede a single point.

If you’re going to say Russia is outproducing the West in terms of weapons, what are the numbers you’re claiming?

Russia is not experiencing scarcity on the front lines. Ukraine is experiencing scarcity on the front lines. That’s it.

You’re also saying Russia’s using them more effectively, which is a different discussion which is a lot more complex which I’ll leave alone for right now.

No. I’m not saying Russia is using each artillery shell more effectively than Ukraine is using each artillery shell. I’m saying Russia’s production is aligned with its needs. Note that currently the only confirmed air-to-air kill of the F-22 in its 20 years of operation is a balloon. The USA spent $74Bn on that production line. The current F-35 program is looking to cost upwards of 1 trillion. Russia doesn’t need to outspend the USA when Russia’s production lines are producing what the Russian military actually needs. The USA’s inflated military budget is going to capitalist production - highest sale price, lowest cost to produce.

Russia has managed to burn through multiple waves of Ukraine’s army, funded to the scale of the entire Russian military, with only a portion of its national force.

What happened in the north of the country?

Russia used only a portion of its national force, lost some battles, and, if you read that Moon of Alabama article I sent you, still managed to destroy so much materiel that Ukraine needed another full army of heavy weaponry to be delivered to even continue fighting.

Let me ask you a question. If some middle eastern countries formed into a bloc, funded and armed by Russia, and NATO invaded that bloc, and then the invasion remained within 100 km of the border for 2 years, would you say that represented NATO “defeating” the mideast bloc? Because we were holding off multiple waves?

What a terribly revealing leading question. Let’s reframe it. If Russia created a transnational nuclear military and stationed nuclear capabilities in each country that joined its bloc, and it was making plans to station net new nuclear capabilities along the same border that it had used multiple times to invade, say Turkey via Bulgaria, and Turkey, a much smaller military than the entire bloc invaded Bulgaria to stop the deployment of nuclear capabilities on its border, and despite Bulgaria throwing its entire military at it backed by this transnational military sending more equipment by dollar than Turkey spends on its national military, and Turkey managed to defeat 3 full militaries worth of materiel using only a portion of its national military, would I say that represented Turkey “defeating” this transnational force?

No. Because the transnational force still stands. What I would say is that Turkey defeated Bulgaria, despite all of the bloc backing, and has demonstrated that the bloc is weak and unreliable.

Particularly what you’re saying about the West being disorganized is true, although I’d much rather have that than a Russia-style “organization.”

You don’t know what Russia-style organization even is. I’m not having this conversation with you about your feelings.

I think Russia is the aggressor, and so I tend to be opposed to what they’re doing in the same way I’m opposed to the US doing it when we’re in the invader role.

Being opposed to what their doing is not the same as debating to deny a fact-based narrative simply because admitting the truth would feel bad.

by testing your big conclusions against big objectively true things, right? That’s why I keep coming back to things like “the invasion’s gone on for 2 years and hasn’t gone much of anywhere yet” and “NATO’s industrial capacity is $X and Russia’s is $Y.” You can’t just contextualize from details only, and then decide whatever you arrived at is true. Sometimes it will be, sometimes not. Surely that makes sense?

We don’t have many objectively true things. Everything is behind a fog of war and through massive propaganda lens. We can establish some objectively true things about that propaganda, though. Many of us who have been following along with USA proxy wars called out that the USA would eventually pull support for Ukraine and that it would look a lot like what’s starting to happen now. Those weren’t guesses, they were retellings of what happened in other USA proxy wars. It’s an observable fact that the history of USA proxy wars and the current Ukraine conflict are following similar story beats. Whether I would call that objective or not is a matter of philosophy.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has gone on for 2 years and what’s happened is that the USA is pulling support, Russia’s economy is stronger than before, Russia’s alliances are stronger than before, Russian public sentiment is stronger than before while USA and Europe are all suffering economically, are losing some of their control over international trade and international politics and international propaganda, and public sentiment in USA and Europe are weaker than before.

I don’t know how you can choose to say that because of some imaginary objective that you think Russia ought to have, like it should take more territory, that therefore it’s failing and none of the other facts matter. You can keep pointing to the same dollar values I’m pointing to and drawing the conclusion that the dollar values mean that one side is faring better than the other, but you’re ignoring literally all the other facts. You’re not attempting to test against objective facts, you’re cherry picking.

scheerpost.com/…/the-russian-art-of-war-how-the-w…

mozz , 6 months ago

I don't. I am using front-line armament scarcity as an indicator. It's entirely possible that NATO/USA is not sending what it's producing in an effort to mask its production numbers from foreign intelligence. I find that unlikely.

I assert that NATO/USA is not sending what it produces, yes, although the reasons I'm asserting are different reasons.

Would you be open to researching the question of what is NATO's total production of, say, artillery shells, vs. Russia's? Surely you can see that knowing the answer to that question would be a good way of approaching the question we're debating about, right? Or no?

All arms transfers from the USA are sales. There are no gifts. It's part of how the USA financially traps its "allies". Show me an example of the USA giving weapons to anyone for free.

The Ukraine aid packages are not sales. I already sent a link breaking down the structure of the aid; here's another one, a little out of date, that frequently uses the word "donated" or otherwise makes it clear that they're not sales. Where would Ukraine even get $100 billion? That's more than half their GDP and about 20 times their military budget.

In a lot of cases, what you're saying is true, yes (including about using sales to people in tight spots to trap people into economic dependency). If you're going to claim the arms to Ukraine are sales though, do you have a source?

That has no bearing on what concession means. Conceding a point is to say "OK, you're correct 0.4% is of total GDP for 2022Q4 and isn't indicative of the amount of deindustrialization happening in Germany. I was unaware of the automotive survey, of the reduced order volume, and the reduced electricity consumption. Those are valid points that indicate an active deindustrialization."

I don't think it's fair to say that I'm not conceding anything. Here are some examples:

"Particularly what you're saying about the West being disorganized is true"

"I actually agree with you that Russia is achieving its actual objectives."

"I would also say that what you're saying about the grim situation for the Ukrainians right now is accurate in the short term."

As for the specific case, I'll generally concede to you the factual parameters of what's happening in Germany. I wouldn't agree that Germany "has deindustrialized" past tense, but more to the point, I just don't see that a downturn in the German economy does, ipso facto, mean that Russia can outproduce NATO. That's not me refusing to "concede" anything you're presenting. I'm just disagreeing with how you're applying it. And, to a lesser extent, with the quantitative scope of the problem in Germany -- but honestly that's just immaterial. If you want to demonstrate that Russia can outproduce the West, just show the production levels in Russia and in the West. Any number of bullet points about Germany, going down by 0.2% or 2% or 100%, doesn't change that sum-total objective summary. Right?

Russia is not experiencing scarcity on the front lines.

I literally sent you some articles talking about Russian scarcity on the front lines. I don't think that news stories about scarcity on the front lines mean much in terms of how much overall scarcity exists -- I specifically made the point that, we need to look at what the total numbers are, not just assemble clashing anecdotes and then argue from there. But yes, if you consider that proof, I've sent you proof.

It's one order of magnitude less than you say (100MM vs 10BN).

I've sent multiple sources breaking down the aid. It's roughly $60B to Ukraine, $100B in the whole package. And yes, Biden's authority for gifts of $100B is very different from his authority for sales of $100M.

You can keep pointing to the same dollar values I'm pointing to and drawing the conclusion that the dollar values mean that one side is faring better than the other, but you're ignoring literally all the other facts.

I'm gonna be honest: It's starting to feel like this is less productive with us going in circles again. I literally acknowledged, yes, dollar values aren't a good way to measure this, and moved completely away from talking about armaments supply-capacity in dollars in my most recent message for that reason (and mentioned more than once that I was doing that, and why.)

What facts am I ignoring, exactly? Help me understand.

freagle , 6 months ago

The Ukraine aid packages are not sales

You’re correct. I was mistaken on this. The USA not only gave military aid without debt, it also chose to pay interest on some of Ukraine’s military debt.

I assert that NATO/USA is not sending what it produces, yes, although the reasons I’m asserting are different reasons.

They started a proxy war and then didn’t provide them the munitions they needed to win. They could have done it because of intelligence concerns. Every other reason I can think of is a form of scarcity and underproduction. What options am I missing?

I don’t think it’s fair to say that I’m not conceding anything

Your examples are retellings of my words, fashioned to be closer to your position than mine. I didn’t say the West is disorganized, I said that production for profit doesn’t lead to strategically aligned outcomes. I didn’t really make any claims about the grim situation for Ukrainians, but even if I did you tempered it with your own assertion of temporal constraint. This is not concession. This is weaseling.

I wouldn’t agree that Germany “has deindustrialized” past tense

Germany is deindustrializing. The process has already begun and has been proceeding for over a year. Current profit-driven investment behaviors do not appear to change. For Germany to reverse this trend, they would need to do something that would look eerily similar to what the Third Reich did.

I literally sent you some articles talking about Russian scarcity on the front lines.

You sent sources from 2022, in the early days of the war, from primarily USA propaganda sources. Note that Russians weren’t sending out diplomats to ask for more munitions the way Ukraine was doing. You can say you sent sources, I deny those sources are accurate.

And yes, Biden’s authority for gifts of $100B is very different from his authority for sales of $100M.

military.com/…/not-so-secret-fund-thats-bolsterin…

the Biden administration has been able to continue supplying Ukraine with weapons and munitions even without new aid through a lesser-known executive power called the Presidential Drawdown Authority, or PDA.

In May 2022, Congress passed legislation to increase the drawdown authority’s cap to $11 billion for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2022. That was a major increase from the $100 million that had been allocated each year since the drawdown authority’s establishment. Congress increased the cap to $14.5 billion for fiscal 2023.

According to the Congressional Research Service and Defense Department data, the Biden administration has used the drawdown authority 50 times since August 2021, authorizing around $25.2 billion worth of military assistance to Ukraine.

So Biden has authority through this one program for $14.5Bn.

What facts am I ignoring, exactly? Help me understand.

Ukraine is struggling to field soldiers. They are literally raiding gyms and conscripting people on the spot. The results are brutal, with some units experiencing 70% death rates.
economist.com/…/ukraines-army-is-struggling-to-fi…
nytimes.com/…/ukraine-military-recruitment.html

The USA has been experiencing production challenges since 2022.
www.cnn.com/2022/11/17/politics/…/index.html

The combined productive forces and stockpiles of all of NATO are struggling to supply Ukraine.
www.cnn.com/2023/02/17/politics/…/index.html
www.cnn.com/2023/07/18/politics/…/index.html

Ukraine is short on supplies despite everyone knowing that they’ve been needing to ramp production for 2 years
archive.is/Q6CKG

Despite the article saying that it’s Congress and the Republicans holding up military aid, we see above that since 2022 all of NATO was struggling to muster the munitions required, so the money doesn’t really, does it? Even with the money and more expensive weapons, Ukraine is literally raiding public places and fielding completely unprepared soldiers because their entire military has been mostly destroyed.

Any attempt at Ukraine producing weapons practically anywhere in the country, Russia is able to destroy with hypersonic missiles that are difficult for Ukraine to counter
france24.com/…/20240113-russia-claims-to-have-str…

In any conflict with the USA, especially in Eastern Europe, the USA has networks of partisans, terrorists, and irregulars embedded in the region. The USA, through NATO, conceived and executed Operation Galdio to organize clandestine armies of people who fought against the USSR (Nazis and their sympathizers), funded them, armed them, protected them, and trained them (the West elevated many Nazis to leadership positions in NATO). Those networks are expensive and they are valuable. The USA has been managing these networks as they evolve into different forms as the political landscape changes. It is not a mistake that the 2014 Euromaidan “event” saw a revival of Bandera worship and the normalization of Banderites. Bandera and the OUN were assets of Operation Gladio.

So when multiple uprisings happen on Russia’s border during this conflict in Ukraine, we cannot simply look at that fact in isolation but rather see it as something connected to history, specifically, these uprisings were, more likely than not, USA/NATO assets attempting to open multiple fronts against Russia. They all failed. This is critically important to note, because it means that assets were activated but did not achieve their objectives. This is incredibly costly. But more than that, it represents a failure of intelligence on the USA/NATO part. They wasted their assets on a bet and they lost.

So then we see Wagner group say that they aren’t really needed in Ukraine anymore and Africa is their next stop. Think about that fact. The largest contingent of Russian mercenaries are no longer needed to prosecute the conflict in Ukraine. If Russia were struggling to achieve it’s objectives, would Russia pull out so many trained and effective soldiers? Instead, Russia deployed them to Africa. What happened next?

Niger happened next. The resulting movement has broken the economic and military stranglehold that a NATO country had over one of its neocolonies. France lost big, and they pulled their military out. What happened next?

Palestine Oct 7 happened next.

US military bases in Iraq started to get bombed.

Yemen blockaded the Red Sea.

At each step, the USA has been seen to be reacting, only now sending new troops to Iraq after weeks of bombings. Almost like they didn’t see it coming.

The evidence seems to be that the USA and NATO are losing the intelligence war. They are reacting. The biggest combined military force in the entire history of the world, with full-blown duplication of every single phone call and data transmission over cables they own, including transatlantic cables, satellite communications, and cellular networks, that infiltrated Seimens and wiretapped every single embassy on the planet, that has established deep intelligence capabilities and data sharing across The Five Eyes - they all appear to be reacting to things they did not foresee.

Could this be a rope-a-dope strategy? Maybe? Maybe 2024 is the year that the USA/NATO suddenly finds their munitions stockpiles, unveils their hidden underground weapons manufacturing plants, or releases their top secret super weapon at exactly the right places and exactly the right times. But it looks a lot like military intelligence failures, production failures, diplomacy failures, and economic failures. The only thing that seems to have gotten stronger is domestic police repression and domestic propaganda.

You’re missing it all, it seems. You think of each thing in isolation. You think each conflict is David vs Goliath and Goliath is just slow and lumbering but eventually the giant will win because of course he will. You don’t see that most of the positive news about Ukraine is propaganda, that even that propaganda cannot ignore the failings, but has to couch it in narrative that Russia is also doing terribly and if only we send another $100Bn of weapons it’ll turn the tide. You think finding a spreadsheet with exact numbers of artillery shells is not only possible, but will provide more information than the information we already have, which is supplies have been strained for years and the largest military bloc in the history of the world is scrambling to react to the conditions on the ground that their massive intelligence apparatus failed to predict and plan for.

Yes, we’re going around in circles because you keep trying to hang on to a shred of hope that this isn’t right by claiming I’m not being objective enough for you, that the entire argument boils down to quantity of shells on a manifest, and if we can’t find it (which we can’t) then you’ll be able to hold on to that shred of hope.

Let it go already.

mozz , 6 months ago

Yes, we're going around in circles because you keep trying to hang on to a shred of hope that this isn't right by claiming I'm not being objective enough for you, that the entire argument boils down to quantity of shells on a manifest, and if we can't find it (which we can't) then you'll be able to hold on to that shred of hope.

I think we have a fundamental disconnect in how to approach this debate, then. I checked and it actually wasn't too hard to find ballpark numbers in open sources. But, if you're explicitly saying that you're not into the idea of looking at data on the overall picture and instead want to just construct narratives, then I'm not into that. The simple reason being that it can go on forever with the two of us just yelling our narratives at each other.

I also note that once we get into objectively verifiable things (the order of magnitude of aid packages, the nature of American aid to Ukraine), you all of a sudden turn out to have been wrong about some pretty relevant-to-the-debate things you were previously real confident about telling me what's what about. It makes me not want to suddenly put a ton of trust into the more complex or far-reaching narratives you're constructing (no matter how firmly you're willing to tell them to me.)

The early stages were enjoyable and I actually learned some things but I think the discussion has run its course. Cheers and all the best.

nekandro OP , 7 months ago

Questioning the deindustrialization of Germany is… Rather silly tbh. Have you seen Germany’s manufacturing PMI? That’s after an absurd amount of energy subsidies from the government.

mozz , 7 months ago

See comment above. Compared to Germany's baseline, its industrial sector is showing signs of problems. But if Germany "has deindustrialized" past tense, then 97.4% of the countries in the world have never been industrialized at all.

nekandro OP , 7 months ago

Agreed.

taanegl , 7 months ago

Why do you think? The US and GB are looking for any excuse to cut funding to Ukraine, because it can actually be won. Better then to let the conflict continue for many decades. There’s more money to be made in the long run. So you gotta spin a little yarn, include some unnecessary details, gesture mildly at “possible interpretations”.

Tangentism , 7 months ago

The US and GB are looking for any excuse to cut funding to Ukraine

The UK has just dumped another £2.5 billion into zelenskys coffers

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67954152

nekandro OP , 7 months ago

I may not be a fan of his work, but it always sucks to have a journalist die because of corruption and unfair imprisonment.