Jump to content

Kiev Is Burning


X-Files

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Simon Tan said:

Your imagination is painfully brittle. The US currently occupies Cuban territory, against the wishes of the Cuban government. You are LARPing NATO again. 

What country are you from again, just for future reference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Roman Alymov

    14451

  • Stuart Galbraith

    9942

  • glenn239

    4654

  • Josh

    3422

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

6 hours ago, Roman Alymov said:

while USSR failed because of fundamental ideological mistakes made by Communist Party leadership back in 1960th, when they switched to building consumer society while trying to achieve universal prosperity for all at the same time

Can you elaborate here ? Do you mean that too unrealistic promises were made - e.g. to have consumption levels similar to the US ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KV7 said:

Can you elaborate here ? Do you mean that too unrealistic promises were made - e.g. to have consumption levels similar to the US ?

As for me it was the set of promises, that were hard-to-achieve (but still reachable) when taken separately, but unachievable when taken all at the same time. It was not only trying to complete in consumption with leading Western countries middle class (most countries of the world fail to reach this level, and USSR ruined by war was in unfavorable position right on the start – still, it was possible) but trying to do it while promoting equality (started in 1960th, before that Stalin system with massive difference in salaries between qualified and unqualified labor was supporting education and hard work) and investing heavily in military balance not only in terms of numbers, but also in terms of science and research. Actually it is surprising how long USSR survived with this, and how close was its “victory” in terms of surviving as member of two-system globe. Have USSR lasted for 10 more years, it would probably stay forever until global human kind unification (see how real incomes in the west not growing since at least 70th, so the gap was to be less and less wide).

In pre-consumption age (for war generation) ideas of living standards was different – one of my friends grandfather  in 1960th was sure Communism is near future because bread in their factory canteen became free (you could take as much as you want without pay).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Roman Alymov said:

As for me it was the set of promises, that were hard-to-achieve (but still reachable) when taken separately, but unachievable when taken all at the same time. It was not only trying to complete in consumption with leading Western countries middle class (most countries of the world fail to reach this level, and USSR ruined by war was in unfavorable position right on the start – still, it was possible) but trying to do it while promoting equality (started in 1960th, before that Stalin system with massive difference in salaries between qualified and unqualified labor was supporting education and hard work) and investing heavily in military balance not only in terms of numbers, but also in terms of science and research. Actually it is surprising how long USSR survived with this, and how close was its “victory” in terms of surviving as member of two-system globe. Have USSR lasted for 10 more years, it would probably stay forever until global human kind unification (see how real incomes in the west not growing since at least 70th, so the gap was to be less and less wide).

In pre-consumption age (for war generation) ideas of living standards was different – one of my friends grandfather  in 1960th was sure Communism is near future because bread in their factory canteen became free (you could take as much as you want without pay).

I largely agree with this, with the exception that' excess egalitarianism' played a major role. There were large income differentials under Stalin but this was partially reflecting large differential in productivity  which were themselves largely a consequence of the demographic transition - i.e. huge migration from the countryside alongside a limited capital stock meant that there was ample unskilled labour, which also meant that finding almost any industrial task for them to do allowed for large productivity gains. Prior to the revolution the whole agrarians sector had huge excess labour supply, especially on small plots (i.e a peasant family with 3 sons will have a plot that can be fully worked by one adult male). By the 1960s though much of the excess labour was already utilised, though often poorly. And so even if low skilled wages were relatively high, enterprises were often still very keen for more of it, at the prevailing wage rate.  And I don't see much evidence that low pay differentials reduced appreciably human capital formation given that education was free and life was still notably better for higher skilled workers (I don't think for example very many people who could become a talented engineer ever chose to become a machinist because of some 'why not, pay is about the same' type reasoning).

The changed circumstances did call for economic reform, but unfortunately the Khrushchev reforms (in particular the regionalisation) did not fix any fundamental problems and made some worse - in the case where the official price mechanism isn't working well, centralisation is a partial remedy because large organisations can shadow price inputs internally near their true cost of production, though in this case they need to be a producer and user of the input - i.e. a large vertically integrated concern.

The tragedy is that Soviet economists (Kantorovich for one) largely did have a good understanding of what needed to be done, but the leadership resisted such proposals on the grounds that it would take away their power. There is also some suggestion that Stalin near the end of his life wanted to rectify this problem by limiting the power of the party to interfere in administration by technocrats, but that this push was abandoned under Khrushchev.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Simon Tan said:

The US currently occupies Cuban territory, against the wishes of the Cuban government. 

LOL

Guantanamo Bay was leased by the US. That the Commies unilaterally declared the contract as void doesn't mean that the US are occupying Cuba.

Try harder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia introduces sanctions on Russia, partly over election meddling, partly solar winds, partly due to Navalny. Which is what I feared might happen. Putin is now boxed in, going to be mighty hard to demobilize now without looking like he backed down to a near Octogenarian.

https://news.sky.com/story/us-set-to-impose-new-russia-sanctions-and-expel-officials-over-huge-solarwinds-hacking-attack-12275798

The US is expected to announce new sanctions on Russia as early as today over the hacking of government agencies and alleged election interference.

Thirty entities are set to be blacklisted and about 10 Russian officials will be expelled as part of the measures, according to officials speaking anonymously to AP and Reuters news agencies.

 

It is partly retaliation over last year's Solarwinds hacking attack, which infected the popular US-made software with rogue code and enabled access to at least nine government agencies and thousands of companies.

American officials believe Russia was behind the breach, identified in December, and officials are still assessing what information may have been compromised.

Microsoft president Brad Smith called it "the largest and most sophisticated attack the world has ever seen".

 

Alleged Russian hacking in last year's US presidential election is said to be the other motivation for the sanctions.

A US intelligence report last month said Russian President Vladimir Putin had probably instigated a failed effort to keep Donald Trump in power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Gleiwitz for the 21st Century you mean? Hmm. Thats an interesting thought.

I think so, as the operation would be for domestic consumption more than anything, and because the people of the Federation seem already inclined to believe the West would do such a thing.

Based on capability, they might not be wrong. The less that is out there about America's offensive cyberwar capability is an indicator of how much more advanced it may be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone may have reminded the USN that Putin is still seeking to collect around 200-300 WIA/KIA in retaliation for American airstrikes on KG Wagner. I don't think the Federation can afford not to, unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, ex2cav said:

I'm a long time lurker here and just joined. I have followed the events in Ukraine with some interest since 2014. I find the events a bit saddening. Here we go again, we don't seem to learn from our mistakes. Such is the human condition where we tend to see problems as unique in their own right, but also view them in historical terms to confirm our bias.

Humanity seems to learn from its mistakes in that after a really good shindig, the next 2 or 3 generations tend to mind their manners.  After that, the forces in society that cause disasters  - the Custer types that look for personal aggrandizement by way of foreign confrontation and drama - tend to get the upper hand and another round of shindigs occurs.   By that theory Hitler's biggest surprise was that he did it with only a 1 generation gap.

 

Quote

I don't think of Putin as a "good guy". He is underhanded and in all probability authorizes the use of chem weapons on political opponents to send a strong message. I think he believes he is a man on a mission. 

My take is that Putin probably thinks that the fall of the Soviet Union could have been averted by decisive leadership in the Kremlin.  Taken to the current day, that NATO is an alliance in name only that has no stomach for a real war.  Whether that's true or not, I think it's what he believes and is willing to act on.

Quote

I read an article recently that Ukraine intends to retake the Crimea, surely the Donbass as well, at some point in the future. Fine on them. That said, Putin's likely goal is to maintain a buffer zone and more importantly to keep the Ukies unstable to prevent Nato membership. I believe Zelensky recently stated that his intent is to obtain Nato membership. Fine by him. It is also likely Putin will go to extreme lengths to prevent that. That must be considered. What is gained by Ukrainian membership in Nato?

The purposes of alliances are to make the members of the alliance more secure.  Adding Ukraine to NATO makes the NATO members less secure.  Therefore, expanding NATO to include Ukraine is irrational on its face.  But, the West has also seen the rise of a generation of Custer specialists that run around the world seeking head-on collisions with history in the name of "globalism".   Back in the Middle Ages they called it "The Crusades".  These tendencies to adapt what the British used to call the White Man's burden are at odds with NATO security common sense, in that they demand expansion into places that make NATO, and the world, less secure.  

 

Quote

Political elites have been using tough talk to dissuade the Russians. I find that troubling. Hopefully, we are not giving the Ukies any fall sense of back up. Nor a bluff to be called. I am all for support, i.e. for every Russian tank they get an AT-4, intel etc. We shall see. Campaigning season is at hand!

Problem with that is that payback is a two way street.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, seahawk said:

Attacking on the 1st May would be glorious.

They cant, they will presumably using the Taman Guards for the parade. I would not be surprised to see them deploy after that.

At this rate, if they go in, I'm expecting any time after mid may. But that's a pure guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...