The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Military Spending in 2017
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

military-spending-2017

New figures from SIPRI have been released.

At $66.3 billion, Russia’s military spending in 2017 was 20 per cent lower than in 2016, the first annual decrease since 1998. ‘Military modernization remains a priority in Russia, but the military budget has been restricted by economic problems that the country has experienced since 2014,’ said Siemon Wezeman.

This makes Russia an exception to the global rule of rising military spending.

China continues to gain rapidly on the US, even while spending a lower share of its GDP. Adjusting for PPP, total Chinese military spending might be close to approaching American levels.

With that decrease, a bunch of middle powers – India, France, and Saudi Arabia – have now nudged ahead of Russia in military spending.

PS. Need to make an update to the CMP.

PPS. Scale on the left axis should ofc be millions, not billions.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Military 
Hide 368 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Looking at the graph, I can tell you that it’s Iran which is the biggest danger to world peace. And of course Russia.

    Read More
    • Agree: German_reader
    • LOL: Talha
    • Replies: @iffen
    You have to think about how dangerous they would be if the U. S. didn't spend on defense. Well, on second thought, I guess some of you don't think about that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Talha says:

    I think Pakistan should be kept in mind when thinking about military spending. It has basically achieved fairly reasonable deterrence capability within $10 billion a year – not bad.

    Nobody wants to invade it.

    Now it also helps to keep your nation not worth the price of attacking in the first place.

    “We will stop you at the beaches of Karachi for the land of the chapli kabab shall not falter!”

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird
    Pakistan is in a sort of happy geographic position, IMO. Some people would laugh at me now - being right next door to Afghanistan has its drawbacks. But the only regional power they are concerned with is India. Meanwhile, India is concerned with Pakistan and China, but Pakistan is far enough away from China not to feel threatened by them.

    Then there is the additional element of India being a very fractious country.

    Of course, all that is probably superfluous because of nukes, which is why I've never felt threatened by NK having them.
    , @Escher
    Why would anyone want the hassle of running a failing state like Pakistan? They don’t even have any oil.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Someone needs to come up with a better metric than this, and there’s more to it than just PPP.

    The US for instance spent $13 billion on the USS Gerald Ford (why did this nonentity get a carrier named after him?), which does not have a functional catapult or arresting wire. Meaning it can’t launch or recover aircraft.

    Then there’s the $22.5 billion spent on a class of three destroyers, the F-35 debacle, and of course the generational failure of the Army to procure replacement infantry rifles and self-propelled artillery.

    There seem to be issues in Russia’s M-I complex as well (a lot of late deliveries, but it does seem to consistently deliver new weapons systems that perform as advertised other than obvious vaporware. The only major exception I can think of is the MiG 1.44–which was cancelled on cost grounds.

    China’s M-I complex is too opaque for me to monitor at all.

    Personnel is another issue. Largest cost item for the Pentagon, but almost certainly not in China with its conscription and low wages. Russia somewhere in between. And money spent on female personnel in fact detracts from military power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    I attempted a better index here, before you became a regular commenter: https://www.unz.com/akarlin/top-10-militaries-2015/
    , @songbird
    The sad thing is that the Ford probably cost significantly more than $13 billion.

    There were about $4 billion in research costs. Additional billions to train the crew. Do they even count the planes? How much if you amoritized the research on the planes into the pricetag?

    I think you are looking at at least $20 billion, and how much does it cost to sink? Most likely, a lot less. And China has achieved basic economic parity, so what you are left with is the ability to intimidate third world countries. Not particularly useful, at that price.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Sean says:

    https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/01/red-and-black

    IN DECEMBER 1979 Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan. The oil price at the time was at its peak of $101 a barrel. The high price combined with fast-growing production of oil in Western Siberia provided the Soviet Union with unprecedented revenues. Instead of saving this money for a rainy day, the Soviet government financed foreign adventures and imports of food. Seven years later the Brent crude oil price fell to around $30 a barrel and Mikhail Gorbachev launched the policy of Perestroika (restructuring) and convergence with the West. The high oil price coincided with Soviet aggression, but as the price fell the Soviet Union became more democratic and friendly to the West.

    That the oil price correlated with Soviet politics is not surprising – in the uncompetitive command economy oil and gas revenues accounted for 67% of all exports. But the correlation remained just as strong after the end of the Soviet Union and transition to a market economy, and oil and gas remained the main source of Russian export revenues. When Vladimir Putin came to power the price of oil was $25 a barrel. Mr Putin allied himself with America, did not object to NATO’s enlargement that took in the Baltic States and saw September 11th 2001 as Russia’s chance to get closer to NATO. Seven years later, when the oil price was at $105 a barrel, Russia invaded Georgia, and its relationship with America deteriorated dramatically. Thanks to the global financial crisis, oil prices soon fell to $67 a barrel, and Russia accepted Barack Obama’s attempted “reset” (though that effort soon went sour).

    Russia’s problem is oil prices, and those are very dependent on Saudi Arabia which has repeatedly tried to weaken post revolutionary Iran by driving down the price of oil. The forthcoming destruction of Iran by America will be good for Russia, but bad for America.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Oil is very important to Russia, but let's not exaggerate. The country is as about as oil dependent as Norway, and unlike the USSR it is self-sufficient in agriculture (actually a major exporter). Unlike the USSR, the Russian Federation also doesn't have to provide oil to a network of client states at below world market prices (it has done so by choice in some cases, but it amounts to far less oil).

    There are a number of other problems with this article. Putin indeed did try to integrate with the West, only to be rewarded with W scrapping the ABM Treaty in 2002.

    The article then repeats the outright lie that Russia invaded Georgia, when in fact Georgia invaded South Ossetia.

    The reset went sour over America's bizarre hatred of the Assman and Victoria Jewland launching a coup d'etat in the Ukraine.

    And incidentally, oil prices have been low since 2014. Since then we've seen endless Russian "aggression" in the Ukraine and Syria, no?

    Typical trash propaganda from the Ecommunist.

    I would also suggest that oil might not be such a good thing for Russia as it serves as a disincentive to develop other globally competitive industries. Norway, while a lot wealthier than Russia per capita, is noteworthy in that its only other globally competitive industries are shipping, fishing, and aquaculture. Canada and Australia are if anything even worse than that, though Canada has a growing tech sector (which outrages me).

    , @songbird
    Interesting. Maybe, I'm too US-centric in my thinking but I always thought of the Saudi moves as a strategy to destroy fracking in the US, not something in anyway aimed against Iran, a country that they compete against through proxy wars and buying influence abroad.
    , @RadicalCenter
    I suppose that the prolonged loss of much of Iran’s oil production / export will raise prices so much that it would be a net benefit to those regions of the USA where a major volume of oil and gas is produced.

    Namely Texas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Alaska, and Wyoming, and to a lesser extent Louisiana, Colorado, and Utah.

    Then again, taxpayers in those States — meaning the disproportionately white and Asian 50% of the population who actually pay federal income tax — will be paying big time for the increased unemployment benefits, food stamps, Medicaid, and crime costs in the other States, where fuel, groceries, and other goods will inflate in price at least for a time, perhaps substantially.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. @Sean

    https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/01/red-and-black

    https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/640-width/images/2016/01/blogs/graphic-detail/20160123_woc888_1.png

    IN DECEMBER 1979 Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan. The oil price at the time was at its peak of $101 a barrel. The high price combined with fast-growing production of oil in Western Siberia provided the Soviet Union with unprecedented revenues. Instead of saving this money for a rainy day, the Soviet government financed foreign adventures and imports of food. Seven years later the Brent crude oil price fell to around $30 a barrel and Mikhail Gorbachev launched the policy of Perestroika (restructuring) and convergence with the West. The high oil price coincided with Soviet aggression, but as the price fell the Soviet Union became more democratic and friendly to the West.

    That the oil price correlated with Soviet politics is not surprising – in the uncompetitive command economy oil and gas revenues accounted for 67% of all exports. But the correlation remained just as strong after the end of the Soviet Union and transition to a market economy, and oil and gas remained the main source of Russian export revenues. When Vladimir Putin came to power the price of oil was $25 a barrel. Mr Putin allied himself with America, did not object to NATO’s enlargement that took in the Baltic States and saw September 11th 2001 as Russia’s chance to get closer to NATO. Seven years later, when the oil price was at $105 a barrel, Russia invaded Georgia, and its relationship with America deteriorated dramatically. Thanks to the global financial crisis, oil prices soon fell to $67 a barrel, and Russia accepted Barack Obama's attempted "reset" (though that effort soon went sour).

     

    Russia's problem is oil prices, and those are very dependent on Saudi Arabia which has repeatedly tried to weaken post revolutionary Iran by driving down the price of oil. The forthcoming destruction of Iran by America will be good for Russia, but bad for America.

    Oil is very important to Russia, but let’s not exaggerate. The country is as about as oil dependent as Norway, and unlike the USSR it is self-sufficient in agriculture (actually a major exporter). Unlike the USSR, the Russian Federation also doesn’t have to provide oil to a network of client states at below world market prices (it has done so by choice in some cases, but it amounts to far less oil).

    There are a number of other problems with this article. Putin indeed did try to integrate with the West, only to be rewarded with W scrapping the ABM Treaty in 2002.

    The article then repeats the outright lie that Russia invaded Georgia, when in fact Georgia invaded South Ossetia.

    The reset went sour over America’s bizarre hatred of the Assman and Victoria Jewland launching a coup d’etat in the Ukraine.

    And incidentally, oil prices have been low since 2014. Since then we’ve seen endless Russian “aggression” in the Ukraine and Syria, no?

    Typical trash propaganda from the Ecommunist.

    I would also suggest that oil might not be such a good thing for Russia as it serves as a disincentive to develop other globally competitive industries. Norway, while a lot wealthier than Russia per capita, is noteworthy in that its only other globally competitive industries are shipping, fishing, and aquaculture. Canada and Australia are if anything even worse than that, though Canada has a growing tech sector (which outrages me).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    More on why this is absolute garbage.

    Oil prices were also low for the entire century preceding the First Energy Crisis.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Crude_oil_prices_since_1861.png

    Oil also lacked any strategic importance until the Royal Navy adopted it as a fuel source, as motorization was not significant anywhere outside of the United States until the 1920s. Initially the main purpose of oil was to refine kerosene to run lamps, which replaced whale oil.

    During that time we saw the following actual Russian aggression:

    • Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78
    • Conquest and annexation of Central Asia
    • The "Great Game" played with Great Britain
    • Russia turning Manchuria into a protectorate and subsequent political penetration of Korea
    • Mobilization in support of Serbian terrorism in 1914, leading to World War I
    • Bolshevik (re)conquest of most of the former Russian Empire less Finland and the Baltics
    • Polish-Soviet War
    • Sino-Soviet Conflict of 1929 (sort of)
    • Soviet intervention in the Spanish Civil War, including the cartoonish robbery of Spain's gold reserves
    • Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
    • Winter War
    • Annexation of the Baltic States and Bessarabia
    • Ethnic cleansing and annexation of Konigsberg
    • Operation August Storm
    • Annexation of North Sakhalin and the Kuriles
    • Berlin Blockade
    • Turning more or less all of Eastern Europe into a gigantic concentration camp
    • Cuban Missile Crisis
    • Whatever shit the USSR pulled in the Turd World up through 1973 (who cares)

    Strange how the gas station with nukes was so aggressive during the century of falling oil prices.

    The Gorbachev period should rather be understood as a special period in Soviet history, and given that the oil price didn't collapse until 85-86 it couldn't have had anything to do with Gorbachev's appointment as dictator.
    , @for-the-record
    Canada has a growing tech sector (which outrages me).

    Because Canada is one of your countries that shouldn't exist?
    , @Dmitry

    The country is as about as oil dependent as Norway, and unlike the USSR it is self-sufficient in agriculture (actually a major exporter). Unlike the USSR, the Russian Federation
     
    The aim is to become self-sufficient in agriculture in 2023. Until the last couple of years, 40% of food was imported, although this is now changing (with the move to self-sufficiency finalizing in 2023).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. songbird says:
    @Sean

    https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/01/red-and-black

    https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/640-width/images/2016/01/blogs/graphic-detail/20160123_woc888_1.png

    IN DECEMBER 1979 Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan. The oil price at the time was at its peak of $101 a barrel. The high price combined with fast-growing production of oil in Western Siberia provided the Soviet Union with unprecedented revenues. Instead of saving this money for a rainy day, the Soviet government financed foreign adventures and imports of food. Seven years later the Brent crude oil price fell to around $30 a barrel and Mikhail Gorbachev launched the policy of Perestroika (restructuring) and convergence with the West. The high oil price coincided with Soviet aggression, but as the price fell the Soviet Union became more democratic and friendly to the West.

    That the oil price correlated with Soviet politics is not surprising – in the uncompetitive command economy oil and gas revenues accounted for 67% of all exports. But the correlation remained just as strong after the end of the Soviet Union and transition to a market economy, and oil and gas remained the main source of Russian export revenues. When Vladimir Putin came to power the price of oil was $25 a barrel. Mr Putin allied himself with America, did not object to NATO’s enlargement that took in the Baltic States and saw September 11th 2001 as Russia’s chance to get closer to NATO. Seven years later, when the oil price was at $105 a barrel, Russia invaded Georgia, and its relationship with America deteriorated dramatically. Thanks to the global financial crisis, oil prices soon fell to $67 a barrel, and Russia accepted Barack Obama's attempted "reset" (though that effort soon went sour).

     

    Russia's problem is oil prices, and those are very dependent on Saudi Arabia which has repeatedly tried to weaken post revolutionary Iran by driving down the price of oil. The forthcoming destruction of Iran by America will be good for Russia, but bad for America.

    Interesting. Maybe, I’m too US-centric in my thinking but I always thought of the Saudi moves as a strategy to destroy fracking in the US, not something in anyway aimed against Iran, a country that they compete against through proxy wars and buying influence abroad.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    I think you're correct.

    This was a period of thawing relations between Russia and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia purchased some weapons from Russia, and it seems like they together attempted to destroy our fracking industry. Putin also intervened to help save the military dictatorship in Egypt, likely as a friendly gesture to the Saudis. Saudi Arabia also allegedly attempted to bribe Russia into abandoning the Assman in exchange for massive imports of Russian weapons and the creation of a Russian-Saudi global energy cartel.

    Honestly that sounds like a pretty swell deal, but I can understand why the Russians didn't bite (if it's true).

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Harold_Hamm_2012_Shankbone.JPG

    Nobody can stop Harold Hamm. :)

    , @Sean
    Destroying Russia's so called ally Iran will reinvigorate Russia. According to Micheal Stuermer, in 1985 Saddam's Iraq looked as if it was about to lose the war with Iran, so Saudi Arabia drove the oil price down and Iran suddenly bereft of hard currency, had to come to terms. This is a rerun, the Saudis fear Iran, and Saudi action to weaken Iran is the key to understanding oil prices. The Saudi action to weaken Iran in 1985 was a terminally catastrophic for the Soviet Union, Without Iran to worry about the Saudis will reduce supplyand prices will go up all across the globe. Russia on a rising oil price high will be like the protagonist of Crank 2 getting tasered.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWfgtDh4T0c&t=0m40s

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. @Thorfinnsson
    Someone needs to come up with a better metric than this, and there's more to it than just PPP.

    The US for instance spent $13 billion on the USS Gerald Ford (why did this nonentity get a carrier named after him?), which does not have a functional catapult or arresting wire. Meaning it can't launch or recover aircraft.

    Then there's the $22.5 billion spent on a class of three destroyers, the F-35 debacle, and of course the generational failure of the Army to procure replacement infantry rifles and self-propelled artillery.

    There seem to be issues in Russia's M-I complex as well (a lot of late deliveries, but it does seem to consistently deliver new weapons systems that perform as advertised other than obvious vaporware. The only major exception I can think of is the MiG 1.44--which was cancelled on cost grounds.

    China's M-I complex is too opaque for me to monitor at all.

    Personnel is another issue. Largest cost item for the Pentagon, but almost certainly not in China with its conscription and low wages. Russia somewhere in between. And money spent on female personnel in fact detracts from military power.

    I attempted a better index here, before you became a regular commenter: https://www.unz.com/akarlin/top-10-militaries-2015/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    This looks like it was a fun exercise and is better than judging by military spending, but it's not something that could be called scientific. The assumptions made are generally reasonable, but you know how it goes in economic and climate modeling with this.

    A word on the German Army since you gave the Germans an edge. The success of the Prussian and later national German armies were down to the following factors:

    • The House of Hohenzollern and the Junkers, in particular the East Elbians, were Marcher Lords with a military tradition stretching back to the Teutonic Order
    • Close contact with slavs gave Prussians a much stronger ethnic identity
    • Pervasive militarism, both culturally and politically
    • The Army was the most prestigious institution in the Kingdom and Empire and recruited the best men
    • Extremely thorough and rigorous training, as an example the Wehrmacht suffered a 2% casualty rate...in peacetime
    • The Prussian War Academy selected only the very best officers for staff education, which was not the case elsewhere in the 19th century
    • A doctrinal and cultural emphasis on attack
    • Extreme emphasis on speed of movement, see for instance the Battle of Rossbach
    • Very rapid mobilization capability, especially after the reforms of von Roon
    • General orders and mission tactics--officers and even NCOs had more initiative than in any other armies

    None of these things are true of the German Army today, though it's my understanding that the Bundeswehr had a decent reputation in the Cold War.

    Some other factors unrelated to the army itself but that contributed:

    • Miracle of the House of Brandenburg
    • Prussia was the first country with universal, compulsory education (the first teachers were of course retired army officers)
    • The Prussian railway system was better developed than the Austrian and French systems--this was particularly decisive against Austria
    • Krupp chose to center its business on artillery after losing the American railroad market, and Wilhelm II had war ministers who didn't buy the latest Krupp guns sacked
    • The superior German university system made the country #1 in science and maybe engineering as well until 1945

    None of these things are true either anymore. At most you can say that Germany continues to excel in engineering.

    Would be interesting to see a study on the combat efficiency of German units based on where they came from. How did Austrian officers and units do in WW2 for instance? How did soldiers from Rhenish Prussia (the Rhineland is Catholic and only passed into Prussian possession in 1815) do in the Wars of Unification? How did troops from Bavaria, Baden, Oldenburg, etc. do in WWI?

    Informal truces on the Western Front were relatively common. I've heard it said that British troops could never get a truce out of Prussians (Bavarians were supposedly amenable), and German troops could never get a truce out of Scots (another martial race).

    If you're going to keep the 25% edge for Germany might want to consider edges for Sweden, Finland, Canada, and Australia as well (if you ever redo this exercise). Perhaps Japan as well (at least in naval conflicts).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. That graph is misleading as shit, using a pseudo-logarithmic Y axis for spending when it should be linear. The US is spending so much more than everyone else and SIPRI is obviously trying to hide this fact.

    Read More
    • Agree: for-the-record
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. @Thorfinnsson
    Oil is very important to Russia, but let's not exaggerate. The country is as about as oil dependent as Norway, and unlike the USSR it is self-sufficient in agriculture (actually a major exporter). Unlike the USSR, the Russian Federation also doesn't have to provide oil to a network of client states at below world market prices (it has done so by choice in some cases, but it amounts to far less oil).

    There are a number of other problems with this article. Putin indeed did try to integrate with the West, only to be rewarded with W scrapping the ABM Treaty in 2002.

    The article then repeats the outright lie that Russia invaded Georgia, when in fact Georgia invaded South Ossetia.

    The reset went sour over America's bizarre hatred of the Assman and Victoria Jewland launching a coup d'etat in the Ukraine.

    And incidentally, oil prices have been low since 2014. Since then we've seen endless Russian "aggression" in the Ukraine and Syria, no?

    Typical trash propaganda from the Ecommunist.

    I would also suggest that oil might not be such a good thing for Russia as it serves as a disincentive to develop other globally competitive industries. Norway, while a lot wealthier than Russia per capita, is noteworthy in that its only other globally competitive industries are shipping, fishing, and aquaculture. Canada and Australia are if anything even worse than that, though Canada has a growing tech sector (which outrages me).

    More on why this is absolute garbage.

    Oil prices were also low for the entire century preceding the First Energy Crisis.

    Oil also lacked any strategic importance until the Royal Navy adopted it as a fuel source, as motorization was not significant anywhere outside of the United States until the 1920s. Initially the main purpose of oil was to refine kerosene to run lamps, which replaced whale oil.

    During that time we saw the following actual Russian aggression:

    • Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78
    • Conquest and annexation of Central Asia
    • The “Great Game” played with Great Britain
    • Russia turning Manchuria into a protectorate and subsequent political penetration of Korea
    • Mobilization in support of Serbian terrorism in 1914, leading to World War I
    • Bolshevik (re)conquest of most of the former Russian Empire less Finland and the Baltics
    • Polish-Soviet War
    • Sino-Soviet Conflict of 1929 (sort of)
    • Soviet intervention in the Spanish Civil War, including the cartoonish robbery of Spain’s gold reserves
    • Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
    • Winter War
    • Annexation of the Baltic States and Bessarabia
    • Ethnic cleansing and annexation of Konigsberg
    • Operation August Storm
    • Annexation of North Sakhalin and the Kuriles
    • Berlin Blockade
    • Turning more or less all of Eastern Europe into a gigantic concentration camp
    • Cuban Missile Crisis
    • Whatever shit the USSR pulled in the Turd World up through 1973 (who cares)

    Strange how the gas station with nukes was so aggressive during the century of falling oil prices.

    The Gorbachev period should rather be understood as a special period in Soviet history, and given that the oil price didn’t collapse until 85-86 it couldn’t have had anything to do with Gorbachev’s appointment as dictator.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Land was power for the early part of that period, and Russia was growing prodigiously in territory. Then the French loaned them massive amount of money to build (mainly military-purpose) railways, to the extent that the most influential, preWW1 German foreign policy statesman wondered whether it was worth planting trees on his estate as "the Russians will be here in a few years".


    The pre (WW2) war incorporation of the Baltic states and a bit of Finland was a drain on Soviet Russia that was imposed by Germany. Stalin was probably planning to grab the oil of Romania once the capitalists were exhausted fighting each other in the war Stalin had facilitated (the Soviet border with Romania was where where the strongest Soviet forces were encountered during the early part of Barbarossa). Hitler was obsessed with grabbing and hold every kind of resource but especially oi-- Operation Edelweiss was aimed at Baku.

    Russian fear of Eisenhower and then JFK's plan to let Germany have some say in the use of Nato Nukes (so US taxpayers didn't have to pay for everything) was responsible for the crisises of the Cold War. But Soviet Russia ultimately backed down in those confrontations

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_governor

    I think countries are a bit like endurance athletes inasmuch they instinctively down-regulate massively when their wherewithal begins to fall even slightly. Just a slight fall in energy is enough to make you feel overwhelmingly tired during a marathon say, but a little candy is enough to get let you go on, even though the candy is trivial in calorie terms and the actual balance is extremely negative. The feeling that power is increasing stokes you to perform extraordinary exploits. Or try to like Mikheil Saakashvili, whose country had some oil money I believe.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. songbird says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    Someone needs to come up with a better metric than this, and there's more to it than just PPP.

    The US for instance spent $13 billion on the USS Gerald Ford (why did this nonentity get a carrier named after him?), which does not have a functional catapult or arresting wire. Meaning it can't launch or recover aircraft.

    Then there's the $22.5 billion spent on a class of three destroyers, the F-35 debacle, and of course the generational failure of the Army to procure replacement infantry rifles and self-propelled artillery.

    There seem to be issues in Russia's M-I complex as well (a lot of late deliveries, but it does seem to consistently deliver new weapons systems that perform as advertised other than obvious vaporware. The only major exception I can think of is the MiG 1.44--which was cancelled on cost grounds.

    China's M-I complex is too opaque for me to monitor at all.

    Personnel is another issue. Largest cost item for the Pentagon, but almost certainly not in China with its conscription and low wages. Russia somewhere in between. And money spent on female personnel in fact detracts from military power.

    The sad thing is that the Ford probably cost significantly more than $13 billion.

    There were about $4 billion in research costs. Additional billions to train the crew. Do they even count the planes? How much if you amoritized the research on the planes into the pricetag?

    I think you are looking at at least $20 billion, and how much does it cost to sink? Most likely, a lot less. And China has achieved basic economic parity, so what you are left with is the ability to intimidate third world countries. Not particularly useful, at that price.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    The program cost is apparently $37 billion.

    Subsequent ships in the class will not cost $13 billion.

    Bottom line is it was very stupid to start building the ship before its advanced electromagnetic systems were proven to work.

    Carrier airwings are accounted for separately, but that's fair imo as they can operate from land bases as well. No new aircraft were developed for the Ford-class so it definitely wouldn't be reasonable to include that in the price.


    I think you are looking at at least $20 billion, and how much does it cost to sink? Most likely, a lot less. And China has achieved basic economic parity, so what you are left with is the ability to intimidate third world countries. Not particularly useful, at that price.
     
    I don't think this is a fair way to think about it, as carriers can do things that carrier-killers can't. A infantry squad can for instance destroy a tank for less than it costs to build a tank, but you still build tanks for some very good reasons.

    Now whether or not it's a good idea to keep building carriers I am not entirely sure. In light of our global network of bases, tankers, heavy bombers, and nuclear subs it seems like we could do without carriers and in fact increase our striking power. And certainly we could do without a dozen of them (maybe you keep a small force for areas with no basing or to reinforce certain areas).

    The program cost of $37 billion would (allegedly) pay for 72 B-21 Raiders for instance.

    Honestly the best use I can think of for a carrier is convoy defense, but even then continuous convoy coverage by land-based aircraft might be feasible.

    Having said that, the situation is worse then you think. Our carriers only carry about half the aircraft they're capable of, largely because the navy is obsessed with hulls (and, by extension, having as many flag officer ranks as possible). The range of the Super Hornet is quite short, and carriers have very limited aerial refueling capability. So to get carrier-borne aircraft within striking range of hostile airspace, Air Force or allied tankers are needed anyway.

    The whole thing is a joke.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @songbird
    Interesting. Maybe, I'm too US-centric in my thinking but I always thought of the Saudi moves as a strategy to destroy fracking in the US, not something in anyway aimed against Iran, a country that they compete against through proxy wars and buying influence abroad.

    I think you’re correct.

    This was a period of thawing relations between Russia and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia purchased some weapons from Russia, and it seems like they together attempted to destroy our fracking industry. Putin also intervened to help save the military dictatorship in Egypt, likely as a friendly gesture to the Saudis. Saudi Arabia also allegedly attempted to bribe Russia into abandoning the Assman in exchange for massive imports of Russian weapons and the creation of a Russian-Saudi global energy cartel.

    Honestly that sounds like a pretty swell deal, but I can understand why the Russians didn’t bite (if it’s true).

    Nobody can stop Harold Hamm. :)

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird

    Nobody can stop Harold Hamm.
     
    I'm thinking he may have been driven by puns of his name.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Sean says:
    @songbird
    Interesting. Maybe, I'm too US-centric in my thinking but I always thought of the Saudi moves as a strategy to destroy fracking in the US, not something in anyway aimed against Iran, a country that they compete against through proxy wars and buying influence abroad.

    Destroying Russia’s so called ally Iran will reinvigorate Russia. According to Micheal Stuermer, in 1985 Saddam’s Iraq looked as if it was about to lose the war with Iran, so Saudi Arabia drove the oil price down and Iran suddenly bereft of hard currency, had to come to terms. This is a rerun, the Saudis fear Iran, and Saudi action to weaken Iran is the key to understanding oil prices. The Saudi action to weaken Iran in 1985 was a terminally catastrophic for the Soviet Union, Without Iran to worry about the Saudis will reduce supplyand prices will go up all across the globe. Russia on a rising oil price high will be like the protagonist of Crank 2 getting tasered.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    The 85-86 oil price collapse was certainly negative for the USSR, but "terminally catastrophic" is an exaggeration.

    The root of the problem was that the USSR had to pay for grain imports. I can think of many ways it could've solved that problem:

    • Rationing and/or substitution
    • A reduction in other imports (USSR was a major importer of capital goods)
    • Increase in prices of exports, including oil, to COMECON countries
    • Agricultural reform (e.g. Hungarian model)
    • Reduction of the bloated foreign aid budget
    • Increase non-oil exports

    Soviet collapse is complex but ultimately down to a loss of morale.

    Saudi Arabia can't control the oil price anymore. It is not able to cut its production very much owing to its budget situation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. songbird says:
    @Talha
    I think Pakistan should be kept in mind when thinking about military spending. It has basically achieved fairly reasonable deterrence capability within $10 billion a year - not bad.

    Nobody wants to invade it.

    Now it also helps to keep your nation not worth the price of attacking in the first place.

    "We will stop you at the beaches of Karachi for the land of the chapli kabab shall not falter!"

    Peace.

    Pakistan is in a sort of happy geographic position, IMO. Some people would laugh at me now – being right next door to Afghanistan has its drawbacks. But the only regional power they are concerned with is India. Meanwhile, India is concerned with Pakistan and China, but Pakistan is far enough away from China not to feel threatened by them.

    Then there is the additional element of India being a very fractious country.

    Of course, all that is probably superfluous because of nukes, which is why I’ve never felt threatened by NK having them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    I agree, Pakistan is in a fortuitous area - after all the Indus Valley civilization didn't pop up there for no reason. To a certain degree, it is an extension of Persianate (influenced by Turkic) culture also of Afghan culture - it's like those two got married and had a kid named Pakistan that was fostered by India for a while until it grew up. That area was always a staging area for Persian or Turkic invasions into deeper Indian territory until they finally went full gusto.

    Pakistan is protected from China by large mountains which helps immensely. It also helps that they have reasons for regional cooperation.

    Nukes are certainly extremely helpful for deterrence, but even without them Pakistan has been able to make someone think twice about the cost of invading it (which is all you really need unless you have imperial designs which Pakistan does not - the only issue I ever see coming up is supporting Kashmir in its bid for independence - and that deterrence has been achieved fairly on the cheap.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. songbird says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    I think you're correct.

    This was a period of thawing relations between Russia and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia purchased some weapons from Russia, and it seems like they together attempted to destroy our fracking industry. Putin also intervened to help save the military dictatorship in Egypt, likely as a friendly gesture to the Saudis. Saudi Arabia also allegedly attempted to bribe Russia into abandoning the Assman in exchange for massive imports of Russian weapons and the creation of a Russian-Saudi global energy cartel.

    Honestly that sounds like a pretty swell deal, but I can understand why the Russians didn't bite (if it's true).

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Harold_Hamm_2012_Shankbone.JPG

    Nobody can stop Harold Hamm. :)

    Nobody can stop Harold Hamm.

    I’m thinking he may have been driven by puns of his name.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @songbird
    The sad thing is that the Ford probably cost significantly more than $13 billion.

    There were about $4 billion in research costs. Additional billions to train the crew. Do they even count the planes? How much if you amoritized the research on the planes into the pricetag?

    I think you are looking at at least $20 billion, and how much does it cost to sink? Most likely, a lot less. And China has achieved basic economic parity, so what you are left with is the ability to intimidate third world countries. Not particularly useful, at that price.

    The program cost is apparently $37 billion.

    Subsequent ships in the class will not cost $13 billion.

    Bottom line is it was very stupid to start building the ship before its advanced electromagnetic systems were proven to work.

    Carrier airwings are accounted for separately, but that’s fair imo as they can operate from land bases as well. No new aircraft were developed for the Ford-class so it definitely wouldn’t be reasonable to include that in the price.

    I think you are looking at at least $20 billion, and how much does it cost to sink? Most likely, a lot less. And China has achieved basic economic parity, so what you are left with is the ability to intimidate third world countries. Not particularly useful, at that price.

    I don’t think this is a fair way to think about it, as carriers can do things that carrier-killers can’t. A infantry squad can for instance destroy a tank for less than it costs to build a tank, but you still build tanks for some very good reasons.

    Now whether or not it’s a good idea to keep building carriers I am not entirely sure. In light of our global network of bases, tankers, heavy bombers, and nuclear subs it seems like we could do without carriers and in fact increase our striking power. And certainly we could do without a dozen of them (maybe you keep a small force for areas with no basing or to reinforce certain areas).

    The program cost of $37 billion would (allegedly) pay for 72 B-21 Raiders for instance.

    Honestly the best use I can think of for a carrier is convoy defense, but even then continuous convoy coverage by land-based aircraft might be feasible.

    Having said that, the situation is worse then you think. Our carriers only carry about half the aircraft they’re capable of, largely because the navy is obsessed with hulls (and, by extension, having as many flag officer ranks as possible). The range of the Super Hornet is quite short, and carriers have very limited aerial refueling capability. So to get carrier-borne aircraft within striking range of hostile airspace, Air Force or allied tankers are needed anyway.

    The whole thing is a joke.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. songbird says:

    China and Saudi Arabia probably spend a lot on internal security.

    Read More
    • Agree: Talha
    • Replies: @Duke of Qin
    Chinese domestic security spending is actually quite low. This is one of the "Great Lies" oft repeated by the usual Liberast media that is repeated ad infinitum until it is accepted as gospel truth. Chinese defense spending as a percentage of GDP is lower than "domestic security" but that is not because Chinese "domestic security" is excessive, but rather China's spends on defense like a complacent Western European state. Chinese GDP in 2017 was 82.7 trillion yuan with government revenues around 17.5 trillion and expenditures at 20.5. Announced defense spending for 2018 was only 1.11 trillion yuan. Not even 5.5% of total government expenditures and only 1.35% of GDP. As a proportion of total GDP and total government expenditures, China is officially spending like Canada or Portugal. Even using the SIPRI pulled out of ass numbers only raises Chinese defense spending to that of France.

    The thing with so-called Chinese "domestic security" spending is that it really is a catch all super category that accounts for numerous budgets. For example, it includes the national, provincial, and local police, procuratorate and court system, prison system, customs/immigration, border security, disaster relief, fire fighting, forestry, mines and dams, and the people's armed police (Gendarmerie, aka the crackdown). To make China seem like a police state, this mass catch all category is usually only compared to US police spending alone which is usually cited as approximately 160 billion or so. This is an apples, pineapples, coconuts, mangoes, oranges, bananas, pears, and oranges to apples alone comparison. The US has about 1 million uniformed police officers compared to China's roughly 1.6 despite the latter having more than 4x the population. More than that though, that 160 billion or so basically only covers federal, state, and local police and doesn't even begin to touch all the spending for the US court system and the US prison system (Prison spending alone is another 80 billion USD per year) let alone all the other categories such as the National Guard which is in the US defense budget. If anything China is under policed, with basically twice as many cops as Russia but 10x the population.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Sean
    Destroying Russia's so called ally Iran will reinvigorate Russia. According to Micheal Stuermer, in 1985 Saddam's Iraq looked as if it was about to lose the war with Iran, so Saudi Arabia drove the oil price down and Iran suddenly bereft of hard currency, had to come to terms. This is a rerun, the Saudis fear Iran, and Saudi action to weaken Iran is the key to understanding oil prices. The Saudi action to weaken Iran in 1985 was a terminally catastrophic for the Soviet Union, Without Iran to worry about the Saudis will reduce supplyand prices will go up all across the globe. Russia on a rising oil price high will be like the protagonist of Crank 2 getting tasered.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWfgtDh4T0c&t=0m40s

    The 85-86 oil price collapse was certainly negative for the USSR, but “terminally catastrophic” is an exaggeration.

    The root of the problem was that the USSR had to pay for grain imports. I can think of many ways it could’ve solved that problem:

    • Rationing and/or substitution
    • A reduction in other imports (USSR was a major importer of capital goods)
    • Increase in prices of exports, including oil, to COMECON countries
    • Agricultural reform (e.g. Hungarian model)
    • Reduction of the bloated foreign aid budget
    • Increase non-oil exports

    Soviet collapse is complex but ultimately down to a loss of morale.

    Saudi Arabia can’t control the oil price anymore. It is not able to cut its production very much owing to its budget situation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Mearsheimer Tragedy :-

    Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov was dismissed as the chief of the Soviet general staff in the summer of 1984 for saying publicly that Soviet industry was falling badly behind American industry, which meant that Soviet weaponry would soon be inferior to American weaponry. Soviet leaders recognized the gravity of the situation ..
     
    I agree "the Soviet collapse is complex but ultimately down to a loss of morale". nevertheless, money rolling in from oil would have helped everyone's morale, including the military industrial complex when they got resources to keep up with the US. Ordinary Russians' pride in the country being seen as a formidable superpower is important.


    The Saudis fear for the security of their realm at the hands of an Iranian backed fifth column, so not only will the primacy of foreign policy dictate weakening Iran abroad, holding onto power domestically will too. They will have to continue to drive down oil to weaken Iran and Saudi will run it into the ground as soon as CO2 fracking becomes feasible

    , @Pharmakon
    "Soviet collapse is complex but ultimately down to a loss of morale."

    Having lived through those times in the Eastern Block, I cannot agree more. The so called "collapse" took place, mainly, in the psychological plane. Oil crises, military spending, etc. did not have a whole lot to do with the socialist system's internally-directed breakdown (materially speaking, most people were quite well off during the end of the 80's). Our elites simply believed that they could be a part of the boys' club (they were wrong, their allocated place was with the servants) and the rest is history..
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Talha says:
    @songbird
    Pakistan is in a sort of happy geographic position, IMO. Some people would laugh at me now - being right next door to Afghanistan has its drawbacks. But the only regional power they are concerned with is India. Meanwhile, India is concerned with Pakistan and China, but Pakistan is far enough away from China not to feel threatened by them.

    Then there is the additional element of India being a very fractious country.

    Of course, all that is probably superfluous because of nukes, which is why I've never felt threatened by NK having them.

    I agree, Pakistan is in a fortuitous area – after all the Indus Valley civilization didn’t pop up there for no reason. To a certain degree, it is an extension of Persianate (influenced by Turkic) culture also of Afghan culture – it’s like those two got married and had a kid named Pakistan that was fostered by India for a while until it grew up. That area was always a staging area for Persian or Turkic invasions into deeper Indian territory until they finally went full gusto.

    Pakistan is protected from China by large mountains which helps immensely. It also helps that they have reasons for regional cooperation.

    Nukes are certainly extremely helpful for deterrence, but even without them Pakistan has been able to make someone think twice about the cost of invading it (which is all you really need unless you have imperial designs which Pakistan does not – the only issue I ever see coming up is supporting Kashmir in its bid for independence – and that deterrence has been achieved fairly on the cheap.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Pakistan is protected from China by the fact that both are natural enemies of India. China gave Pakistan parts of a Chinese missile to copy and maybe some indirect help with nuke warhead development
    , @Singh
    Afghan culture – it’s like those two got married and had a kid -

    But, Pakistanis only marry their relatives।।
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. songbird says:

    Any realistic military index should also include:
    1.) average national IQ (China strength, Saudi weakness)
    2.) amount of diversity (diversity=weakness)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Unless you're modelling a long war neither are actually appropriate.

    What's relevant is the human capital and morale of the armed forces itself, and perhaps relevant political leadership (head of gov't, war ministry officials, etc.).

    If you're modelling a long war or comprehensive national power (the concept, not the Chinese scale) both are appropriate.

    Now I very much doubt that Saudi pilots are chosen on merit, but let's say they are. I'm sure the Kingdom could at least find a few hundred people capable of being talented pilots and send them off for training in the West.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @songbird
    Any realistic military index should also include:
    1.) average national IQ (China strength, Saudi weakness)
    2.) amount of diversity (diversity=weakness)

    Unless you’re modelling a long war neither are actually appropriate.

    What’s relevant is the human capital and morale of the armed forces itself, and perhaps relevant political leadership (head of gov’t, war ministry officials, etc.).

    If you’re modelling a long war or comprehensive national power (the concept, not the Chinese scale) both are appropriate.

    Now I very much doubt that Saudi pilots are chosen on merit, but let’s say they are. I’m sure the Kingdom could at least find a few hundred people capable of being talented pilots and send them off for training in the West.

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird
    With regard to Saudi Arabia, pilots were actually my primary concern. Word of mouth says Saudi Arabia has long had a significant problem in this area. Maybe that is reduced with automation - I don't know.

    With regard to diversity, I knew an older guy who was under the impression that blacks had saved his life because he was drafted during Vietnam but kept in the States, in order to help safeguard against any potential unrest. China has long written off India as a serious threat because of this issue.

    But diversity also effects unit morale. Maybe, you can guard against this by keeping units unmixed, but political forces drive mixing them. I'm guessing the US has lower morale than China, with its gender neutral bathrooms, weirdos in uniform, and affirmative action promotions. Diversity lowers the IQ of your leadership.

    Then there's espionage. China has a lot of spies in the West tied by blood. The reverse is absolutely not true. They range from low level to high tech. Technological parity/superiority helps determine the length of your war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. songbird says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    Unless you're modelling a long war neither are actually appropriate.

    What's relevant is the human capital and morale of the armed forces itself, and perhaps relevant political leadership (head of gov't, war ministry officials, etc.).

    If you're modelling a long war or comprehensive national power (the concept, not the Chinese scale) both are appropriate.

    Now I very much doubt that Saudi pilots are chosen on merit, but let's say they are. I'm sure the Kingdom could at least find a few hundred people capable of being talented pilots and send them off for training in the West.

    With regard to Saudi Arabia, pilots were actually my primary concern. Word of mouth says Saudi Arabia has long had a significant problem in this area. Maybe that is reduced with automation – I don’t know.

    With regard to diversity, I knew an older guy who was under the impression that blacks had saved his life because he was drafted during Vietnam but kept in the States, in order to help safeguard against any potential unrest. China has long written off India as a serious threat because of this issue.

    But diversity also effects unit morale. Maybe, you can guard against this by keeping units unmixed, but political forces drive mixing them. I’m guessing the US has lower morale than China, with its gender neutral bathrooms, weirdos in uniform, and affirmative action promotions. Diversity lowers the IQ of your leadership.

    Then there’s espionage. China has a lot of spies in the West tied by blood. The reverse is absolutely not true. They range from low level to high tech. Technological parity/superiority helps determine the length of your war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    Word of mouth says Saudi Arabia has long had a significant problem in this area.
     
    Yes, but they can always get Pakistani pilots on loan - as they have before. It may be possible that they might even be able to get Turkish pilots. Or even mercenaries from either nation. They can do a lot with the money they have to throw around.

    I have read of a quid pro-quo between Pakistan and Saudi and a couple of other Gulf nations; they will support Pakistan financially in the case of any war with India (this can be huge if Pakistan is allowed to borrow Saudi jets) and Pakistan's nukes are thus made available to them to ensure survival of their states.

    Peace.
    , @Thorfinnsson
    I meant to address diversity but forgot to do so.

    Diversity is generally negative, but it can be managed via segregation. This is no longer used in Western militaries of course, but it had a good historical record.

    I'm not sure how the Indian armed forces are organized with regard to the issue. Probably they are also not segregated as the founding fathers of the Republic of India were pozzed faggots.

    Diversity of course is also an espionage issue, but it's not the only one. There are probably pozzed faggots embedded in Chinese state, party, and military structures who would be willing to betray their motherland for instance. Or, knowing the Chinese, for cash.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Sean says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    More on why this is absolute garbage.

    Oil prices were also low for the entire century preceding the First Energy Crisis.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Crude_oil_prices_since_1861.png

    Oil also lacked any strategic importance until the Royal Navy adopted it as a fuel source, as motorization was not significant anywhere outside of the United States until the 1920s. Initially the main purpose of oil was to refine kerosene to run lamps, which replaced whale oil.

    During that time we saw the following actual Russian aggression:

    • Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78
    • Conquest and annexation of Central Asia
    • The "Great Game" played with Great Britain
    • Russia turning Manchuria into a protectorate and subsequent political penetration of Korea
    • Mobilization in support of Serbian terrorism in 1914, leading to World War I
    • Bolshevik (re)conquest of most of the former Russian Empire less Finland and the Baltics
    • Polish-Soviet War
    • Sino-Soviet Conflict of 1929 (sort of)
    • Soviet intervention in the Spanish Civil War, including the cartoonish robbery of Spain's gold reserves
    • Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
    • Winter War
    • Annexation of the Baltic States and Bessarabia
    • Ethnic cleansing and annexation of Konigsberg
    • Operation August Storm
    • Annexation of North Sakhalin and the Kuriles
    • Berlin Blockade
    • Turning more or less all of Eastern Europe into a gigantic concentration camp
    • Cuban Missile Crisis
    • Whatever shit the USSR pulled in the Turd World up through 1973 (who cares)

    Strange how the gas station with nukes was so aggressive during the century of falling oil prices.

    The Gorbachev period should rather be understood as a special period in Soviet history, and given that the oil price didn't collapse until 85-86 it couldn't have had anything to do with Gorbachev's appointment as dictator.

    Land was power for the early part of that period, and Russia was growing prodigiously in territory. Then the French loaned them massive amount of money to build (mainly military-purpose) railways, to the extent that the most influential, preWW1 German foreign policy statesman wondered whether it was worth planting trees on his estate as “the Russians will be here in a few years”.

    The pre (WW2) war incorporation of the Baltic states and a bit of Finland was a drain on Soviet Russia that was imposed by Germany. Stalin was probably planning to grab the oil of Romania once the capitalists were exhausted fighting each other in the war Stalin had facilitated (the Soviet border with Romania was where where the strongest Soviet forces were encountered during the early part of Barbarossa). Hitler was obsessed with grabbing and hold every kind of resource but especially oi– Operation Edelweiss was aimed at Baku.

    Russian fear of Eisenhower and then JFK’s plan to let Germany have some say in the use of Nato Nukes (so US taxpayers didn’t have to pay for everything) was responsible for the crisises of the Cold War. But Soviet Russia ultimately backed down in those confrontations

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_governor

    I think countries are a bit like endurance athletes inasmuch they instinctively down-regulate massively when their wherewithal begins to fall even slightly. Just a slight fall in energy is enough to make you feel overwhelmingly tired during a marathon say, but a little candy is enough to get let you go on, even though the candy is trivial in calorie terms and the actual balance is extremely negative. The feeling that power is increasing stokes you to perform extraordinary exploits. Or try to like Mikheil Saakashvili, whose country had some oil money I believe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Stalin didn't seize Rumania's oil fields when he had the opportunity to do so, nor did his successors.

    The Ecommunist article is simply rubbish.
    , @Sean
    Hitler with extra oil was much more dangerous. Stalin did not understand the effect of sending Soviet oil to Nazi Germany right up to the begining of Barbarossa, eh?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Sean says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    The 85-86 oil price collapse was certainly negative for the USSR, but "terminally catastrophic" is an exaggeration.

    The root of the problem was that the USSR had to pay for grain imports. I can think of many ways it could've solved that problem:

    • Rationing and/or substitution
    • A reduction in other imports (USSR was a major importer of capital goods)
    • Increase in prices of exports, including oil, to COMECON countries
    • Agricultural reform (e.g. Hungarian model)
    • Reduction of the bloated foreign aid budget
    • Increase non-oil exports

    Soviet collapse is complex but ultimately down to a loss of morale.

    Saudi Arabia can't control the oil price anymore. It is not able to cut its production very much owing to its budget situation.

    Mearsheimer Tragedy :-

    Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov was dismissed as the chief of the Soviet general staff in the summer of 1984 for saying publicly that Soviet industry was falling badly behind American industry, which meant that Soviet weaponry would soon be inferior to American weaponry. Soviet leaders recognized the gravity of the situation ..

    I agree “the Soviet collapse is complex but ultimately down to a loss of morale”. nevertheless, money rolling in from oil would have helped everyone’s morale, including the military industrial complex when they got resources to keep up with the US. Ordinary Russians’ pride in the country being seen as a formidable superpower is important.

    The Saudis fear for the security of their realm at the hands of an Iranian backed fifth column, so not only will the primacy of foreign policy dictate weakening Iran abroad, holding onto power domestically will too. They will have to continue to drive down oil to weaken Iran and Saudi will run it into the ground as soon as CO2 fracking becomes feasible

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    The Soviet rouble was not convertible. Soviet oil exports paid for imports, not the Soviet military-industrial complex which was nearly completely self-sufficient.

    Main Soviet imports from capitalist countries were capital goods and grain, with the grain largely used to feed livestock.

    Gorbachev was selected prior to the oil price collapse and had already decided on reform even before coming to power.

    I'm highly skeptical of Saudi Arabia's ability to increase oil production further without new discoveries.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. neutral says:

    Thats a logarithmic graph, better would be to show the real difference in spending to show how absurd the US spending is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    No, because my aim is not to make some propaganda point about US militarism (you have Sputnik and RT and dozens of alt sites for that), but concisely display how spending trends in some of the Great Powers stack up to each other.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @Thorfinnsson
    Oil is very important to Russia, but let's not exaggerate. The country is as about as oil dependent as Norway, and unlike the USSR it is self-sufficient in agriculture (actually a major exporter). Unlike the USSR, the Russian Federation also doesn't have to provide oil to a network of client states at below world market prices (it has done so by choice in some cases, but it amounts to far less oil).

    There are a number of other problems with this article. Putin indeed did try to integrate with the West, only to be rewarded with W scrapping the ABM Treaty in 2002.

    The article then repeats the outright lie that Russia invaded Georgia, when in fact Georgia invaded South Ossetia.

    The reset went sour over America's bizarre hatred of the Assman and Victoria Jewland launching a coup d'etat in the Ukraine.

    And incidentally, oil prices have been low since 2014. Since then we've seen endless Russian "aggression" in the Ukraine and Syria, no?

    Typical trash propaganda from the Ecommunist.

    I would also suggest that oil might not be such a good thing for Russia as it serves as a disincentive to develop other globally competitive industries. Norway, while a lot wealthier than Russia per capita, is noteworthy in that its only other globally competitive industries are shipping, fishing, and aquaculture. Canada and Australia are if anything even worse than that, though Canada has a growing tech sector (which outrages me).

    Canada has a growing tech sector (which outrages me).

    Because Canada is one of your countries that shouldn’t exist?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    While it is of course objectively correct that Canada should not exist, a fact that cannot be disputed by anyone, that is not the problem here.

    The reason is that Canada's economy is supposed to be based on lumber, oil, "hydro", wheat, and maple syrup.

    The newfangled existence of a high tech sector in Canada is objectionable.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Sean says:
    @Talha
    I agree, Pakistan is in a fortuitous area - after all the Indus Valley civilization didn't pop up there for no reason. To a certain degree, it is an extension of Persianate (influenced by Turkic) culture also of Afghan culture - it's like those two got married and had a kid named Pakistan that was fostered by India for a while until it grew up. That area was always a staging area for Persian or Turkic invasions into deeper Indian territory until they finally went full gusto.

    Pakistan is protected from China by large mountains which helps immensely. It also helps that they have reasons for regional cooperation.

    Nukes are certainly extremely helpful for deterrence, but even without them Pakistan has been able to make someone think twice about the cost of invading it (which is all you really need unless you have imperial designs which Pakistan does not - the only issue I ever see coming up is supporting Kashmir in its bid for independence - and that deterrence has been achieved fairly on the cheap.

    Peace.

    Pakistan is protected from China by the fact that both are natural enemies of India. China gave Pakistan parts of a Chinese missile to copy and maybe some indirect help with nuke warhead development

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    They've also jointly developed tanks and aircraft.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Talha says:
    @songbird
    With regard to Saudi Arabia, pilots were actually my primary concern. Word of mouth says Saudi Arabia has long had a significant problem in this area. Maybe that is reduced with automation - I don't know.

    With regard to diversity, I knew an older guy who was under the impression that blacks had saved his life because he was drafted during Vietnam but kept in the States, in order to help safeguard against any potential unrest. China has long written off India as a serious threat because of this issue.

    But diversity also effects unit morale. Maybe, you can guard against this by keeping units unmixed, but political forces drive mixing them. I'm guessing the US has lower morale than China, with its gender neutral bathrooms, weirdos in uniform, and affirmative action promotions. Diversity lowers the IQ of your leadership.

    Then there's espionage. China has a lot of spies in the West tied by blood. The reverse is absolutely not true. They range from low level to high tech. Technological parity/superiority helps determine the length of your war.

    Word of mouth says Saudi Arabia has long had a significant problem in this area.

    Yes, but they can always get Pakistani pilots on loan – as they have before. It may be possible that they might even be able to get Turkish pilots. Or even mercenaries from either nation. They can do a lot with the money they have to throw around.

    I have read of a quid pro-quo between Pakistan and Saudi and a couple of other Gulf nations; they will support Pakistan financially in the case of any war with India (this can be huge if Pakistan is allowed to borrow Saudi jets) and Pakistan’s nukes are thus made available to them to ensure survival of their states.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Talha says:
    @Sean
    Pakistan is protected from China by the fact that both are natural enemies of India. China gave Pakistan parts of a Chinese missile to copy and maybe some indirect help with nuke warhead development

    They’ve also jointly developed tanks and aircraft.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Dmitry says:

    With $66.3 billion military budget in 2017 – Russia’s military expenditure has increased by 87.2% comparing to 2007 SIPRI data.

    87.2% increase in the size of military expenditure over 10 years, is nothing minor – even if it has fallen from 2016 peak.

    (Ok this 87.2% increase is not factoring inflation – but even after it will be a very significant increase).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gerard2

    With $66.3 billion military budget in 2017 – Russia’s military expenditure has increased by 87.2% comparing to 2007 SIPRI data.
     
    Dollar:Rouble price massively changed in the last 3 years, 2007 is pre-financial crash data ( many western countries are still either only slightly ahead of their GDP level then or not even reached it at all)....plus the war against Georgia and greater and quicker development /application of military tech research back into the civilian sector than before...........this sugests to me not a big deal, and all mainly because of the rouble devaluation
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @songbird
    With regard to Saudi Arabia, pilots were actually my primary concern. Word of mouth says Saudi Arabia has long had a significant problem in this area. Maybe that is reduced with automation - I don't know.

    With regard to diversity, I knew an older guy who was under the impression that blacks had saved his life because he was drafted during Vietnam but kept in the States, in order to help safeguard against any potential unrest. China has long written off India as a serious threat because of this issue.

    But diversity also effects unit morale. Maybe, you can guard against this by keeping units unmixed, but political forces drive mixing them. I'm guessing the US has lower morale than China, with its gender neutral bathrooms, weirdos in uniform, and affirmative action promotions. Diversity lowers the IQ of your leadership.

    Then there's espionage. China has a lot of spies in the West tied by blood. The reverse is absolutely not true. They range from low level to high tech. Technological parity/superiority helps determine the length of your war.

    I meant to address diversity but forgot to do so.

    Diversity is generally negative, but it can be managed via segregation. This is no longer used in Western militaries of course, but it had a good historical record.

    I’m not sure how the Indian armed forces are organized with regard to the issue. Probably they are also not segregated as the founding fathers of the Republic of India were pozzed faggots.

    Diversity of course is also an espionage issue, but it’s not the only one. There are probably pozzed faggots embedded in Chinese state, party, and military structures who would be willing to betray their motherland for instance. Or, knowing the Chinese, for cash.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @Sean
    Land was power for the early part of that period, and Russia was growing prodigiously in territory. Then the French loaned them massive amount of money to build (mainly military-purpose) railways, to the extent that the most influential, preWW1 German foreign policy statesman wondered whether it was worth planting trees on his estate as "the Russians will be here in a few years".


    The pre (WW2) war incorporation of the Baltic states and a bit of Finland was a drain on Soviet Russia that was imposed by Germany. Stalin was probably planning to grab the oil of Romania once the capitalists were exhausted fighting each other in the war Stalin had facilitated (the Soviet border with Romania was where where the strongest Soviet forces were encountered during the early part of Barbarossa). Hitler was obsessed with grabbing and hold every kind of resource but especially oi-- Operation Edelweiss was aimed at Baku.

    Russian fear of Eisenhower and then JFK's plan to let Germany have some say in the use of Nato Nukes (so US taxpayers didn't have to pay for everything) was responsible for the crisises of the Cold War. But Soviet Russia ultimately backed down in those confrontations

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_governor

    I think countries are a bit like endurance athletes inasmuch they instinctively down-regulate massively when their wherewithal begins to fall even slightly. Just a slight fall in energy is enough to make you feel overwhelmingly tired during a marathon say, but a little candy is enough to get let you go on, even though the candy is trivial in calorie terms and the actual balance is extremely negative. The feeling that power is increasing stokes you to perform extraordinary exploits. Or try to like Mikheil Saakashvili, whose country had some oil money I believe.

    Stalin didn’t seize Rumania’s oil fields when he had the opportunity to do so, nor did his successors.

    The Ecommunist article is simply rubbish.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @for-the-record
    Canada has a growing tech sector (which outrages me).

    Because Canada is one of your countries that shouldn't exist?

    While it is of course objectively correct that Canada should not exist, a fact that cannot be disputed by anyone, that is not the problem here.

    The reason is that Canada’s economy is supposed to be based on lumber, oil, “hydro”, wheat, and maple syrup.

    The newfangled existence of a high tech sector in Canada is objectionable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @Sean
    Mearsheimer Tragedy :-

    Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov was dismissed as the chief of the Soviet general staff in the summer of 1984 for saying publicly that Soviet industry was falling badly behind American industry, which meant that Soviet weaponry would soon be inferior to American weaponry. Soviet leaders recognized the gravity of the situation ..
     
    I agree "the Soviet collapse is complex but ultimately down to a loss of morale". nevertheless, money rolling in from oil would have helped everyone's morale, including the military industrial complex when they got resources to keep up with the US. Ordinary Russians' pride in the country being seen as a formidable superpower is important.


    The Saudis fear for the security of their realm at the hands of an Iranian backed fifth column, so not only will the primacy of foreign policy dictate weakening Iran abroad, holding onto power domestically will too. They will have to continue to drive down oil to weaken Iran and Saudi will run it into the ground as soon as CO2 fracking becomes feasible

    The Soviet rouble was not convertible. Soviet oil exports paid for imports, not the Soviet military-industrial complex which was nearly completely self-sufficient.

    Main Soviet imports from capitalist countries were capital goods and grain, with the grain largely used to feed livestock.

    Gorbachev was selected prior to the oil price collapse and had already decided on reform even before coming to power.

    I’m highly skeptical of Saudi Arabia’s ability to increase oil production further without new discoveries.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2008/12/a-strong-line-required/

    Russia is also a country that labours under the curse of oil. Stuermer rightly emphasises repeatedly how intimately Russia's international power and the stability of her governments are entwined with the price of oil and gas
     

    Stuermer has spoken with Putin about these issues repeatedly and he says Putin's objective is a Russian led international energy order with moderately high prices.
    Gazprom has not been included in the sanctions because the West (Germany) needs those supplies. Putin's Nord Stream 2 pipeline is being built to make sure it gets them, come what may. Putin aganda would seem to preculde him supporting Iran. Now that the they are no longer needed in Syria.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @neutral
    Thats a logarithmic graph, better would be to show the real difference in spending to show how absurd the US spending is.

    No, because my aim is not to make some propaganda point about US militarism (you have Sputnik and RT and dozens of alt sites for that), but concisely display how spending trends in some of the Great Powers stack up to each other.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. songbird says:

    Yes, but they can always get Pakistani pilots on loan – as they have before.

    That is a good point. There is a certain cohesiveness to the Islamic world that is severely lacking in the secularized West, and in many other areas (like East Asia) filled with local antagonisms. Of course, that is a double edged sword with the Sunni-Shia split creating proxy wars.

    Meanwhile, there is a certain strength beyond dollar numbers in being a juggernaut like China or India, or in having your own oil reserves like Saudi Arabia and Russia. It seems as though there is factor piled on factor, and the dollar numbers only give a very rough idea. For instance, I personally would much rather take on Saudi Arabia than Iran, even though Iran is nowhere on the graph.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson


    There is a certain cohesiveness to the Islamic world that is severely lacking in the secularized West
     
    The West at the moment appears to be more cohesive and unified than it has ever been before in our history.

    Unfortunately what we are united on is nearly all bad, whereas many past instances of Western unity have been very good.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @songbird
    China and Saudi Arabia probably spend a lot on internal security.

    Chinese domestic security spending is actually quite low. This is one of the “Great Lies” oft repeated by the usual Liberast media that is repeated ad infinitum until it is accepted as gospel truth. Chinese defense spending as a percentage of GDP is lower than “domestic security” but that is not because Chinese “domestic security” is excessive, but rather China’s spends on defense like a complacent Western European state. Chinese GDP in 2017 was 82.7 trillion yuan with government revenues around 17.5 trillion and expenditures at 20.5. Announced defense spending for 2018 was only 1.11 trillion yuan. Not even 5.5% of total government expenditures and only 1.35% of GDP. As a proportion of total GDP and total government expenditures, China is officially spending like Canada or Portugal. Even using the SIPRI pulled out of ass numbers only raises Chinese defense spending to that of France.

    The thing with so-called Chinese “domestic security” spending is that it really is a catch all super category that accounts for numerous budgets. For example, it includes the national, provincial, and local police, procuratorate and court system, prison system, customs/immigration, border security, disaster relief, fire fighting, forestry, mines and dams, and the people’s armed police (Gendarmerie, aka the crackdown). To make China seem like a police state, this mass catch all category is usually only compared to US police spending alone which is usually cited as approximately 160 billion or so. This is an apples, pineapples, coconuts, mangoes, oranges, bananas, pears, and oranges to apples alone comparison. The US has about 1 million uniformed police officers compared to China’s roughly 1.6 despite the latter having more than 4x the population. More than that though, that 160 billion or so basically only covers federal, state, and local police and doesn’t even begin to touch all the spending for the US court system and the US prison system (Prison spending alone is another 80 billion USD per year) let alone all the other categories such as the National Guard which is in the US defense budget. If anything China is under policed, with basically twice as many cops as Russia but 10x the population.

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird
    The way it is usually presented by the opposition media (ethnic Chinese living overseas), is that Xianjing and Tibet are really expensive to control and that, if you could somehow visit those regions you would see a very great presence of security officers on the street. Some really crazy ratio, like, perhaps even 1:10.

    I've always been suspicious of the general idea. If it is ethnic tensions, Han seem so much more numerous than Uighurs or Tibetans, that I don't think it would cut into the GDP. I also don't believe you'd need such a high ratio for law and order. Besides, which, India would probably be more of a powderkeg-type environment than China.

    However, the one example that is called to mind is East Germany. The communist regimes in Eastern Europe were pretty obscurantist when it came to their budgets. The East German state spent a truly massive amount on internal security. I once read a fairly fat book about the German-German border. It came out in the '80s, before the Wall fell, and there wasn't even the slightest mention of cost, which leads me to believe it was successfully obscured.

    I'd guess the Chinese border doesn't require the same level of security, but that still leaves the internal component. Still dubious, but, as far as I know, a tourist can't easily travel to those places, which naturally invites a certain amount of suspicion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @songbird

    Yes, but they can always get Pakistani pilots on loan – as they have before.
     
    That is a good point. There is a certain cohesiveness to the Islamic world that is severely lacking in the secularized West, and in many other areas (like East Asia) filled with local antagonisms. Of course, that is a double edged sword with the Sunni-Shia split creating proxy wars.

    Meanwhile, there is a certain strength beyond dollar numbers in being a juggernaut like China or India, or in having your own oil reserves like Saudi Arabia and Russia. It seems as though there is factor piled on factor, and the dollar numbers only give a very rough idea. For instance, I personally would much rather take on Saudi Arabia than Iran, even though Iran is nowhere on the graph.

    There is a certain cohesiveness to the Islamic world that is severely lacking in the secularized West

    The West at the moment appears to be more cohesive and unified than it has ever been before in our history.

    Unfortunately what we are united on is nearly all bad, whereas many past instances of Western unity have been very good.

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird

    The West at the moment appears to be more cohesive and unified than it has ever been before in our history.
     
    I view it more as a formlessness, but you are quite right, the political class are united in a way they arguably never were before. One malign example being the EU; another, likely NATO. Foreign aid may be another indicator.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Talha says:

    For instance, I personally would much rather take on Saudi Arabia than Iran, even though Iran is nowhere on the graph.

    I would too if the Saudis were all you had to worry about – I don’t believe they are that solid. If they were, they wouldn’t have had to invite like a gazillion foreign troops when they were afraid Saddam might invade after Kuwait. Again, if you have read the public statements from Pakistani officials, they consider Saudi to be a very strong ally:
    “‘The Pakistan Army holds defence of the KSA at par with its own,’ General Qamar told Saudi Envoy to Pakistan Abdullah Marzouk Al-Zahrani, who met the army chief at the General Headquarters (GHQ) in Rawalpindi on Friday, according to the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR).”

    https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2017/01/21/saudi-defence-at-par-with-our-own-gen-bajwa/

    This goes way back to King Faisal’s time when Saudi was much less in the hands of crazies. It is a very strategic alliance and one that could bear fruit if the Saudis weren’t constantly doing stupid things. I believe it was the advice of Turkey (which Pakistan has very close ties to going all the way back to when Muslims from the sub-continent supported the caliphate) that helped keep Pakistan out of the idiotic war in Yemen.

    If Saudis get closer to Pakistan and Turkey (in some of the security and defense cooperation arrangements that are being talked about), my hope is that they influence Saudis to become more sane rather than the other way around – otherwise there is going to be very serious trouble.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird
    I'd be curious of your take, Talha: do you think the House of Saud coming to power was bad for Arabia? In other words, would the Hashemites have done a better job? Or is it just something particular about the desert that makes Saudi Arabia into Saudi Arabia?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @Anatoly Karlin
    I attempted a better index here, before you became a regular commenter: https://www.unz.com/akarlin/top-10-militaries-2015/

    This looks like it was a fun exercise and is better than judging by military spending, but it’s not something that could be called scientific. The assumptions made are generally reasonable, but you know how it goes in economic and climate modeling with this.

    A word on the German Army since you gave the Germans an edge. The success of the Prussian and later national German armies were down to the following factors:

    • The House of Hohenzollern and the Junkers, in particular the East Elbians, were Marcher Lords with a military tradition stretching back to the Teutonic Order
    • Close contact with slavs gave Prussians a much stronger ethnic identity
    • Pervasive militarism, both culturally and politically
    • The Army was the most prestigious institution in the Kingdom and Empire and recruited the best men
    • Extremely thorough and rigorous training, as an example the Wehrmacht suffered a 2% casualty rate…in peacetime
    • The Prussian War Academy selected only the very best officers for staff education, which was not the case elsewhere in the 19th century
    • A doctrinal and cultural emphasis on attack
    • Extreme emphasis on speed of movement, see for instance the Battle of Rossbach
    • Very rapid mobilization capability, especially after the reforms of von Roon
    • General orders and mission tactics–officers and even NCOs had more initiative than in any other armies

    None of these things are true of the German Army today, though it’s my understanding that the Bundeswehr had a decent reputation in the Cold War.

    Some other factors unrelated to the army itself but that contributed:

    • Miracle of the House of Brandenburg
    • Prussia was the first country with universal, compulsory education (the first teachers were of course retired army officers)
    • The Prussian railway system was better developed than the Austrian and French systems–this was particularly decisive against Austria
    • Krupp chose to center its business on artillery after losing the American railroad market, and Wilhelm II had war ministers who didn’t buy the latest Krupp guns sacked
    • The superior German university system made the country #1 in science and maybe engineering as well until 1945

    None of these things are true either anymore. At most you can say that Germany continues to excel in engineering.

    Would be interesting to see a study on the combat efficiency of German units based on where they came from. How did Austrian officers and units do in WW2 for instance? How did soldiers from Rhenish Prussia (the Rhineland is Catholic and only passed into Prussian possession in 1815) do in the Wars of Unification? How did troops from Bavaria, Baden, Oldenburg, etc. do in WWI?

    Informal truces on the Western Front were relatively common. I’ve heard it said that British troops could never get a truce out of Prussians (Bavarians were supposedly amenable), and German troops could never get a truce out of Scots (another martial race).

    If you’re going to keep the 25% edge for Germany might want to consider edges for Sweden, Finland, Canada, and Australia as well (if you ever redo this exercise). Perhaps Japan as well (at least in naval conflicts).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Thanks for the substantive comments.

    1. I speculated that there's something culturally or even biologically innate to the Germans, since I noted that lots of countries tried to ape the Prussian General Staff after 1870 but failed to recreate their combat effectiveness. And as you yourself point out, the Bundeswehr was highly regarded during the Cold War. Still, you are correct that there is ample cause to be skeptical that this extends to the present day. Military service in Germany is extremely unprestigious and the best don't go there.

    2. When it comes to doing the next iteration of the CMP, I am going to:

    (a) Drop unquantifiable cultural factors, replace them with average national IQ.

    (b) Hopefully move all the data online.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @Thorfinnsson
    This looks like it was a fun exercise and is better than judging by military spending, but it's not something that could be called scientific. The assumptions made are generally reasonable, but you know how it goes in economic and climate modeling with this.

    A word on the German Army since you gave the Germans an edge. The success of the Prussian and later national German armies were down to the following factors:

    • The House of Hohenzollern and the Junkers, in particular the East Elbians, were Marcher Lords with a military tradition stretching back to the Teutonic Order
    • Close contact with slavs gave Prussians a much stronger ethnic identity
    • Pervasive militarism, both culturally and politically
    • The Army was the most prestigious institution in the Kingdom and Empire and recruited the best men
    • Extremely thorough and rigorous training, as an example the Wehrmacht suffered a 2% casualty rate...in peacetime
    • The Prussian War Academy selected only the very best officers for staff education, which was not the case elsewhere in the 19th century
    • A doctrinal and cultural emphasis on attack
    • Extreme emphasis on speed of movement, see for instance the Battle of Rossbach
    • Very rapid mobilization capability, especially after the reforms of von Roon
    • General orders and mission tactics--officers and even NCOs had more initiative than in any other armies

    None of these things are true of the German Army today, though it's my understanding that the Bundeswehr had a decent reputation in the Cold War.

    Some other factors unrelated to the army itself but that contributed:

    • Miracle of the House of Brandenburg
    • Prussia was the first country with universal, compulsory education (the first teachers were of course retired army officers)
    • The Prussian railway system was better developed than the Austrian and French systems--this was particularly decisive against Austria
    • Krupp chose to center its business on artillery after losing the American railroad market, and Wilhelm II had war ministers who didn't buy the latest Krupp guns sacked
    • The superior German university system made the country #1 in science and maybe engineering as well until 1945

    None of these things are true either anymore. At most you can say that Germany continues to excel in engineering.

    Would be interesting to see a study on the combat efficiency of German units based on where they came from. How did Austrian officers and units do in WW2 for instance? How did soldiers from Rhenish Prussia (the Rhineland is Catholic and only passed into Prussian possession in 1815) do in the Wars of Unification? How did troops from Bavaria, Baden, Oldenburg, etc. do in WWI?

    Informal truces on the Western Front were relatively common. I've heard it said that British troops could never get a truce out of Prussians (Bavarians were supposedly amenable), and German troops could never get a truce out of Scots (another martial race).

    If you're going to keep the 25% edge for Germany might want to consider edges for Sweden, Finland, Canada, and Australia as well (if you ever redo this exercise). Perhaps Japan as well (at least in naval conflicts).

    Thanks for the substantive comments.

    1. I speculated that there’s something culturally or even biologically innate to the Germans, since I noted that lots of countries tried to ape the Prussian General Staff after 1870 but failed to recreate their combat effectiveness. And as you yourself point out, the Bundeswehr was highly regarded during the Cold War. Still, you are correct that there is ample cause to be skeptical that this extends to the present day. Military service in Germany is extremely unprestigious and the best don’t go there.

    2. When it comes to doing the next iteration of the CMP, I am going to:

    (a) Drop unquantifiable cultural factors, replace them with average national IQ.

    (b) Hopefully move all the data online.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson

    1. I speculated that there’s something culturally or even biologically innate to the Germans, since I noted that lots of countries tried to ape the Prussian General Staff after 1870 but failed to recreate their combat effectiveness.
     

    Culturally, yes, but it was innate to Prussia (and previously the Teutonic Order State). And the culture in Prussia was created by the Great Elector. His predecessor was better known for hapless, ineffective rule during the Thirty Years War and paying feudal vassage to a Polish king (doesn't get any lower than that for a Prussian).

    During the Thirty Years War Germany was a playground for foreign armies. The most elite armies were then considered to be the Swedish and Spanish armies, though Spain's reputation was shattered at Rocroi in 1643. Absolutist Sweden was kind of prototype Prussia, except it also had a powerful navy.

    Living closely to enemy ethnic groups selects for martial valor, as does dominating other ethnic groups domestically. Certainly culturally, and possibly biologically as well. Hence why I noted that the Hohenzollerns and East Elbian Junkers were Marcher Lords. The Sonderweg theory that Germany is special or took some kind of fatal wrong turn in being unified by Prussia is wrong. Marcher Lords very often take over states for obvious reasons. This happened frequently in the Roman Empire, and the House of Tudor came from the Welsh marches.

    It's an interesting idea that should be researched (not by me). Scots, Ulstermen, American Southerners, India's Rajputs, Finland Swedes, Spartans, Normans, Cossacks, and Order knights all come to mind.

    A great last gasp example of Scottish military valor is Colin "Mad Mitch" Mitchell of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, who happily called himself a "nigger-bashing imperialist".

    That still leaves the question of why Canadians and ANZACs were better soldiers than Englishment in WWI, though maybe that was just down to better health and nutrition.

    The question could be researched by looking at marcher populations who moved elsewhere. Like I suggested earlier, a good starting point would be comparing the relative combat efficiency of German units based on region from 1864-1945. Then look at the military enthusiasm and records of various martial populations who emigrated.

    And as you yourself point out, the Bundeswehr was highly regarded during the Cold War. Still, you are correct that there is ample cause to be skeptical that this extends to the present day. Military service in Germany is extremely unprestigious and the best don’t go there.
     

    I still assume that the Bundeswehr in the Cold War was worse than its predecessors as it was no longer the most prestigious institution in Germany (far from it), and the destruction of the Junkers was certainly devastating to the German Army.

    That said, in the Cold War the government encouraged the Clean Wehrmacht myth and even partially rehabilitated the Waffen SS's image. The Bundeswehr was organized and led by former Wehrmacht officers with sterling war records. Still, discipline and personnel recruitment were not even close to what they had been previously. This was incidentally quite difficult for Adenauer as he hated Prussia and considered it to not really be German.

    Today of course there's a new "scandal" every month about finding that some remote barracks was named after a Prussian officer who said mean things about Poles or some other such nonsense, and like every other Western military women are admitted. I would expect the German military to perform worse than other Western countries, at least initially.

    Another thing I forgot to mention in the previous post was military discipline. At the end of 1918 the German armed forces basically collapsed, especially the navy but to some degree also in the army. The officer corps drew the lesson from this that much harsher discipline was required. As a result in 1944-1945 something like 15,000 deserters were executed, and military police were an elite unit (requiring three years of service on the front). They were right, hence why German soldiers kept resisting and fighting fanatically right down to the end against hopeless odds. No discipline like that today obviously.

    Stalin of course had similar ideas. And he wasn't wrong (though blocking battalions maybe not the best way to go about it).

    (a) Drop unquantifiable cultural factors, replace them with average national IQ.
     

    There are no doubt quantifiable factors other than IQ however. A lot of them in fact.

    At the HBD level you could incorporate diversity (or lack thereof), degree of inbreeding, and big five personality factors.

    On the non-HBD level you can look at time spent training, munitions expended in training, exercises conducted, etc.

    , @Singh
    Obviously a people unaccustomed to warfare।।

    https://youtu.be/x5iSuUG42bk
    , @Thorfinnsson
    More on this.

    Not modern, but an interesting dataset which certainly suggests Bundeswehr skill during the Cold War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Army_Trophy

    German units won the Canadian Army Trophy 35% of the time, and the platoon/section trophy 55% of the time.

    USA's performance is notably appalling.

    Russia has a modern-day equivalent in which a number of countries participate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_biathlon

    War games are another highly useful dataset. International war games are sufficiently high profile that it should be possible to build a comprehensive dataset.

    You can probably fine tune military capital in a number of ways as well. As an example, what's the total payload capacity of a given country's air force?
    , @Vendetta
    Reducing it all to a single equation and a single number is an inherently futile endeavor, but it is an interesting intellectual exercise to see how close you can get to something that approximates reality. Let’s give the results of your 2015 index a basic idiot check:

    1) Saudi Arabia ranks higher than Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, and Israel. That right there tells you that military spending is being overweighted and that your attempts to account for personnel quality and military culture were inadequate.

    2) Singapore outranks Vietnam, Egypt, and North Korea. Qualitatively? Sure. But would you honestly expect them to be a harder country to conquer than any of those three?

    3) Mexico outranks South Africa and Sweden. Both of these countries have a substantial military-industrial complex, Mexico does not. I don’t think military spending is serving as an effective enough measure for military industrial capacity.

    4) Portugal ranked above Syria...you sure about that?

    5) Azerbaijan ranked above South Africa...they have enough trouble pushing around Armenia, a country half their size with a tenth of their wealth. I don’t buy it.

    6) Eritrea tanked 10 places above Ethiopia...that doesn’t jive at all.

    7) Uzbekistan ranked above Finland?

    8) Libya above Ethiopia? Post-Gaddafi? You’ve got to be kidding, even when he was around the Libyan armed forces were a joke. See Chad, Uganda, anywhere else he tried to exercise military power. This is a joke.

    9) Lithuania above Ethiopia? Boy I thought the last one was funny. How long would that brigade sized toy army last against an army with the potential to deploy hundreds of thousands of troops, which has actually been in a lot of real combat over the last three or four decades?

    10) Cuba at #122 behind the likes of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Botswana, Cameroon, Zambia, and Congo? LOL!!!!! Again, a functioning state army with decades of institutional combat experience and a credible pool of manpower to draw on is ranked below the likes of toy European countries and some of Africa’s least militaristic countries. The DRC got bullied around by Rwanda, a country a hundred times smaller. Really?

    Could probably expand the list out to a couple dozen more points, bottom line is, once you go down past the top three the results just don’t hold water.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Anatoly Karlin
    Thanks for the substantive comments.

    1. I speculated that there's something culturally or even biologically innate to the Germans, since I noted that lots of countries tried to ape the Prussian General Staff after 1870 but failed to recreate their combat effectiveness. And as you yourself point out, the Bundeswehr was highly regarded during the Cold War. Still, you are correct that there is ample cause to be skeptical that this extends to the present day. Military service in Germany is extremely unprestigious and the best don't go there.

    2. When it comes to doing the next iteration of the CMP, I am going to:

    (a) Drop unquantifiable cultural factors, replace them with average national IQ.

    (b) Hopefully move all the data online.

    1. I speculated that there’s something culturally or even biologically innate to the Germans, since I noted that lots of countries tried to ape the Prussian General Staff after 1870 but failed to recreate their combat effectiveness.

    Culturally, yes, but it was innate to Prussia (and previously the Teutonic Order State). And the culture in Prussia was created by the Great Elector. His predecessor was better known for hapless, ineffective rule during the Thirty Years War and paying feudal vassage to a Polish king (doesn’t get any lower than that for a Prussian).

    During the Thirty Years War Germany was a playground for foreign armies. The most elite armies were then considered to be the Swedish and Spanish armies, though Spain’s reputation was shattered at Rocroi in 1643. Absolutist Sweden was kind of prototype Prussia, except it also had a powerful navy.

    Living closely to enemy ethnic groups selects for martial valor, as does dominating other ethnic groups domestically. Certainly culturally, and possibly biologically as well. Hence why I noted that the Hohenzollerns and East Elbian Junkers were Marcher Lords. The Sonderweg theory that Germany is special or took some kind of fatal wrong turn in being unified by Prussia is wrong. Marcher Lords very often take over states for obvious reasons. This happened frequently in the Roman Empire, and the House of Tudor came from the Welsh marches.

    It’s an interesting idea that should be researched (not by me). Scots, Ulstermen, American Southerners, India’s Rajputs, Finland Swedes, Spartans, Normans, Cossacks, and Order knights all come to mind.

    A great last gasp example of Scottish military valor is Colin “Mad Mitch” Mitchell of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, who happily called himself a “nigger-bashing imperialist”.

    That still leaves the question of why Canadians and ANZACs were better soldiers than Englishment in WWI, though maybe that was just down to better health and nutrition.

    The question could be researched by looking at marcher populations who moved elsewhere. Like I suggested earlier, a good starting point would be comparing the relative combat efficiency of German units based on region from 1864-1945. Then look at the military enthusiasm and records of various martial populations who emigrated.

    And as you yourself point out, the Bundeswehr was highly regarded during the Cold War. Still, you are correct that there is ample cause to be skeptical that this extends to the present day. Military service in Germany is extremely unprestigious and the best don’t go there.

    I still assume that the Bundeswehr in the Cold War was worse than its predecessors as it was no longer the most prestigious institution in Germany (far from it), and the destruction of the Junkers was certainly devastating to the German Army.

    That said, in the Cold War the government encouraged the Clean Wehrmacht myth and even partially rehabilitated the Waffen SS’s image. The Bundeswehr was organized and led by former Wehrmacht officers with sterling war records. Still, discipline and personnel recruitment were not even close to what they had been previously. This was incidentally quite difficult for Adenauer as he hated Prussia and considered it to not really be German.

    Today of course there’s a new “scandal” every month about finding that some remote barracks was named after a Prussian officer who said mean things about Poles or some other such nonsense, and like every other Western military women are admitted. I would expect the German military to perform worse than other Western countries, at least initially.

    Another thing I forgot to mention in the previous post was military discipline. At the end of 1918 the German armed forces basically collapsed, especially the navy but to some degree also in the army. The officer corps drew the lesson from this that much harsher discipline was required. As a result in 1944-1945 something like 15,000 deserters were executed, and military police were an elite unit (requiring three years of service on the front). They were right, hence why German soldiers kept resisting and fighting fanatically right down to the end against hopeless odds. No discipline like that today obviously.

    Stalin of course had similar ideas. And he wasn’t wrong (though blocking battalions maybe not the best way to go about it).

    (a) Drop unquantifiable cultural factors, replace them with average national IQ.

    There are no doubt quantifiable factors other than IQ however. A lot of them in fact.

    At the HBD level you could incorporate diversity (or lack thereof), degree of inbreeding, and big five personality factors.

    On the non-HBD level you can look at time spent training, munitions expended in training, exercises conducted, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    hence why German soldiers kept resisting and fighting fanatically right down to the end against hopeless odds.

    Yeah, and you certainly didn't want to end up wounded.

    , @Singh
    Anatoly Cucklin still never answers how an Indian Army composed entirely of Sikh, Jat, Rajput gets -50%.

    It's w/e these inferior races conquered by the descendants of a literal incestuous pimp will always be hateful in grates।।

    No point explaining the details of an entire continent to them let them keep worshipping chosen people kek

    , @Singh
    I mention the Jewish Bhenchod Abraham because ultimately these I'm not religious I'm just gonna be a space pirate cool doodz like Karlin, are ultimately infected with the Monotheist virus।।

    https://twitter.com/EPButler/status/987375413700816896?s=20

    So it's to be expected that they hate Heathens,

    O well, the Dharma will rule the world & the founders of the Endian Republic were not pozzed faggots. They were worshippers of the Cut Dicks & knew very well what they're doing।।
    , @szopen

    paying feudal vassage to a Polish king (doesn’t get any lower than that for a Prussian).
     
    At that time Poland-Lithuania was still quite a regional power. PLus there were actual people inside Prussia who wanted Prussia to become one of Polish voivoidships.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. songbird says:
    @Duke of Qin
    Chinese domestic security spending is actually quite low. This is one of the "Great Lies" oft repeated by the usual Liberast media that is repeated ad infinitum until it is accepted as gospel truth. Chinese defense spending as a percentage of GDP is lower than "domestic security" but that is not because Chinese "domestic security" is excessive, but rather China's spends on defense like a complacent Western European state. Chinese GDP in 2017 was 82.7 trillion yuan with government revenues around 17.5 trillion and expenditures at 20.5. Announced defense spending for 2018 was only 1.11 trillion yuan. Not even 5.5% of total government expenditures and only 1.35% of GDP. As a proportion of total GDP and total government expenditures, China is officially spending like Canada or Portugal. Even using the SIPRI pulled out of ass numbers only raises Chinese defense spending to that of France.

    The thing with so-called Chinese "domestic security" spending is that it really is a catch all super category that accounts for numerous budgets. For example, it includes the national, provincial, and local police, procuratorate and court system, prison system, customs/immigration, border security, disaster relief, fire fighting, forestry, mines and dams, and the people's armed police (Gendarmerie, aka the crackdown). To make China seem like a police state, this mass catch all category is usually only compared to US police spending alone which is usually cited as approximately 160 billion or so. This is an apples, pineapples, coconuts, mangoes, oranges, bananas, pears, and oranges to apples alone comparison. The US has about 1 million uniformed police officers compared to China's roughly 1.6 despite the latter having more than 4x the population. More than that though, that 160 billion or so basically only covers federal, state, and local police and doesn't even begin to touch all the spending for the US court system and the US prison system (Prison spending alone is another 80 billion USD per year) let alone all the other categories such as the National Guard which is in the US defense budget. If anything China is under policed, with basically twice as many cops as Russia but 10x the population.

    The way it is usually presented by the opposition media (ethnic Chinese living overseas), is that Xianjing and Tibet are really expensive to control and that, if you could somehow visit those regions you would see a very great presence of security officers on the street. Some really crazy ratio, like, perhaps even 1:10.

    I’ve always been suspicious of the general idea. If it is ethnic tensions, Han seem so much more numerous than Uighurs or Tibetans, that I don’t think it would cut into the GDP. I also don’t believe you’d need such a high ratio for law and order. Besides, which, India would probably be more of a powderkeg-type environment than China.

    However, the one example that is called to mind is East Germany. The communist regimes in Eastern Europe were pretty obscurantist when it came to their budgets. The East German state spent a truly massive amount on internal security. I once read a fairly fat book about the German-German border. It came out in the ’80s, before the Wall fell, and there wasn’t even the slightest mention of cost, which leads me to believe it was successfully obscured.

    I’d guess the Chinese border doesn’t require the same level of security, but that still leaves the internal component. Still dubious, but, as far as I know, a tourist can’t easily travel to those places, which naturally invites a certain amount of suspicion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. songbird says:
    @Talha

    For instance, I personally would much rather take on Saudi Arabia than Iran, even though Iran is nowhere on the graph.
     
    I would too if the Saudis were all you had to worry about - I don't believe they are that solid. If they were, they wouldn't have had to invite like a gazillion foreign troops when they were afraid Saddam might invade after Kuwait. Again, if you have read the public statements from Pakistani officials, they consider Saudi to be a very strong ally:
    "'The Pakistan Army holds defence of the KSA at par with its own,' General Qamar told Saudi Envoy to Pakistan Abdullah Marzouk Al-Zahrani, who met the army chief at the General Headquarters (GHQ) in Rawalpindi on Friday, according to the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR)."
    https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2017/01/21/saudi-defence-at-par-with-our-own-gen-bajwa/

    This goes way back to King Faisal's time when Saudi was much less in the hands of crazies. It is a very strategic alliance and one that could bear fruit if the Saudis weren't constantly doing stupid things. I believe it was the advice of Turkey (which Pakistan has very close ties to going all the way back to when Muslims from the sub-continent supported the caliphate) that helped keep Pakistan out of the idiotic war in Yemen.

    If Saudis get closer to Pakistan and Turkey (in some of the security and defense cooperation arrangements that are being talked about), my hope is that they influence Saudis to become more sane rather than the other way around - otherwise there is going to be very serious trouble.

    Peace.

    I’d be curious of your take, Talha: do you think the House of Saud coming to power was bad for Arabia? In other words, would the Hashemites have done a better job? Or is it just something particular about the desert that makes Saudi Arabia into Saudi Arabia?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    I think you yourself can answer this; even the Hashemites in Jordan would easily be preferable. The establishment of the Saudi monarchy was bad for the world.

    Remember, they came out of the Najd area; Ibn Saud was the king/emir of that region. Read Islamic history; nothing that has ever arisen from the Najd has ever been positive - though there are some individuals that are good people there - as a whole, it is lacking in blessings:
    Ibn Umar said: ‘The Prophet (s.w.s.) mentioned: “O Allah, give us baraka (blessings) in our Syria, O Allah, give us baraka in our Yemen.” They said: “And in our Najd?” and he said: “O Allah, give us baraka in our Syria, O Allah, give us baraka in our Yemen.” They said: “And in our Najd?” and I believe that he said the third time: “In that place are earthquakes, and seditions, and in that place shall rise the devil’s horn [qarn al-shaytan].”’ -reported in Bukhari

    The scholars mention that the word used in Arabic is qarn; which can mean ‘horn’ or ‘generation’ - in this case, the ‘generation of the devil’. After the collapse of the Umayyads, the Najd area has generally been a backwater no man’s land, left alone for ages by the succeeding caliphates. They are not fit for leadership and have had ample time to prove to everyone why.

    Anybody but the Najdis would have been preferable.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. songbird says:
    @Thorfinnsson


    There is a certain cohesiveness to the Islamic world that is severely lacking in the secularized West
     
    The West at the moment appears to be more cohesive and unified than it has ever been before in our history.

    Unfortunately what we are united on is nearly all bad, whereas many past instances of Western unity have been very good.

    The West at the moment appears to be more cohesive and unified than it has ever been before in our history.

    I view it more as a formlessness, but you are quite right, the political class are united in a way they arguably never were before. One malign example being the EU; another, likely NATO. Foreign aid may be another indicator.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Partan says:

    The Russian 2016 budget included early pay off of a 700 billion ruble military industry bank loan in addition to the 3145 billion actual military budget. It was added at the end of the year and had no impact on the military activity etc. The budget for 2017 was supposed to be 2840 billion rubles, but in October it was reported that the government wanted to boost it to 3050 billion. Of course there is also some inflation to consider, but still the difference shouldn’t actually be too significant. Inflation overrall slowed seriously last year, but I don’t know how it was specifically in the military sphere.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mitleser

    The Russian 2016 budget included early pay off of a 700 billion ruble military industry bank loan in addition to the 3145 billion actual military budget. It was added at the end of the year and had no impact on the military activity etc.
     
    Yep, and that is how it looks like compared to past and future budgets.

    http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=251942&d=1489741075
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. iffen says:
    @reiner Tor
    Looking at the graph, I can tell you that it's Iran which is the biggest danger to world peace. And of course Russia.

    You have to think about how dangerous they would be if the U. S. didn’t spend on defense. Well, on second thought, I guess some of you don’t think about that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I think it's a bit of a false dichotomy to envision "the US spends a third of the world military budget on defense and yet Russia and Iran are painted as extremely dangerous" vs. "the US spends nothing on the military and we all hope to sing Kumbaya with Iran and Russia."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. iffen says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    1. I speculated that there’s something culturally or even biologically innate to the Germans, since I noted that lots of countries tried to ape the Prussian General Staff after 1870 but failed to recreate their combat effectiveness.
     

    Culturally, yes, but it was innate to Prussia (and previously the Teutonic Order State). And the culture in Prussia was created by the Great Elector. His predecessor was better known for hapless, ineffective rule during the Thirty Years War and paying feudal vassage to a Polish king (doesn't get any lower than that for a Prussian).

    During the Thirty Years War Germany was a playground for foreign armies. The most elite armies were then considered to be the Swedish and Spanish armies, though Spain's reputation was shattered at Rocroi in 1643. Absolutist Sweden was kind of prototype Prussia, except it also had a powerful navy.

    Living closely to enemy ethnic groups selects for martial valor, as does dominating other ethnic groups domestically. Certainly culturally, and possibly biologically as well. Hence why I noted that the Hohenzollerns and East Elbian Junkers were Marcher Lords. The Sonderweg theory that Germany is special or took some kind of fatal wrong turn in being unified by Prussia is wrong. Marcher Lords very often take over states for obvious reasons. This happened frequently in the Roman Empire, and the House of Tudor came from the Welsh marches.

    It's an interesting idea that should be researched (not by me). Scots, Ulstermen, American Southerners, India's Rajputs, Finland Swedes, Spartans, Normans, Cossacks, and Order knights all come to mind.

    A great last gasp example of Scottish military valor is Colin "Mad Mitch" Mitchell of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, who happily called himself a "nigger-bashing imperialist".

    That still leaves the question of why Canadians and ANZACs were better soldiers than Englishment in WWI, though maybe that was just down to better health and nutrition.

    The question could be researched by looking at marcher populations who moved elsewhere. Like I suggested earlier, a good starting point would be comparing the relative combat efficiency of German units based on region from 1864-1945. Then look at the military enthusiasm and records of various martial populations who emigrated.

    And as you yourself point out, the Bundeswehr was highly regarded during the Cold War. Still, you are correct that there is ample cause to be skeptical that this extends to the present day. Military service in Germany is extremely unprestigious and the best don’t go there.
     

    I still assume that the Bundeswehr in the Cold War was worse than its predecessors as it was no longer the most prestigious institution in Germany (far from it), and the destruction of the Junkers was certainly devastating to the German Army.

    That said, in the Cold War the government encouraged the Clean Wehrmacht myth and even partially rehabilitated the Waffen SS's image. The Bundeswehr was organized and led by former Wehrmacht officers with sterling war records. Still, discipline and personnel recruitment were not even close to what they had been previously. This was incidentally quite difficult for Adenauer as he hated Prussia and considered it to not really be German.

    Today of course there's a new "scandal" every month about finding that some remote barracks was named after a Prussian officer who said mean things about Poles or some other such nonsense, and like every other Western military women are admitted. I would expect the German military to perform worse than other Western countries, at least initially.

    Another thing I forgot to mention in the previous post was military discipline. At the end of 1918 the German armed forces basically collapsed, especially the navy but to some degree also in the army. The officer corps drew the lesson from this that much harsher discipline was required. As a result in 1944-1945 something like 15,000 deserters were executed, and military police were an elite unit (requiring three years of service on the front). They were right, hence why German soldiers kept resisting and fighting fanatically right down to the end against hopeless odds. No discipline like that today obviously.

    Stalin of course had similar ideas. And he wasn't wrong (though blocking battalions maybe not the best way to go about it).

    (a) Drop unquantifiable cultural factors, replace them with average national IQ.
     

    There are no doubt quantifiable factors other than IQ however. A lot of them in fact.

    At the HBD level you could incorporate diversity (or lack thereof), degree of inbreeding, and big five personality factors.

    On the non-HBD level you can look at time spent training, munitions expended in training, exercises conducted, etc.

    hence why German soldiers kept resisting and fighting fanatically right down to the end against hopeless odds.

    Yeah, and you certainly didn’t want to end up wounded.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Talha says:
    @songbird
    I'd be curious of your take, Talha: do you think the House of Saud coming to power was bad for Arabia? In other words, would the Hashemites have done a better job? Or is it just something particular about the desert that makes Saudi Arabia into Saudi Arabia?

    I think you yourself can answer this; even the Hashemites in Jordan would easily be preferable. The establishment of the Saudi monarchy was bad for the world.

    Remember, they came out of the Najd area; Ibn Saud was the king/emir of that region. Read Islamic history; nothing that has ever arisen from the Najd has ever been positive – though there are some individuals that are good people there – as a whole, it is lacking in blessings:
    Ibn Umar said: ‘The Prophet (s.w.s.) mentioned: “O Allah, give us baraka (blessings) in our Syria, O Allah, give us baraka in our Yemen.” They said: “And in our Najd?” and he said: “O Allah, give us baraka in our Syria, O Allah, give us baraka in our Yemen.” They said: “And in our Najd?” and I believe that he said the third time: “In that place are earthquakes, and seditions, and in that place shall rise the devil’s horn [qarn al-shaytan].”’ -reported in Bukhari

    The scholars mention that the word used in Arabic is qarn; which can mean ‘horn’ or ‘generation’ – in this case, the ‘generation of the devil’. After the collapse of the Umayyads, the Najd area has generally been a backwater no man’s land, left alone for ages by the succeeding caliphates. They are not fit for leadership and have had ample time to prove to everyone why.

    Anybody but the Najdis would have been preferable.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Singh says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    1. I speculated that there’s something culturally or even biologically innate to the Germans, since I noted that lots of countries tried to ape the Prussian General Staff after 1870 but failed to recreate their combat effectiveness.
     

    Culturally, yes, but it was innate to Prussia (and previously the Teutonic Order State). And the culture in Prussia was created by the Great Elector. His predecessor was better known for hapless, ineffective rule during the Thirty Years War and paying feudal vassage to a Polish king (doesn't get any lower than that for a Prussian).

    During the Thirty Years War Germany was a playground for foreign armies. The most elite armies were then considered to be the Swedish and Spanish armies, though Spain's reputation was shattered at Rocroi in 1643. Absolutist Sweden was kind of prototype Prussia, except it also had a powerful navy.

    Living closely to enemy ethnic groups selects for martial valor, as does dominating other ethnic groups domestically. Certainly culturally, and possibly biologically as well. Hence why I noted that the Hohenzollerns and East Elbian Junkers were Marcher Lords. The Sonderweg theory that Germany is special or took some kind of fatal wrong turn in being unified by Prussia is wrong. Marcher Lords very often take over states for obvious reasons. This happened frequently in the Roman Empire, and the House of Tudor came from the Welsh marches.

    It's an interesting idea that should be researched (not by me). Scots, Ulstermen, American Southerners, India's Rajputs, Finland Swedes, Spartans, Normans, Cossacks, and Order knights all come to mind.

    A great last gasp example of Scottish military valor is Colin "Mad Mitch" Mitchell of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, who happily called himself a "nigger-bashing imperialist".

    That still leaves the question of why Canadians and ANZACs were better soldiers than Englishment in WWI, though maybe that was just down to better health and nutrition.

    The question could be researched by looking at marcher populations who moved elsewhere. Like I suggested earlier, a good starting point would be comparing the relative combat efficiency of German units based on region from 1864-1945. Then look at the military enthusiasm and records of various martial populations who emigrated.

    And as you yourself point out, the Bundeswehr was highly regarded during the Cold War. Still, you are correct that there is ample cause to be skeptical that this extends to the present day. Military service in Germany is extremely unprestigious and the best don’t go there.
     

    I still assume that the Bundeswehr in the Cold War was worse than its predecessors as it was no longer the most prestigious institution in Germany (far from it), and the destruction of the Junkers was certainly devastating to the German Army.

    That said, in the Cold War the government encouraged the Clean Wehrmacht myth and even partially rehabilitated the Waffen SS's image. The Bundeswehr was organized and led by former Wehrmacht officers with sterling war records. Still, discipline and personnel recruitment were not even close to what they had been previously. This was incidentally quite difficult for Adenauer as he hated Prussia and considered it to not really be German.

    Today of course there's a new "scandal" every month about finding that some remote barracks was named after a Prussian officer who said mean things about Poles or some other such nonsense, and like every other Western military women are admitted. I would expect the German military to perform worse than other Western countries, at least initially.

    Another thing I forgot to mention in the previous post was military discipline. At the end of 1918 the German armed forces basically collapsed, especially the navy but to some degree also in the army. The officer corps drew the lesson from this that much harsher discipline was required. As a result in 1944-1945 something like 15,000 deserters were executed, and military police were an elite unit (requiring three years of service on the front). They were right, hence why German soldiers kept resisting and fighting fanatically right down to the end against hopeless odds. No discipline like that today obviously.

    Stalin of course had similar ideas. And he wasn't wrong (though blocking battalions maybe not the best way to go about it).

    (a) Drop unquantifiable cultural factors, replace them with average national IQ.
     

    There are no doubt quantifiable factors other than IQ however. A lot of them in fact.

    At the HBD level you could incorporate diversity (or lack thereof), degree of inbreeding, and big five personality factors.

    On the non-HBD level you can look at time spent training, munitions expended in training, exercises conducted, etc.

    Anatoly Cucklin still never answers how an Indian Army composed entirely of Sikh, Jat, Rajput gets -50%.

    It’s w/e these inferior races conquered by the descendants of a literal incestuous pimp will always be hateful in grates।।

    No point explaining the details of an entire continent to them let them keep worshipping chosen people kek

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    I'm not sure that Karlin (he can speak for himself) has ever heard of Rajputs or Jats. Sikhs are kind of well known, but their history isn't to white people.

    I only learned of Rajputs when I first visited India in 2016 and visited Udaipur, Rajasthan. I even got to see the last Maharana, who was a jerk and refused to wave back to me.

    Your post is literally the first I've heard of "Jats". I'll look into it.

    Point being is that white people are generally ignorant of India and its history for reasons that should be obvious.

    I'll take your word for it that half the Indian Army is these three martial races (I'm assuming the Jats are martial?), but I really have no idea.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Mitleser says:
    @Partan
    The Russian 2016 budget included early pay off of a 700 billion ruble military industry bank loan in addition to the 3145 billion actual military budget. It was added at the end of the year and had no impact on the military activity etc. The budget for 2017 was supposed to be 2840 billion rubles, but in October it was reported that the government wanted to boost it to 3050 billion. Of course there is also some inflation to consider, but still the difference shouldn't actually be too significant. Inflation overrall slowed seriously last year, but I don't know how it was specifically in the military sphere.

    The Russian 2016 budget included early pay off of a 700 billion ruble military industry bank loan in addition to the 3145 billion actual military budget. It was added at the end of the year and had no impact on the military activity etc.

    Yep, and that is how it looks like compared to past and future budgets.

    http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=251942&d=1489741075

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @iffen
    You have to think about how dangerous they would be if the U. S. didn't spend on defense. Well, on second thought, I guess some of you don't think about that.

    I think it’s a bit of a false dichotomy to envision “the US spends a third of the world military budget on defense and yet Russia and Iran are painted as extremely dangerous” vs. “the US spends nothing on the military and we all hope to sing Kumbaya with Iran and Russia.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I think it’s a bit of a false dichotomy

    Which part of Soviet tanks in Budapest was false?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Singh says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    1. I speculated that there’s something culturally or even biologically innate to the Germans, since I noted that lots of countries tried to ape the Prussian General Staff after 1870 but failed to recreate their combat effectiveness.
     

    Culturally, yes, but it was innate to Prussia (and previously the Teutonic Order State). And the culture in Prussia was created by the Great Elector. His predecessor was better known for hapless, ineffective rule during the Thirty Years War and paying feudal vassage to a Polish king (doesn't get any lower than that for a Prussian).

    During the Thirty Years War Germany was a playground for foreign armies. The most elite armies were then considered to be the Swedish and Spanish armies, though Spain's reputation was shattered at Rocroi in 1643. Absolutist Sweden was kind of prototype Prussia, except it also had a powerful navy.

    Living closely to enemy ethnic groups selects for martial valor, as does dominating other ethnic groups domestically. Certainly culturally, and possibly biologically as well. Hence why I noted that the Hohenzollerns and East Elbian Junkers were Marcher Lords. The Sonderweg theory that Germany is special or took some kind of fatal wrong turn in being unified by Prussia is wrong. Marcher Lords very often take over states for obvious reasons. This happened frequently in the Roman Empire, and the House of Tudor came from the Welsh marches.

    It's an interesting idea that should be researched (not by me). Scots, Ulstermen, American Southerners, India's Rajputs, Finland Swedes, Spartans, Normans, Cossacks, and Order knights all come to mind.

    A great last gasp example of Scottish military valor is Colin "Mad Mitch" Mitchell of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, who happily called himself a "nigger-bashing imperialist".

    That still leaves the question of why Canadians and ANZACs were better soldiers than Englishment in WWI, though maybe that was just down to better health and nutrition.

    The question could be researched by looking at marcher populations who moved elsewhere. Like I suggested earlier, a good starting point would be comparing the relative combat efficiency of German units based on region from 1864-1945. Then look at the military enthusiasm and records of various martial populations who emigrated.

    And as you yourself point out, the Bundeswehr was highly regarded during the Cold War. Still, you are correct that there is ample cause to be skeptical that this extends to the present day. Military service in Germany is extremely unprestigious and the best don’t go there.
     

    I still assume that the Bundeswehr in the Cold War was worse than its predecessors as it was no longer the most prestigious institution in Germany (far from it), and the destruction of the Junkers was certainly devastating to the German Army.

    That said, in the Cold War the government encouraged the Clean Wehrmacht myth and even partially rehabilitated the Waffen SS's image. The Bundeswehr was organized and led by former Wehrmacht officers with sterling war records. Still, discipline and personnel recruitment were not even close to what they had been previously. This was incidentally quite difficult for Adenauer as he hated Prussia and considered it to not really be German.

    Today of course there's a new "scandal" every month about finding that some remote barracks was named after a Prussian officer who said mean things about Poles or some other such nonsense, and like every other Western military women are admitted. I would expect the German military to perform worse than other Western countries, at least initially.

    Another thing I forgot to mention in the previous post was military discipline. At the end of 1918 the German armed forces basically collapsed, especially the navy but to some degree also in the army. The officer corps drew the lesson from this that much harsher discipline was required. As a result in 1944-1945 something like 15,000 deserters were executed, and military police were an elite unit (requiring three years of service on the front). They were right, hence why German soldiers kept resisting and fighting fanatically right down to the end against hopeless odds. No discipline like that today obviously.

    Stalin of course had similar ideas. And he wasn't wrong (though blocking battalions maybe not the best way to go about it).

    (a) Drop unquantifiable cultural factors, replace them with average national IQ.
     

    There are no doubt quantifiable factors other than IQ however. A lot of them in fact.

    At the HBD level you could incorporate diversity (or lack thereof), degree of inbreeding, and big five personality factors.

    On the non-HBD level you can look at time spent training, munitions expended in training, exercises conducted, etc.

    I mention the Jewish Bhenchod Abraham because ultimately these I’m not religious I’m just gonna be a space pirate cool doodz like Karlin, are ultimately infected with the Monotheist virus।।

    So it’s to be expected that they hate Heathens,

    O well, the Dharma will rule the world & the founders of the Endian Republic were not pozzed faggots. They were worshippers of the Cut Dicks & knew very well what they’re doing।।

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Singh says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Thanks for the substantive comments.

    1. I speculated that there's something culturally or even biologically innate to the Germans, since I noted that lots of countries tried to ape the Prussian General Staff after 1870 but failed to recreate their combat effectiveness. And as you yourself point out, the Bundeswehr was highly regarded during the Cold War. Still, you are correct that there is ample cause to be skeptical that this extends to the present day. Military service in Germany is extremely unprestigious and the best don't go there.

    2. When it comes to doing the next iteration of the CMP, I am going to:

    (a) Drop unquantifiable cultural factors, replace them with average national IQ.

    (b) Hopefully move all the data online.

    Obviously a people unaccustomed to warfare।।

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Didn't watch the video, only looked into it, but aren't these Sikhs? I think the stereotype of Sikhs is that they are a martial people. A Sikh Army would get bonus points. But obviously not an Indian Army, which is far more diverse and probably has a lot of soldiers from less martial peoples or cultures.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Singh says:
    @Talha
    I agree, Pakistan is in a fortuitous area - after all the Indus Valley civilization didn't pop up there for no reason. To a certain degree, it is an extension of Persianate (influenced by Turkic) culture also of Afghan culture - it's like those two got married and had a kid named Pakistan that was fostered by India for a while until it grew up. That area was always a staging area for Persian or Turkic invasions into deeper Indian territory until they finally went full gusto.

    Pakistan is protected from China by large mountains which helps immensely. It also helps that they have reasons for regional cooperation.

    Nukes are certainly extremely helpful for deterrence, but even without them Pakistan has been able to make someone think twice about the cost of invading it (which is all you really need unless you have imperial designs which Pakistan does not - the only issue I ever see coming up is supporting Kashmir in its bid for independence - and that deterrence has been achieved fairly on the cheap.

    Peace.

    Afghan culture – it’s like those two got married and had a kid -

    But, Pakistanis only marry their relatives।।

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Yeah, marrying into extended family is big there...needs to change:
    “According to a study conducted by Dr Muhammad Aslamkhan, founding head of the Department of Human Genetics at the University of Health Sciences Lahore, nearly 82.5% of parents in Pakistan are blood-relatives of first, second or third generations (and so on). Out of these, 6.3% hail from the same extended families or castes while 6.8% are immediate cousins.”

    My brother and I broke with that since I married a convert and he married a Memon. It’s not big in the US within Pakistanis, though I read the UK is different.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Gerard2 says:
    @Dmitry
    With $66.3 billion military budget in 2017 - Russia's military expenditure has increased by 87.2% comparing to 2007 SIPRI data.

    87.2% increase in the size of military expenditure over 10 years, is nothing minor - even if it has fallen from 2016 peak.

    (Ok this 87.2% increase is not factoring inflation - but even after it will be a very significant increase).

    With $66.3 billion military budget in 2017 – Russia’s military expenditure has increased by 87.2% comparing to 2007 SIPRI data.

    Dollar:Rouble price massively changed in the last 3 years, 2007 is pre-financial crash data ( many western countries are still either only slightly ahead of their GDP level then or not even reached it at all)….plus the war against Georgia and greater and quicker development /application of military tech research back into the civilian sector than before………..this sugests to me not a big deal, and all mainly because of the rouble devaluation

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Either way, the multi-year increase is very, very significant increase in military expenditure. 87.2% increase in military budget in nominal terms, over ten years. I'm not sure if the increase is more or less in real terms - but either way a very significant increase.

    The annual fluctuation of 2017 compared to 2016 - whatever accounting cause - seems minor in this perspective.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Talha says:
    @Singh
    Afghan culture – it’s like those two got married and had a kid -

    But, Pakistanis only marry their relatives।।

    Yeah, marrying into extended family is big there…needs to change:
    “According to a study conducted by Dr Muhammad Aslamkhan, founding head of the Department of Human Genetics at the University of Health Sciences Lahore, nearly 82.5% of parents in Pakistan are blood-relatives of first, second or third generations (and so on). Out of these, 6.3% hail from the same extended families or castes while 6.8% are immediate cousins.”

    My brother and I broke with that since I married a convert and he married a Memon. It’s not big in the US within Pakistanis, though I read the UK is different.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Singh
    Obviously a people unaccustomed to warfare।।

    https://youtu.be/x5iSuUG42bk

    Didn’t watch the video, only looked into it, but aren’t these Sikhs? I think the stereotype of Sikhs is that they are a martial people. A Sikh Army would get bonus points. But obviously not an Indian Army, which is far more diverse and probably has a lot of soldiers from less martial peoples or cultures.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Duke of Qin
    They are a "martial" race in the context of the Indian subcontinent. Which is to say they are more manly than the average Pajeet.

    The total number of Sikhs in the British Armed Forces is less than 150, out of a total force of 150,000. There are over 430,000 Sikhs in the UK from a total population of 65 million. That means on average they are nearly 7x under represented compared to the national average. The same sort of under-representation is true in Canada as well, they are only overrepresented in India itself.

    I actually watched the video, or rather two thirds of it. I understand the intention was to impress the viewer of the Sikhs as a manly virile people but all I got from it was the usual hollow posturing machismo that is endemic to South Asia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. szopen says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    1. I speculated that there’s something culturally or even biologically innate to the Germans, since I noted that lots of countries tried to ape the Prussian General Staff after 1870 but failed to recreate their combat effectiveness.
     

    Culturally, yes, but it was innate to Prussia (and previously the Teutonic Order State). And the culture in Prussia was created by the Great Elector. His predecessor was better known for hapless, ineffective rule during the Thirty Years War and paying feudal vassage to a Polish king (doesn't get any lower than that for a Prussian).

    During the Thirty Years War Germany was a playground for foreign armies. The most elite armies were then considered to be the Swedish and Spanish armies, though Spain's reputation was shattered at Rocroi in 1643. Absolutist Sweden was kind of prototype Prussia, except it also had a powerful navy.

    Living closely to enemy ethnic groups selects for martial valor, as does dominating other ethnic groups domestically. Certainly culturally, and possibly biologically as well. Hence why I noted that the Hohenzollerns and East Elbian Junkers were Marcher Lords. The Sonderweg theory that Germany is special or took some kind of fatal wrong turn in being unified by Prussia is wrong. Marcher Lords very often take over states for obvious reasons. This happened frequently in the Roman Empire, and the House of Tudor came from the Welsh marches.

    It's an interesting idea that should be researched (not by me). Scots, Ulstermen, American Southerners, India's Rajputs, Finland Swedes, Spartans, Normans, Cossacks, and Order knights all come to mind.

    A great last gasp example of Scottish military valor is Colin "Mad Mitch" Mitchell of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, who happily called himself a "nigger-bashing imperialist".

    That still leaves the question of why Canadians and ANZACs were better soldiers than Englishment in WWI, though maybe that was just down to better health and nutrition.

    The question could be researched by looking at marcher populations who moved elsewhere. Like I suggested earlier, a good starting point would be comparing the relative combat efficiency of German units based on region from 1864-1945. Then look at the military enthusiasm and records of various martial populations who emigrated.

    And as you yourself point out, the Bundeswehr was highly regarded during the Cold War. Still, you are correct that there is ample cause to be skeptical that this extends to the present day. Military service in Germany is extremely unprestigious and the best don’t go there.
     

    I still assume that the Bundeswehr in the Cold War was worse than its predecessors as it was no longer the most prestigious institution in Germany (far from it), and the destruction of the Junkers was certainly devastating to the German Army.

    That said, in the Cold War the government encouraged the Clean Wehrmacht myth and even partially rehabilitated the Waffen SS's image. The Bundeswehr was organized and led by former Wehrmacht officers with sterling war records. Still, discipline and personnel recruitment were not even close to what they had been previously. This was incidentally quite difficult for Adenauer as he hated Prussia and considered it to not really be German.

    Today of course there's a new "scandal" every month about finding that some remote barracks was named after a Prussian officer who said mean things about Poles or some other such nonsense, and like every other Western military women are admitted. I would expect the German military to perform worse than other Western countries, at least initially.

    Another thing I forgot to mention in the previous post was military discipline. At the end of 1918 the German armed forces basically collapsed, especially the navy but to some degree also in the army. The officer corps drew the lesson from this that much harsher discipline was required. As a result in 1944-1945 something like 15,000 deserters were executed, and military police were an elite unit (requiring three years of service on the front). They were right, hence why German soldiers kept resisting and fighting fanatically right down to the end against hopeless odds. No discipline like that today obviously.

    Stalin of course had similar ideas. And he wasn't wrong (though blocking battalions maybe not the best way to go about it).

    (a) Drop unquantifiable cultural factors, replace them with average national IQ.
     

    There are no doubt quantifiable factors other than IQ however. A lot of them in fact.

    At the HBD level you could incorporate diversity (or lack thereof), degree of inbreeding, and big five personality factors.

    On the non-HBD level you can look at time spent training, munitions expended in training, exercises conducted, etc.

    paying feudal vassage to a Polish king (doesn’t get any lower than that for a Prussian).

    At that time Poland-Lithuania was still quite a regional power. PLus there were actual people inside Prussia who wanted Prussia to become one of Polish voivoidships.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. iffen says:
    @reiner Tor
    I think it's a bit of a false dichotomy to envision "the US spends a third of the world military budget on defense and yet Russia and Iran are painted as extremely dangerous" vs. "the US spends nothing on the military and we all hope to sing Kumbaya with Iran and Russia."

    I think it’s a bit of a false dichotomy

    Which part of Soviet tanks in Budapest was false?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    As most Hungarians are aware, the Soviets weren't kicked out of Hungary by anyone. We tried it in 1956, but it didn't work, and no one sent military aid to us. Budapest was apparently not as important as the Donbas. Anyway, they left out of their own volition.

    But what do Soviet tanks in Budapest have to do with the false dichotomy you posed? Except of course that's it's also a part of that false dichotomy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Singh
    Anatoly Cucklin still never answers how an Indian Army composed entirely of Sikh, Jat, Rajput gets -50%.

    It's w/e these inferior races conquered by the descendants of a literal incestuous pimp will always be hateful in grates।।

    No point explaining the details of an entire continent to them let them keep worshipping chosen people kek

    I’m not sure that Karlin (he can speak for himself) has ever heard of Rajputs or Jats. Sikhs are kind of well known, but their history isn’t to white people.

    I only learned of Rajputs when I first visited India in 2016 and visited Udaipur, Rajasthan. I even got to see the last Maharana, who was a jerk and refused to wave back to me.

    Your post is literally the first I’ve heard of “Jats”. I’ll look into it.

    Point being is that white people are generally ignorant of India and its history for reasons that should be obvious.

    I’ll take your word for it that half the Indian Army is these three martial races (I’m assuming the Jats are martial?), but I really have no idea.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Singh
    Most Sikh are Jat.
    https://twitter.com/i/moments/886381027622621184?s=13

    We technically Chandalas not even Ksytria, still out fighting everyone।। xD

    भगवन् सर्वं भूतेश सर्व धर्म विदांबरः।
    कृपया कथ्यतां नाथ जाटानां जन्म कर्मजम् ।।12।।
    Translation - Pārvatī asks Shiva, O Lord Bhutesha, knower of all religions, kindly narrate about the birth and exploits of the Jat race.
    का च माता पिता ह्वेषां का जाति वद किकुलं।
    कस्तिन काले शुभे जाता प्रश्नानेतान वद प्रभो ।।13।।
    Translation - Pārvatī asks Shiva, Who is their father?, Who is their mother? Which race are they? When were they born?
    श्रृणु देवि जगद्वन्दे सत्यमं सत्यमं वदामिते।
    जटानां जन्मकर्माणि यन्न पूर्व प्रकाशितं ।।14।।
    Translation - Having read the mind of Parvati, Shiva said, "O mother of the world, I may tell you honestly the origin and exploits of the Jats about whom none else has so far revealed anything to you.
    महाबला महावीर्या, महासत्य पराक्रमाः Mahābalā mahāvīryā, Mahāsatya parākramāḥ
    सर्वाग्रे क्षत्रिया जट्‌टा देवकल्‍पा दृढ़-व्रता: Sarvāgre kshatriyā jattā Devakalpā dridh-vratāḥ ।।15।।
    Translation - "Shiva said, They are symbol of sacrifice, bravery and industry. They are, like gods, firm of determination and of all the kshatriyā, the Jats are the prime rulers of the earth."


    श्रृष्टेरादौ महामाये वीर भद्रस्य शक्तित: Shrishterādau mahāmāye Virabhadrasya shaktitaḥ
    कन्यानां दक्षस्य गर्भे जाता जट्टा महेश्वरी Kanyānām Dakshasya garbhe jātā jattā maheshwarī. ।।16।।
    Translation – "Shiva said, In the beginning of the universe with the personification of the illusionary powers of Virabhadra and Daksha's daughter gani's womb originated the caste of Jats."


    गर्व खर्चोत्र विग्राणां देवानां च महेश्वरी Garva kharchotra vigrānam devānām cha maheshwarī
    विचित्रं विस्‍मयं सत्‍वं पौराण कै साङ्गीपितं Vichitram vismayam satvam Pauran kai sāngīpitam ।।17।।


    Translation - "Shiva said, The history of origin of Jats is extremely wonderful and their antiquity glorious. The Pundits of history did not record their annals, lest it should injure and impair their false pride and of the vipras and gods."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @iffen
    I think it’s a bit of a false dichotomy

    Which part of Soviet tanks in Budapest was false?

    As most Hungarians are aware, the Soviets weren’t kicked out of Hungary by anyone. We tried it in 1956, but it didn’t work, and no one sent military aid to us. Budapest was apparently not as important as the Donbas. Anyway, they left out of their own volition.

    But what do Soviet tanks in Budapest have to do with the false dichotomy you posed? Except of course that’s it’s also a part of that false dichotomy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    Budapest was apparently not as important as the Donbas.
     
    A good analogy. The Russians had no good reason to butt into Hungary in '56 as today in Donbas.Their spin doctors today are equally uninspiring in finding solid ground for their unwanted incursions into Ukraine, as they were back during the Hungarian unrest. The difference between then and now is that the Soviet Union, with Russia controlling the imperial center, was a much more solid behemoth than the Russia of today.
    , @iffen
    With regard to Iran and Russia vis-à-vis the U.S., there is some value in sticking with the devil that you know.
    , @songbird
    Eisenhower, I think, was very practical. In 1956, I don't think that one could realistically give aid to Hungary. If armies had been sent in that would have caused WW3, so you can't send in armies. Eisenhower was left with the mess that Churchill and FDR had created.

    What can you send in? Maybe, you could get away with sending in guns - of course they would be traceable. But what use are guns against tanks? And then it is important to remember the dynamic: it was not just the USSR that wanted to crush Hungary, it was all the quislings of all the puppet states in Eastern Europe.

    That I believe is why Gerald Ford later made his infamous remarks in 1976 "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe." I don't think it is remotely possible that he could have literally been that bone-headed. I think he was trying to maneuver away from being manipulated into fruitless and dangerous conflict by the press. His answer was stupid, but how could he have answered smartly? By saber-rattling?

    The CIA acted to help the Tibetans, but that was purposeless, since they stood no chance anyway. In Hungary, it would have only been a repeat of that. Another example would be the Bay of Pigs.
    , @AP

    Budapest was apparently not as important as the Donbas.
     
    1. In 1956 the USSR was much more powerful and accordingly was treated more carefully than is 21st century Russia.

    2. Ukraine has about 4 x more people than Hungary is more of a strategic assett worth having, than is Hungary. Denying Russia 40 million people is more significant than is denying it Hungary's single digit millions.

    Speaking of Ukraine, the final round of testing of its Vilkha missile is finally complete and mass production is set to begin. This missile is fully produced in Ukraine (closed production cycle) and is analogous Russia's current modernized Smerch system:

    http://defence-blog.com/missiles/new-ukrainian-high-precision-rockets-system-completes-final-test.html

    It's a remarkable achievement, given the sad state of Ukriane's defense forces and industry in 2014.

    Russian nationalists who hope that Ukriane is forever in 2014 will be dissappointed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Mr. Hack says:
    @reiner Tor
    As most Hungarians are aware, the Soviets weren't kicked out of Hungary by anyone. We tried it in 1956, but it didn't work, and no one sent military aid to us. Budapest was apparently not as important as the Donbas. Anyway, they left out of their own volition.

    But what do Soviet tanks in Budapest have to do with the false dichotomy you posed? Except of course that's it's also a part of that false dichotomy.

    Budapest was apparently not as important as the Donbas.

    A good analogy. The Russians had no good reason to butt into Hungary in ’56 as today in Donbas.Their spin doctors today are equally uninspiring in finding solid ground for their unwanted incursions into Ukraine, as they were back during the Hungarian unrest. The difference between then and now is that the Soviet Union, with Russia controlling the imperial center, was a much more solid behemoth than the Russia of today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    What a stupid remark.

    The USSR had an obvious reason to butt into Hungary in 1956--preventing one of its satellite states from exiting the Soviet orbit.

    Similarly noting that Russia's incursions into the Ukraine are "unwanted" is idiotic. Why would Moscow care if the Ukraine wants these incursions? For that matter why would anyone other than the Ukrainians themselves care?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. iffen says:

    But what do Soviet tanks in Budapest have to do with the false dichotomy you posed?

    It is my refutation of your proposed false dichotomy which I do not accept.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    No, it is a false dichotomy: either Soviet tanks in Budapest, or US military action against Iran and "vital US interests" in Ukraine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @Mr. Hack

    Budapest was apparently not as important as the Donbas.
     
    A good analogy. The Russians had no good reason to butt into Hungary in '56 as today in Donbas.Their spin doctors today are equally uninspiring in finding solid ground for their unwanted incursions into Ukraine, as they were back during the Hungarian unrest. The difference between then and now is that the Soviet Union, with Russia controlling the imperial center, was a much more solid behemoth than the Russia of today.

    What a stupid remark.

    The USSR had an obvious reason to butt into Hungary in 1956–preventing one of its satellite states from exiting the Soviet orbit.

    Similarly noting that Russia’s incursions into the Ukraine are “unwanted” is idiotic. Why would Moscow care if the Ukraine wants these incursions? For that matter why would anyone other than the Ukrainians themselves care?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Why should one country dictate the policies of another? Hungary finally broke away, and Ukraine is following suit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. iffen says:
    @reiner Tor
    As most Hungarians are aware, the Soviets weren't kicked out of Hungary by anyone. We tried it in 1956, but it didn't work, and no one sent military aid to us. Budapest was apparently not as important as the Donbas. Anyway, they left out of their own volition.

    But what do Soviet tanks in Budapest have to do with the false dichotomy you posed? Except of course that's it's also a part of that false dichotomy.

    With regard to Iran and Russia vis-à-vis the U.S., there is some value in sticking with the devil that you know.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Mr. Hack says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    What a stupid remark.

    The USSR had an obvious reason to butt into Hungary in 1956--preventing one of its satellite states from exiting the Soviet orbit.

    Similarly noting that Russia's incursions into the Ukraine are "unwanted" is idiotic. Why would Moscow care if the Ukraine wants these incursions? For that matter why would anyone other than the Ukrainians themselves care?

    Why should one country dictate the policies of another? Hungary finally broke away, and Ukraine is following suit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    As he's explained many times and you clearly are daft not to understand by this point, he considers Ukraine as "country" like unicorn is an "animal." Only the latter actually can exist as heraldry and mythology to provide beauty and grace, while the former just cultivates gay parades.
    , @Thorfinnsson
    Aside from Daniel Chieh's well advised rejoinder, there is no "why" here at all.

    This is simply how the world works.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Mr. Hack says:

    . Why would Moscow care if the Ukraine wants these incursions? For that matter why would anyone other than the Ukrainians themselves care?

    Why? Ukraine is a relatively large country within an important geographic zone. It’s also a country that has been a satellite country for Russia and would fit nicely into Russia’s Eurasian schemes, if it were cooperative. It’s importance ha been noted by the cynical grandmaster of international chess, Zbigniew Brzezinski, as the key to controlling Eurasia. Thus, it has become an important piece of diplomacy (not a pawn, I may add) being contested between Russia and America. Who do you think is winning at this point?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Traditionally it was not a satellite country of Russia, but actually part of Russia (and, previously, Poland).

    That said your point is fair and well taken. Similarly the Kaiserreich was interested in cultivating a nominally independent Ukrainian satellite state, as was Pilsudsky.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Jon0815 says:

    China continues to gain rapidly on the US, even while spending a lower share of its GDP. Adjusting for PPP, total Chinese military spending might be close to approaching American levels.

    Three steps to a roughly accurate measure of a country’s real military spending (PPP):

    1) take nominal military spending, minus arms imports*
    2) multiply by ratio of PPP-adjusted GDP to nominal GDP
    3) add arms imports

    This produces the following rankings for 2017:

    USA $610 billion
    China $433 billion
    India $219 billion
    Saudi Arabia $192 billion
    Russia $178 billion
    France $57 billion
    UK $47 billion
    Japan $45 billion
    Iran $44 billion
    Germany $44 billion

    * SIPRI estimates that 2017 arms imports were $4 billion for Saudi Arabia and $3 billion for India

    Read More
    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  69. Dmitry says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    Oil is very important to Russia, but let's not exaggerate. The country is as about as oil dependent as Norway, and unlike the USSR it is self-sufficient in agriculture (actually a major exporter). Unlike the USSR, the Russian Federation also doesn't have to provide oil to a network of client states at below world market prices (it has done so by choice in some cases, but it amounts to far less oil).

    There are a number of other problems with this article. Putin indeed did try to integrate with the West, only to be rewarded with W scrapping the ABM Treaty in 2002.

    The article then repeats the outright lie that Russia invaded Georgia, when in fact Georgia invaded South Ossetia.

    The reset went sour over America's bizarre hatred of the Assman and Victoria Jewland launching a coup d'etat in the Ukraine.

    And incidentally, oil prices have been low since 2014. Since then we've seen endless Russian "aggression" in the Ukraine and Syria, no?

    Typical trash propaganda from the Ecommunist.

    I would also suggest that oil might not be such a good thing for Russia as it serves as a disincentive to develop other globally competitive industries. Norway, while a lot wealthier than Russia per capita, is noteworthy in that its only other globally competitive industries are shipping, fishing, and aquaculture. Canada and Australia are if anything even worse than that, though Canada has a growing tech sector (which outrages me).

    The country is as about as oil dependent as Norway, and unlike the USSR it is self-sufficient in agriculture (actually a major exporter). Unlike the USSR, the Russian Federation

    The aim is to become self-sufficient in agriculture in 2023. Until the last couple of years, 40% of food was imported, although this is now changing (with the move to self-sufficiency finalizing in 2023).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Dmitry says:
    @Gerard2

    With $66.3 billion military budget in 2017 – Russia’s military expenditure has increased by 87.2% comparing to 2007 SIPRI data.
     
    Dollar:Rouble price massively changed in the last 3 years, 2007 is pre-financial crash data ( many western countries are still either only slightly ahead of their GDP level then or not even reached it at all)....plus the war against Georgia and greater and quicker development /application of military tech research back into the civilian sector than before...........this sugests to me not a big deal, and all mainly because of the rouble devaluation

    Either way, the multi-year increase is very, very significant increase in military expenditure. 87.2% increase in military budget in nominal terms, over ten years. I’m not sure if the increase is more or less in real terms – but either way a very significant increase.

    The annual fluctuation of 2017 compared to 2016 – whatever accounting cause – seems minor in this perspective.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Mr. Hack
    Why should one country dictate the policies of another? Hungary finally broke away, and Ukraine is following suit.

    As he’s explained many times and you clearly are daft not to understand by this point, he considers Ukraine as “country” like unicorn is an “animal.” Only the latter actually can exist as heraldry and mythology to provide beauty and grace, while the former just cultivates gay parades.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    The reality is that there are over 40 million people that inhabit the very real country of Ukraine, that want it to exist in the family of world nations, and are willing to give their lives to see that it continues to exist. It has its own language, history, literature and its own governments, universities, mail system, news sources, television and radio stations and armed forces. It really doesn't matter what a few flakes like you or anybody else thinks is real or is not. The insane asylums are full of lunatics that see the world in their own unique way.
    , @AP
    You seem to have the mistaken idea that Ukraine is to Russia as Taiwan is to China.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Mr. Hack says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    As he's explained many times and you clearly are daft not to understand by this point, he considers Ukraine as "country" like unicorn is an "animal." Only the latter actually can exist as heraldry and mythology to provide beauty and grace, while the former just cultivates gay parades.

    The reality is that there are over 40 million people that inhabit the very real country of Ukraine, that want it to exist in the family of world nations, and are willing to give their lives to see that it continues to exist. It has its own language, history, literature and its own governments, universities, mail system, news sources, television and radio stations and armed forces. It really doesn’t matter what a few flakes like you or anybody else thinks is real or is not. The insane asylums are full of lunatics that see the world in their own unique way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    There are also over 40 million people who reside between New York and Washington. I guess that's now a country.

    There are people in Oregon who are convinced they are their own country that should exist in the "family of world nations".

    Ukrainian language--dialect of Russian

    Ukrainian history--cradle of Russian civilization, followed by domination by Poland and Russia

    Ukrainian literature--have never heard of it, likely doesn't even exist

    Ukrainian government--exists because Boris Yelstin found it was the only way he could replace Gorbachev

    Ukrainian universities--established by Poland and Russia, and in any case the fucking city of New York has universities

    Ukrainian mail system--established by the Russian Empire

    Ukrainian news sources--fake news

    Ukrainian television--established in the USSR

    Ukrainian radio stations--established in the USSR

    Ukrainian armed forces--nice T-72s and MiGs

    Maybe it's not us brah. Maybe it's you.

    Ukrainian statehood is an anomaly which only exists in the event of a power vacuum between Poland and Russia.

    You could compare the Ukraine's contemporary "independence" to the long-time efforts of France to turn the Rhineland into an "independent" French satellite state.

    But you won't because you're a brainwashed petty-nationalist Ukrocuck who wants to be a loser member of a loser country that doesn't exist.

    KIEV

    KIEV

    KIEV

    KIEV

    KIEV

    If AP is reading apologies in advance, but Mr. Hack really is...a hack.

    , @Daniel Chieh

    and are willing to give their lives to see that it continues to exist
     
    What? For the great all-dancing, all-gleaming gay disco of liberalism?

    This is good. I hope they get their wish soon.
    , @Gerard2

    over 40 million people
     
    ...more like 22-25 million you idiot

    very real country
     
    ...very fake, abnormal, artificial country whose fathers are Stalin and Lenin mainly


    willing to give their lives to see that it continues to exist

     

    ...you mean leave by the millions...or if they do try and "help" it....then they invariable fuck it up even more. How's that daft retard Canadian Nazi bitch doing with the health there?(poorly) ..Jaresko has gone very quickly back to the US ...the "Ukrainian" "patriot" that she is

    It has its own language
     
    ...no it doesn't..you remember that Yushchenko clip I linked here?

    own governments
     
    ...you really want to claim ownership of the freakshow?
    Even if you did...this government set-up directly or behind the scenes of Gruzians, Poles,Lithuanians,Canadians and the Americans(of whom they are a puppet state of now) is really not "Ukrainian"...the oligarchs though who control even more % of a much smaller pie of shit now , thean 4 years before.....you can have them...they are "Ukrainian? in the truest sense


    history, literature
     
    ...errm no it doesn't...SHARED history of the Russian peoples yes

    news sources, television and radio stations
     
    ....before the bans, Russian television shows on state tv were the most watched in Ukraine, radio followed keenly, most Ukrainian media publications have the same titles as you would only find in Russia/Belarus ( hmmm..I wonder why?), pretty much every Russian music group, singer, tv health doctor is famous in Ukraine and vice-versa...and these same people are virtually anonymous outside the post-soviet space ( not even post-Warsaw pact countries)..this is because Russians and Ukrainians are the same people


    universities
     
    ..yes the ones in Ukraine with the rich Soviet history do offer academic excellence


    armed forces
     
    ..hahahahaha! You want to claim ownership of these suicidal, war-crime loving dipshits ?( except the true patriots who have defected by the bucketload)
    , @Felix Keverich

    The reality is that there are over 40 million people that inhabit the very real country of Ukraine, that want it to exist in the family of world nations, and are willing to give their lives to see that it continues to exist.
     
    I assume this number includes population of "people's republics", which is rather funny, because for the last 4 years the locals have been giving their lifes fighting Ukrainian occupation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. songbird says:
    @reiner Tor
    As most Hungarians are aware, the Soviets weren't kicked out of Hungary by anyone. We tried it in 1956, but it didn't work, and no one sent military aid to us. Budapest was apparently not as important as the Donbas. Anyway, they left out of their own volition.

    But what do Soviet tanks in Budapest have to do with the false dichotomy you posed? Except of course that's it's also a part of that false dichotomy.

    Eisenhower, I think, was very practical. In 1956, I don’t think that one could realistically give aid to Hungary. If armies had been sent in that would have caused WW3, so you can’t send in armies. Eisenhower was left with the mess that Churchill and FDR had created.

    What can you send in? Maybe, you could get away with sending in guns – of course they would be traceable. But what use are guns against tanks? And then it is important to remember the dynamic: it was not just the USSR that wanted to crush Hungary, it was all the quislings of all the puppet states in Eastern Europe.

    That I believe is why Gerald Ford later made his infamous remarks in 1976 “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.” I don’t think it is remotely possible that he could have literally been that bone-headed. I think he was trying to maneuver away from being manipulated into fruitless and dangerous conflict by the press. His answer was stupid, but how could he have answered smartly? By saber-rattling?

    The CIA acted to help the Tibetans, but that was purposeless, since they stood no chance anyway. In Hungary, it would have only been a repeat of that. Another example would be the Bay of Pigs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson


    That I believe is why Gerald Ford later made his infamous remarks in 1976 “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.” I don’t think it is remotely possible that he could have literally been that bone-headed. I think he was trying to maneuver away from being manipulated into fruitless and dangerous conflict by the press. His answer was stupid, but how could he have answered smartly? By saber-rattling?
     
    Ford's remark was allegedly meant to be anticommunist, in that he meant the USA did not accept Soviet domination and that the spirit of Eastern European nations remained unconquered. At least that's what the administration claimed in the days ahead.

    Probably the man who signed the Helsinki Final Accords and continued Detente tacitly accepted Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and blurted it out in an odd way.
    , @for-the-record
    Eisenhower, I think, was very practical. In 1956, I don’t think that one could realistically give aid to Hungary.

    This is undoubtedly true. What is unfortunate then is that the his government, through the CIA, gave encouragement to the Hungarians to resist by leading them to believe that they would receive outside support.

    Archives Confirm False Hope Fed Hungary Revolt

    Newly released documents concerning Radio Free Europe broadcasts during the 1956 Hungarian uprising against the Soviets confirm what many Hungarians remembered and others suspected: that commentators encouraged the Hungarians to battle on in the false understanding that they would receive reinforcements from the West . . .

    The main item shedding new light on the broadcasts is an internal Radio Free Europe memorandum written by William Griffith, then a political adviser at the Munich-based station, a few weeks after the rebellion was crushed.

    Mr. Griffith noted that a broadcast on Oct. 27, four days after the revolt began, ''fairly clearly implies that foreign aid will be forthcoming if the resistance forces succeed in establishing a 'central military command.' ''

    A program on the following day, Mr. Griffith said, stated that ''Hungarians must continue to fight vigorously because this will have a great effect on the handling of the Hungarian question by the Security Council.'' Without saying so directly, the author of the broadcast, a Hungarian emigre, implied that the United Nations would give active support to Hungarians if they kept on fighting, Mr. Griffith said.

    At the time of the revolt, Radio Free Europe was covertly financed in part by the Central Intelligence Agency . . .

    https://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/28/world/archives-confirm-false-hope-fed-hungary-revolt.html

     

    , @reiner Tor
    Eisenhower was wise. I didn't say otherwise.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @Mr. Hack
    Why should one country dictate the policies of another? Hungary finally broke away, and Ukraine is following suit.

    Aside from Daniel Chieh’s well advised rejoinder, there is no “why” here at all.

    This is simply how the world works.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Mr. Hack

    . Why would Moscow care if the Ukraine wants these incursions? For that matter why would anyone other than the Ukrainians themselves care?
     
    Why? Ukraine is a relatively large country within an important geographic zone. It's also a country that has been a satellite country for Russia and would fit nicely into Russia's Eurasian schemes, if it were cooperative. It's importance ha been noted by the cynical grandmaster of international chess, Zbigniew Brzezinski, as the key to controlling Eurasia. Thus, it has become an important piece of diplomacy (not a pawn, I may add) being contested between Russia and America. Who do you think is winning at this point?

    Traditionally it was not a satellite country of Russia, but actually part of Russia (and, previously, Poland).

    That said your point is fair and well taken. Similarly the Kaiserreich was interested in cultivating a nominally independent Ukrainian satellite state, as was Pilsudsky.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Traditionally it was not a satellite country of Russia, but actually part of Russia (and, previously, Poland).
     
    To be precise, it was for most of its history a somewhat separate/autonomous part of Poland - when it was run by mostly local princes/magnates with their private armies - and Russia, when it was mostly an autonomous Hetmanate (with its own courts, and even military) and in the end its own SSR. It was fully integrated with Russia for only 130 years or so. The relationship with Russia was not particularly stable, indicative of its unnatural nature.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @songbird
    Eisenhower, I think, was very practical. In 1956, I don't think that one could realistically give aid to Hungary. If armies had been sent in that would have caused WW3, so you can't send in armies. Eisenhower was left with the mess that Churchill and FDR had created.

    What can you send in? Maybe, you could get away with sending in guns - of course they would be traceable. But what use are guns against tanks? And then it is important to remember the dynamic: it was not just the USSR that wanted to crush Hungary, it was all the quislings of all the puppet states in Eastern Europe.

    That I believe is why Gerald Ford later made his infamous remarks in 1976 "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe." I don't think it is remotely possible that he could have literally been that bone-headed. I think he was trying to maneuver away from being manipulated into fruitless and dangerous conflict by the press. His answer was stupid, but how could he have answered smartly? By saber-rattling?

    The CIA acted to help the Tibetans, but that was purposeless, since they stood no chance anyway. In Hungary, it would have only been a repeat of that. Another example would be the Bay of Pigs.

    That I believe is why Gerald Ford later made his infamous remarks in 1976 “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.” I don’t think it is remotely possible that he could have literally been that bone-headed. I think he was trying to maneuver away from being manipulated into fruitless and dangerous conflict by the press. His answer was stupid, but how could he have answered smartly? By saber-rattling?

    Ford’s remark was allegedly meant to be anticommunist, in that he meant the USA did not accept Soviet domination and that the spirit of Eastern European nations remained unconquered. At least that’s what the administration claimed in the days ahead.

    Probably the man who signed the Helsinki Final Accords and continued Detente tacitly accepted Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and blurted it out in an odd way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. AP says:
    @reiner Tor
    As most Hungarians are aware, the Soviets weren't kicked out of Hungary by anyone. We tried it in 1956, but it didn't work, and no one sent military aid to us. Budapest was apparently not as important as the Donbas. Anyway, they left out of their own volition.

    But what do Soviet tanks in Budapest have to do with the false dichotomy you posed? Except of course that's it's also a part of that false dichotomy.

    Budapest was apparently not as important as the Donbas.

    1. In 1956 the USSR was much more powerful and accordingly was treated more carefully than is 21st century Russia.

    2. Ukraine has about 4 x more people than Hungary is more of a strategic assett worth having, than is Hungary. Denying Russia 40 million people is more significant than is denying it Hungary’s single digit millions.

    Speaking of Ukraine, the final round of testing of its Vilkha missile is finally complete and mass production is set to begin. This missile is fully produced in Ukraine (closed production cycle) and is analogous Russia’s current modernized Smerch system:

    http://defence-blog.com/missiles/new-ukrainian-high-precision-rockets-system-completes-final-test.html

    It’s a remarkable achievement, given the sad state of Ukriane’s defense forces and industry in 2014.

    Russian nationalists who hope that Ukriane is forever in 2014 will be dissappointed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson


    Russian nationalists who hope that Ukriane is forever in 2014 will be dissappointed.
     
    Karlin deserves praise for forecasting this and reporting accurately on it despite his own nationality and ideology.
    , @reiner Tor
    Ukraine is a "strategic asset worth having" only if you are

    - Ukrainian or

    - interested in attacking Russia or

    - interested in colonizing Ukraine

    Otherwise, a neutral Ukraine would be just fine. The irony is that by giving Ukraine the (false?) hope of joining the West, the Russians felt compelled to do something. In other words, if Russia was sure that Ukraine was to stay neutral forever, it would probably not have annexed Crimea etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @Mr. Hack
    The reality is that there are over 40 million people that inhabit the very real country of Ukraine, that want it to exist in the family of world nations, and are willing to give their lives to see that it continues to exist. It has its own language, history, literature and its own governments, universities, mail system, news sources, television and radio stations and armed forces. It really doesn't matter what a few flakes like you or anybody else thinks is real or is not. The insane asylums are full of lunatics that see the world in their own unique way.

    There are also over 40 million people who reside between New York and Washington. I guess that’s now a country.

    There are people in Oregon who are convinced they are their own country that should exist in the “family of world nations”.

    Ukrainian language–dialect of Russian

    Ukrainian history–cradle of Russian civilization, followed by domination by Poland and Russia

    Ukrainian literature–have never heard of it, likely doesn’t even exist

    Ukrainian government–exists because Boris Yelstin found it was the only way he could replace Gorbachev

    Ukrainian universities–established by Poland and Russia, and in any case the fucking city of New York has universities

    Ukrainian mail system–established by the Russian Empire

    Ukrainian news sources–fake news

    Ukrainian television–established in the USSR

    Ukrainian radio stations–established in the USSR

    Ukrainian armed forces–nice T-72s and MiGs

    Maybe it’s not us brah. Maybe it’s you.

    Ukrainian statehood is an anomaly which only exists in the event of a power vacuum between Poland and Russia.

    You could compare the Ukraine’s contemporary “independence” to the long-time efforts of France to turn the Rhineland into an “independent” French satellite state.

    But you won’t because you’re a brainwashed petty-nationalist Ukrocuck who wants to be a loser member of a loser country that doesn’t exist.

    KIEV

    KIEV

    KIEV

    KIEV

    KIEV

    If AP is reading apologies in advance, but Mr. Hack really is…a hack.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH
    Please tell me more about Europe, yank
    , @iffen
    Ukrainian language–dialect of Russian

    Ukrainian literature–have never heard of it, likely doesn’t even exist

    This argument is weak because the Ukrainian language and Ukrainian intellectuals were suppressed at various times.

    , @Mr. Hack
    And I thought that you were doing so well after just one treatment?...It looks like a follow-up treatment is looming on the horizon....(#145, you know the one!)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Mr. Hack
    The reality is that there are over 40 million people that inhabit the very real country of Ukraine, that want it to exist in the family of world nations, and are willing to give their lives to see that it continues to exist. It has its own language, history, literature and its own governments, universities, mail system, news sources, television and radio stations and armed forces. It really doesn't matter what a few flakes like you or anybody else thinks is real or is not. The insane asylums are full of lunatics that see the world in their own unique way.

    and are willing to give their lives to see that it continues to exist

    What? For the great all-dancing, all-gleaming gay disco of liberalism?

    This is good. I hope they get their wish soon.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    No.

    http://contropiano.org/img/2017/11/UzdiaXo.jpg

    For Super Mario Galaxy (note the t-shirt). :)
    , @Talha
    At the end of the day, if this is a civil war - then it is settled out of court. The South wanted to split - they weren't really a different nation. The Federal government was willing to go gangbusters on them:
    http://fighting-the-earth.leadr.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2015/04/Shermans-marsh.jpg

    Various regions weren't willing to pay the zakat to the Hijaz after the Prophet (pbuh) passed away, so they sent in Khalid ibn Walid (ra) to put them in check. Sometimes, that's what you gotta do - that's how it works - which side is willing to sacrifice more.:

    Ridda Wars in concise, stick-figure history...brilliant!!!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1w0Y-7BiEY

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @AP

    Budapest was apparently not as important as the Donbas.
     
    1. In 1956 the USSR was much more powerful and accordingly was treated more carefully than is 21st century Russia.

    2. Ukraine has about 4 x more people than Hungary is more of a strategic assett worth having, than is Hungary. Denying Russia 40 million people is more significant than is denying it Hungary's single digit millions.

    Speaking of Ukraine, the final round of testing of its Vilkha missile is finally complete and mass production is set to begin. This missile is fully produced in Ukraine (closed production cycle) and is analogous Russia's current modernized Smerch system:

    http://defence-blog.com/missiles/new-ukrainian-high-precision-rockets-system-completes-final-test.html

    It's a remarkable achievement, given the sad state of Ukriane's defense forces and industry in 2014.

    Russian nationalists who hope that Ukriane is forever in 2014 will be dissappointed.

    Russian nationalists who hope that Ukriane is forever in 2014 will be dissappointed.

    Karlin deserves praise for forecasting this and reporting accurately on it despite his own nationality and ideology.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    He does. He is among the most honest and perceptive of Russian nationalists; perhaps his time away from Russia has given him the quality of objective detachment.
    , @Gerard2

    Karlin deserves praise for forecasting this and reporting accurately on it despite his own nationality and ideology.
     
    Are you are impaired? It's in an even worse and more failed state now then it was then. This is worse then the post-Orange situation.....that is, unless you think cleaning toilets in the EU is a wonderful life choice
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. AP says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    Traditionally it was not a satellite country of Russia, but actually part of Russia (and, previously, Poland).

    That said your point is fair and well taken. Similarly the Kaiserreich was interested in cultivating a nominally independent Ukrainian satellite state, as was Pilsudsky.

    Traditionally it was not a satellite country of Russia, but actually part of Russia (and, previously, Poland).

    To be precise, it was for most of its history a somewhat separate/autonomous part of Poland – when it was run by mostly local princes/magnates with their private armies – and Russia, when it was mostly an autonomous Hetmanate (with its own courts, and even military) and in the end its own SSR. It was fully integrated with Russia for only 130 years or so. The relationship with Russia was not particularly stable, indicative of its unnatural nature.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    indicative of its unnatural nature.

    That's it?

    Natural or unnatural?

    Do we have to confine ourselves to the Ukrainian question as to what is natural? Because if we can apply this criterion to other situations, I have a list.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. AP says:
    @Thorfinnsson


    Russian nationalists who hope that Ukriane is forever in 2014 will be dissappointed.
     
    Karlin deserves praise for forecasting this and reporting accurately on it despite his own nationality and ideology.

    He does. He is among the most honest and perceptive of Russian nationalists; perhaps his time away from Russia has given him the quality of objective detachment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    I was just thinking that by the very the logic of Russian nationalists (i.e. that Ukrainians are in fact Russians), then logically an independent Ukraine should develop in similar ways to an independent Russia. Thus recent improvements in the Ukraine should have been predicted by them.

    The main reason that the Ukraine is so much poorer today than Russia is simply because Ukraine didn't get its own Putin and the oligarchs continued to run the country into the ground (plus no oil). The reason for this is obviously that the siloviks were for obvious reasons centered in Moscow, so in the Ukraine they were and are much weaker than the oligarchs.

    I'm not going to forecast this as I lack knowledge on the ground, but if Ukrainian independence and Western hostility to Russia both persist it's possible that the Ukraine will become wealthier than Russia in time owing to Western capital, technology, and management.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @Daniel Chieh

    and are willing to give their lives to see that it continues to exist
     
    What? For the great all-dancing, all-gleaming gay disco of liberalism?

    This is good. I hope they get their wish soon.

    No.

    For Super Mario Galaxy (note the t-shirt). :)

    Read More
    • LOL: AP
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @AP
    He does. He is among the most honest and perceptive of Russian nationalists; perhaps his time away from Russia has given him the quality of objective detachment.

    I was just thinking that by the very the logic of Russian nationalists (i.e. that Ukrainians are in fact Russians), then logically an independent Ukraine should develop in similar ways to an independent Russia. Thus recent improvements in the Ukraine should have been predicted by them.

    The main reason that the Ukraine is so much poorer today than Russia is simply because Ukraine didn’t get its own Putin and the oligarchs continued to run the country into the ground (plus no oil). The reason for this is obviously that the siloviks were for obvious reasons centered in Moscow, so in the Ukraine they were and are much weaker than the oligarchs.

    I’m not going to forecast this as I lack knowledge on the ground, but if Ukrainian independence and Western hostility to Russia both persist it’s possible that the Ukraine will become wealthier than Russia in time owing to Western capital, technology, and management.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    I was just thinking that by the very the logic of Russian nationalists (i.e. that Ukrainians are in fact Russians),
     
    Compared to average population, being Russian nationalist would show some degree of correlation with being more pro-Ukraine, everything thing else equal.

    It's not that all or even most nationalists are pro-Kiev. But they will be in higher frequency than in a non-nationalist sample group.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @songbird
    Eisenhower, I think, was very practical. In 1956, I don't think that one could realistically give aid to Hungary. If armies had been sent in that would have caused WW3, so you can't send in armies. Eisenhower was left with the mess that Churchill and FDR had created.

    What can you send in? Maybe, you could get away with sending in guns - of course they would be traceable. But what use are guns against tanks? And then it is important to remember the dynamic: it was not just the USSR that wanted to crush Hungary, it was all the quislings of all the puppet states in Eastern Europe.

    That I believe is why Gerald Ford later made his infamous remarks in 1976 "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe." I don't think it is remotely possible that he could have literally been that bone-headed. I think he was trying to maneuver away from being manipulated into fruitless and dangerous conflict by the press. His answer was stupid, but how could he have answered smartly? By saber-rattling?

    The CIA acted to help the Tibetans, but that was purposeless, since they stood no chance anyway. In Hungary, it would have only been a repeat of that. Another example would be the Bay of Pigs.

    Eisenhower, I think, was very practical. In 1956, I don’t think that one could realistically give aid to Hungary.

    This is undoubtedly true. What is unfortunate then is that the his government, through the CIA, gave encouragement to the Hungarians to resist by leading them to believe that they would receive outside support.

    Archives Confirm False Hope Fed Hungary Revolt

    Newly released documents concerning Radio Free Europe broadcasts during the 1956 Hungarian uprising against the Soviets confirm what many Hungarians remembered and others suspected: that commentators encouraged the Hungarians to battle on in the false understanding that they would receive reinforcements from the West . . .

    The main item shedding new light on the broadcasts is an internal Radio Free Europe memorandum written by William Griffith, then a political adviser at the Munich-based station, a few weeks after the rebellion was crushed.

    Mr. Griffith noted that a broadcast on Oct. 27, four days after the revolt began, ”fairly clearly implies that foreign aid will be forthcoming if the resistance forces succeed in establishing a ‘central military command.’ ”

    A program on the following day, Mr. Griffith said, stated that ”Hungarians must continue to fight vigorously because this will have a great effect on the handling of the Hungarian question by the Security Council.” Without saying so directly, the author of the broadcast, a Hungarian emigre, implied that the United Nations would give active support to Hungarians if they kept on fighting, Mr. Griffith said.

    At the time of the revolt, Radio Free Europe was covertly financed in part by the Central Intelligence Agency . . .

    https://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/28/world/archives-confirm-false-hope-fed-hungary-revolt.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird
    That is interesting, but the UN connection is kind of weird. On Korea, the USSR foolishly made a mistake in the UN. I don't think they would have done the same regarding Hungary, but perhaps Hungarians at the time would not have had the knowledge to understand how the Security Council worked.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Talha says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    and are willing to give their lives to see that it continues to exist
     
    What? For the great all-dancing, all-gleaming gay disco of liberalism?

    This is good. I hope they get their wish soon.

    At the end of the day, if this is a civil war – then it is settled out of court. The South wanted to split – they weren’t really a different nation. The Federal government was willing to go gangbusters on them:

    Various regions weren’t willing to pay the zakat to the Hijaz after the Prophet (pbuh) passed away, so they sent in Khalid ibn Walid (ra) to put them in check. Sometimes, that’s what you gotta do – that’s how it works – which side is willing to sacrifice more.:

    Ridda Wars in concise, stick-figure history…brilliant!!!

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. songbird says:
    @for-the-record
    Eisenhower, I think, was very practical. In 1956, I don’t think that one could realistically give aid to Hungary.

    This is undoubtedly true. What is unfortunate then is that the his government, through the CIA, gave encouragement to the Hungarians to resist by leading them to believe that they would receive outside support.

    Archives Confirm False Hope Fed Hungary Revolt

    Newly released documents concerning Radio Free Europe broadcasts during the 1956 Hungarian uprising against the Soviets confirm what many Hungarians remembered and others suspected: that commentators encouraged the Hungarians to battle on in the false understanding that they would receive reinforcements from the West . . .

    The main item shedding new light on the broadcasts is an internal Radio Free Europe memorandum written by William Griffith, then a political adviser at the Munich-based station, a few weeks after the rebellion was crushed.

    Mr. Griffith noted that a broadcast on Oct. 27, four days after the revolt began, ''fairly clearly implies that foreign aid will be forthcoming if the resistance forces succeed in establishing a 'central military command.' ''

    A program on the following day, Mr. Griffith said, stated that ''Hungarians must continue to fight vigorously because this will have a great effect on the handling of the Hungarian question by the Security Council.'' Without saying so directly, the author of the broadcast, a Hungarian emigre, implied that the United Nations would give active support to Hungarians if they kept on fighting, Mr. Griffith said.

    At the time of the revolt, Radio Free Europe was covertly financed in part by the Central Intelligence Agency . . .

    https://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/28/world/archives-confirm-false-hope-fed-hungary-revolt.html

     

    That is interesting, but the UN connection is kind of weird. On Korea, the USSR foolishly made a mistake in the UN. I don’t think they would have done the same regarding Hungary, but perhaps Hungarians at the time would not have had the knowledge to understand how the Security Council worked.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    The UN as such had only existed for 11 years in 1956, and I'd bet dollars to donuts that the communist Hungarian press didn't go out of its way to explain to Hungarians what kind of mistake in 1950 the USSR made. So I think many Hungarians didn't fully understand what was and what was not possible in the UNSC. But people were vaguely aware that Korea received military assistance with some kind of UN blessing. So it sounded realistic, especially because under communism people trusted Radio Free Europe, which provided supposedly objective news, as opposed to the official communist propaganda.
    , @for-the-record
    On Korea, the USSR foolishly made a mistake in the UN

    This is certainly the conventional wisdom, but apparently it was not a mistake but a calculated decision.

    From Stalin to Gottwald, 27 August 1950

    We view the issue of the Soviet Union's withdrawal from the Security Council on 27 June and the events which unfolded afterwards somewhat differently from Comrade Gottwald.

    We left the Security Council for four reasons: first, to demonstrate solidarity of the Soviet Union with the new China.

    Second, to underscore the foolishness and idiocy of the United States policy of recognizing the Guomindang puppet in the Security Council as the representative of China and not wanting to admit the genuine representative of China to the Security Council; third, to render decisions of the Security Council illegitimate by virtue of the absence of representatives of two great powers; fourth, to give the American government a free hand and give it an opportunity to commit more foolishness using a majority in the Security Council so that public opinion can see the true face of the American government.

    I believe that we have achieved all of these goals.

    Following our withdrawal from the Security Council, America became entangled in a military intervention in Korea and is now squandering its military prestige and moral authority. Few honest people can now doubt that America is now acting as an aggressor and tyrant in Korea and that it is not as militarily powerful as it claims to be. In addition, it is clear that the United States of America is presently distracted from Europe in the Far East. Does it not give us an advantage in the global balance of power? It undoubtedly does

    . . .

    http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/112225

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. DFH says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    There are also over 40 million people who reside between New York and Washington. I guess that's now a country.

    There are people in Oregon who are convinced they are their own country that should exist in the "family of world nations".

    Ukrainian language--dialect of Russian

    Ukrainian history--cradle of Russian civilization, followed by domination by Poland and Russia

    Ukrainian literature--have never heard of it, likely doesn't even exist

    Ukrainian government--exists because Boris Yelstin found it was the only way he could replace Gorbachev

    Ukrainian universities--established by Poland and Russia, and in any case the fucking city of New York has universities

    Ukrainian mail system--established by the Russian Empire

    Ukrainian news sources--fake news

    Ukrainian television--established in the USSR

    Ukrainian radio stations--established in the USSR

    Ukrainian armed forces--nice T-72s and MiGs

    Maybe it's not us brah. Maybe it's you.

    Ukrainian statehood is an anomaly which only exists in the event of a power vacuum between Poland and Russia.

    You could compare the Ukraine's contemporary "independence" to the long-time efforts of France to turn the Rhineland into an "independent" French satellite state.

    But you won't because you're a brainwashed petty-nationalist Ukrocuck who wants to be a loser member of a loser country that doesn't exist.

    KIEV

    KIEV

    KIEV

    KIEV

    KIEV

    If AP is reading apologies in advance, but Mr. Hack really is...a hack.

    Please tell me more about Europe, yank

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. iffen says:
    @AP

    Traditionally it was not a satellite country of Russia, but actually part of Russia (and, previously, Poland).
     
    To be precise, it was for most of its history a somewhat separate/autonomous part of Poland - when it was run by mostly local princes/magnates with their private armies - and Russia, when it was mostly an autonomous Hetmanate (with its own courts, and even military) and in the end its own SSR. It was fully integrated with Russia for only 130 years or so. The relationship with Russia was not particularly stable, indicative of its unnatural nature.

    indicative of its unnatural nature.

    That’s it?

    Natural or unnatural?

    Do we have to confine ourselves to the Ukrainian question as to what is natural? Because if we can apply this criterion to other situations, I have a list.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    If Ukraine were an organic or natural part of Russia its people would behave like people from Oryol or Volgograd or Pskov. Instead they act like Balts or Poles, rebelling or joining any western invader when given the chance. Deluded Russian nationalists who really believe that Ukraine is Russia think this is "betrayal."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. iffen says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    There are also over 40 million people who reside between New York and Washington. I guess that's now a country.

    There are people in Oregon who are convinced they are their own country that should exist in the "family of world nations".

    Ukrainian language--dialect of Russian

    Ukrainian history--cradle of Russian civilization, followed by domination by Poland and Russia

    Ukrainian literature--have never heard of it, likely doesn't even exist

    Ukrainian government--exists because Boris Yelstin found it was the only way he could replace Gorbachev

    Ukrainian universities--established by Poland and Russia, and in any case the fucking city of New York has universities

    Ukrainian mail system--established by the Russian Empire

    Ukrainian news sources--fake news

    Ukrainian television--established in the USSR

    Ukrainian radio stations--established in the USSR

    Ukrainian armed forces--nice T-72s and MiGs

    Maybe it's not us brah. Maybe it's you.

    Ukrainian statehood is an anomaly which only exists in the event of a power vacuum between Poland and Russia.

    You could compare the Ukraine's contemporary "independence" to the long-time efforts of France to turn the Rhineland into an "independent" French satellite state.

    But you won't because you're a brainwashed petty-nationalist Ukrocuck who wants to be a loser member of a loser country that doesn't exist.

    KIEV

    KIEV

    KIEV

    KIEV

    KIEV

    If AP is reading apologies in advance, but Mr. Hack really is...a hack.

    Ukrainian language–dialect of Russian

    Ukrainian literature–have never heard of it, likely doesn’t even exist

    This argument is weak because the Ukrainian language and Ukrainian intellectuals were suppressed at various times.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Not at all. Think about why Occitan and Low German no longer exist.

    Meanwhile in Great Britain, the continued and unnecessary existence of hideous Gaelic tongues that sound like a cat being strangled has been slowly unraveling the United Kingdom for the past century.

    This is why it's crucial to terminate the Ukraine's independence as soon as possible. The longer the Kiev regime exists the greater the danger of a real Ukrainian language and identity.

    Just look at Canada. The failures of 1776 and 1812 have led people on both sides of the 49th parallel to accept the bizarre, disgusting existence of Canada as something natural.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @iffen
    Ukrainian language–dialect of Russian

    Ukrainian literature–have never heard of it, likely doesn’t even exist

    This argument is weak because the Ukrainian language and Ukrainian intellectuals were suppressed at various times.

    Not at all. Think about why Occitan and Low German no longer exist.

    Meanwhile in Great Britain, the continued and unnecessary existence of hideous Gaelic tongues that sound like a cat being strangled has been slowly unraveling the United Kingdom for the past century.

    This is why it’s crucial to terminate the Ukraine’s independence as soon as possible. The longer the Kiev regime exists the greater the danger of a real Ukrainian language and identity.

    Just look at Canada. The failures of 1776 and 1812 have led people on both sides of the 49th parallel to accept the bizarre, disgusting existence of Canada as something natural.

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird
    Native English are being derided and marginalized as "white English", while Nigerians and subcons are being called "English." IMO, the continued existence old Britannic languages is important to the survival of any kind of true nationalism in the UK.

    You want me to check white on the census? Fuck you, I'm ____! (fill in the blank: Cornish, Welsh, Scottish, Irish.)

    If Ireland had continued to speak Irish as their first language, they would not be as pozzed as they are today. The same is even truer for most of Europe. Local languages and dialects were a barrier to globalists. Shakespeare and Dickens can be translated.
    , @iffen
    74.40 or fight!

    I don't see any good reason to think that the US would be better off with Canada as a part of the US.

    Although, I have thought that it might be nice to have the prairie provinces, maybe BC if they would keep Vancouver.
    , @AP

    Not at all. Think about why Occitan and Low German no longer exist.
     
    Absorbed and snuffed out centuries earlier.

    This is why it’s crucial to terminate the Ukraine’s independence as soon as possible. The longer the Kiev regime exists the greater the danger of a real Ukrainian language and identity.
     
    You are writing 200 years too late.

    Even in 1917 most Ukrainians voted for Ukrainian nationalist parties and during the Civil War there were no pro-Russian military formations or commanders from Ukraine. There were mostly a bunch of disorganized nationalists, anarchists and a small number of Commies, all of whom despised Russian patriots.

    Indeed, whenever there was a war or invasion people in Ukraine behaved as do occupied peoples like Poles or Balts, and not like "other Russians" as in Oryl or Pskov. Join the invaders, rebel, "betray." If Occitania were analogous to Ukraine Occitanians would joined the Germans during various wars.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. songbird says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    Not at all. Think about why Occitan and Low German no longer exist.

    Meanwhile in Great Britain, the continued and unnecessary existence of hideous Gaelic tongues that sound like a cat being strangled has been slowly unraveling the United Kingdom for the past century.

    This is why it's crucial to terminate the Ukraine's independence as soon as possible. The longer the Kiev regime exists the greater the danger of a real Ukrainian language and identity.

    Just look at Canada. The failures of 1776 and 1812 have led people on both sides of the 49th parallel to accept the bizarre, disgusting existence of Canada as something natural.

    Native English are being derided and marginalized as “white English”, while Nigerians and subcons are being called “English.” IMO, the continued existence old Britannic languages is important to the survival of any kind of true nationalism in the UK.

    You want me to check white on the census? Fuck you, I’m ____! (fill in the blank: Cornish, Welsh, Scottish, Irish.)

    If Ireland had continued to speak Irish as their first language, they would not be as pozzed as they are today. The same is even truer for most of Europe. Local languages and dialects were a barrier to globalists. Shakespeare and Dickens can be translated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    You want me to check white on the census? Fuck you, I’m ____! (fill in the blank: Cornish, Welsh, Scottish, Irish.)
     
    The globalists also like this. Because this is fragmentation. The Irish are different from the Scots, who are different from the Welsh, who are still different from the Cornish. And all of them are different from the white English.

    The Nazis gave some privileges to some Jews in the ghetto: all of them were worse off than before, but some of them not as much as others. Those who received some privileges clang to them, and helped the Nazis round up the rest of the Jews. In the end, all of them were deported and killed.

    The moral of the story is that such differences are bad, not good. The privileges given to the Irish over the "white English" (in England, I suppose; in Ireland they would be "white Irish") is by design, and the globalists want it that way.
    , @iffen
    Ebonics for all!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Sean says:
    @Sean
    Land was power for the early part of that period, and Russia was growing prodigiously in territory. Then the French loaned them massive amount of money to build (mainly military-purpose) railways, to the extent that the most influential, preWW1 German foreign policy statesman wondered whether it was worth planting trees on his estate as "the Russians will be here in a few years".


    The pre (WW2) war incorporation of the Baltic states and a bit of Finland was a drain on Soviet Russia that was imposed by Germany. Stalin was probably planning to grab the oil of Romania once the capitalists were exhausted fighting each other in the war Stalin had facilitated (the Soviet border with Romania was where where the strongest Soviet forces were encountered during the early part of Barbarossa). Hitler was obsessed with grabbing and hold every kind of resource but especially oi-- Operation Edelweiss was aimed at Baku.

    Russian fear of Eisenhower and then JFK's plan to let Germany have some say in the use of Nato Nukes (so US taxpayers didn't have to pay for everything) was responsible for the crisises of the Cold War. But Soviet Russia ultimately backed down in those confrontations

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_governor

    I think countries are a bit like endurance athletes inasmuch they instinctively down-regulate massively when their wherewithal begins to fall even slightly. Just a slight fall in energy is enough to make you feel overwhelmingly tired during a marathon say, but a little candy is enough to get let you go on, even though the candy is trivial in calorie terms and the actual balance is extremely negative. The feeling that power is increasing stokes you to perform extraordinary exploits. Or try to like Mikheil Saakashvili, whose country had some oil money I believe.

    Hitler with extra oil was much more dangerous. Stalin did not understand the effect of sending Soviet oil to Nazi Germany right up to the begining of Barbarossa, eh?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Apparently he didn't.

    Or actually, he did, in the sense that he did understand how Hitler needed the oil. What Stalin couldn't comprehend is how Hitler was willing to risk everything when all he had was the Romanian oil and some synthetic production, plus the reserves he bought from him (Stalin). Stalin thought that would be insanity. So Stalin thought that Hitler would do as he (Stalin) would do if he were in Berlin: first finish of the British Empire, and only after that turn on the USSR. So Stalin thought he still had some time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @songbird
    Native English are being derided and marginalized as "white English", while Nigerians and subcons are being called "English." IMO, the continued existence old Britannic languages is important to the survival of any kind of true nationalism in the UK.

    You want me to check white on the census? Fuck you, I'm ____! (fill in the blank: Cornish, Welsh, Scottish, Irish.)

    If Ireland had continued to speak Irish as their first language, they would not be as pozzed as they are today. The same is even truer for most of Europe. Local languages and dialects were a barrier to globalists. Shakespeare and Dickens can be translated.

    You want me to check white on the census? Fuck you, I’m ____! (fill in the blank: Cornish, Welsh, Scottish, Irish.)

    The globalists also like this. Because this is fragmentation. The Irish are different from the Scots, who are different from the Welsh, who are still different from the Cornish. And all of them are different from the white English.

    The Nazis gave some privileges to some Jews in the ghetto: all of them were worse off than before, but some of them not as much as others. Those who received some privileges clang to them, and helped the Nazis round up the rest of the Jews. In the end, all of them were deported and killed.

    The moral of the story is that such differences are bad, not good. The privileges given to the Irish over the “white English” (in England, I suppose; in Ireland they would be “white Irish”) is by design, and the globalists want it that way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Sean
    Hitler with extra oil was much more dangerous. Stalin did not understand the effect of sending Soviet oil to Nazi Germany right up to the begining of Barbarossa, eh?

    Apparently he didn’t.

    Or actually, he did, in the sense that he did understand how Hitler needed the oil. What Stalin couldn’t comprehend is how Hitler was willing to risk everything when all he had was the Romanian oil and some synthetic production, plus the reserves he bought from him (Stalin). Stalin thought that would be insanity. So Stalin thought that Hitler would do as he (Stalin) would do if he were in Berlin: first finish of the British Empire, and only after that turn on the USSR. So Stalin thought he still had some time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Stalin sent oil to facilitate the attack on the West, because was a Marxist who thought capitalist powers would fight each other to exhaustion, whereupon he could walk in. However, Russia's fate is to do the West's fighting for it. A war with China would be the same.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. iffen says:
    @songbird
    Native English are being derided and marginalized as "white English", while Nigerians and subcons are being called "English." IMO, the continued existence old Britannic languages is important to the survival of any kind of true nationalism in the UK.

    You want me to check white on the census? Fuck you, I'm ____! (fill in the blank: Cornish, Welsh, Scottish, Irish.)

    If Ireland had continued to speak Irish as their first language, they would not be as pozzed as they are today. The same is even truer for most of Europe. Local languages and dialects were a barrier to globalists. Shakespeare and Dickens can be translated.

    Ebonics for all!

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird

    Ebonics for all!
     
    Ebonics is for people who don't know how to speak a language. There is no poetry or epic literature in ebonics. Still, maybe it is a good strategy to promote ebonics. Maybe, blacks should be encouraged to speak a different tongue in the West. It might limit the egalitarian impulse, and the decadence of rap, etc. Or perhaps better yet, they should be immersed in real African languages. Maybe, sports terms should be replaced with African ones, once the players reach a certain threshold. Even on national teams.

    What is that test they give in Africa to hide their PISA results? Maybe, we should give that in America to prevent people from constantly talking about "closing the gap."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @iffen
    But what do Soviet tanks in Budapest have to do with the false dichotomy you posed?

    It is my refutation of your proposed false dichotomy which I do not accept.

    No, it is a false dichotomy: either Soviet tanks in Budapest, or US military action against Iran and “vital US interests” in Ukraine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @songbird
    Eisenhower, I think, was very practical. In 1956, I don't think that one could realistically give aid to Hungary. If armies had been sent in that would have caused WW3, so you can't send in armies. Eisenhower was left with the mess that Churchill and FDR had created.

    What can you send in? Maybe, you could get away with sending in guns - of course they would be traceable. But what use are guns against tanks? And then it is important to remember the dynamic: it was not just the USSR that wanted to crush Hungary, it was all the quislings of all the puppet states in Eastern Europe.

    That I believe is why Gerald Ford later made his infamous remarks in 1976 "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe." I don't think it is remotely possible that he could have literally been that bone-headed. I think he was trying to maneuver away from being manipulated into fruitless and dangerous conflict by the press. His answer was stupid, but how could he have answered smartly? By saber-rattling?

    The CIA acted to help the Tibetans, but that was purposeless, since they stood no chance anyway. In Hungary, it would have only been a repeat of that. Another example would be the Bay of Pigs.

    Eisenhower was wise. I didn’t say otherwise.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @AP

    Budapest was apparently not as important as the Donbas.
     
    1. In 1956 the USSR was much more powerful and accordingly was treated more carefully than is 21st century Russia.

    2. Ukraine has about 4 x more people than Hungary is more of a strategic assett worth having, than is Hungary. Denying Russia 40 million people is more significant than is denying it Hungary's single digit millions.

    Speaking of Ukraine, the final round of testing of its Vilkha missile is finally complete and mass production is set to begin. This missile is fully produced in Ukraine (closed production cycle) and is analogous Russia's current modernized Smerch system:

    http://defence-blog.com/missiles/new-ukrainian-high-precision-rockets-system-completes-final-test.html

    It's a remarkable achievement, given the sad state of Ukriane's defense forces and industry in 2014.

    Russian nationalists who hope that Ukriane is forever in 2014 will be dissappointed.

    Ukraine is a “strategic asset worth having” only if you are

    - Ukrainian or

    - interested in attacking Russia or

    - interested in colonizing Ukraine

    Otherwise, a neutral Ukraine would be just fine. The irony is that by giving Ukraine the (false?) hope of joining the West, the Russians felt compelled to do something. In other words, if Russia was sure that Ukraine was to stay neutral forever, it would probably not have annexed Crimea etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Ukraine is a “strategic asset worth having” only if you are

    - Ukrainian or

    - interested in attacking Russia or

    - interested in colonizing Ukraine
     
    The Polish elites disagree, for good reason. Pilsudski was right, you know. He did not want Ukraine on his side as a first step to a conquest of Moscow. Ukraine and its 40 million make central Europe more important and viable as an independent historical actor. Conversely, a Ukraine linked to Russia expands "Russia's" population by about a third.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Sean says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    The Soviet rouble was not convertible. Soviet oil exports paid for imports, not the Soviet military-industrial complex which was nearly completely self-sufficient.

    Main Soviet imports from capitalist countries were capital goods and grain, with the grain largely used to feed livestock.

    Gorbachev was selected prior to the oil price collapse and had already decided on reform even before coming to power.

    I'm highly skeptical of Saudi Arabia's ability to increase oil production further without new discoveries.

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2008/12/a-strong-line-required/

    Russia is also a country that labours under the curse of oil. Stuermer rightly emphasises repeatedly how intimately Russia’s international power and the stability of her governments are entwined with the price of oil and gas

    Stuermer has spoken with Putin about these issues repeatedly and he says Putin’s objective is a Russian led international energy order with moderately high prices.
    Gazprom has not been included in the sanctions because the West (Germany) needs those supplies. Putin’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline is being built to make sure it gets them, come what may. Putin aganda would seem to preculde him supporting Iran. Now that the they are no longer needed in Syria.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @songbird
    That is interesting, but the UN connection is kind of weird. On Korea, the USSR foolishly made a mistake in the UN. I don't think they would have done the same regarding Hungary, but perhaps Hungarians at the time would not have had the knowledge to understand how the Security Council worked.

    The UN as such had only existed for 11 years in 1956, and I’d bet dollars to donuts that the communist Hungarian press didn’t go out of its way to explain to Hungarians what kind of mistake in 1950 the USSR made. So I think many Hungarians didn’t fully understand what was and what was not possible in the UNSC. But people were vaguely aware that Korea received military assistance with some kind of UN blessing. So it sounded realistic, especially because under communism people trusted Radio Free Europe, which provided supposedly objective news, as opposed to the official communist propaganda.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. iffen says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    Not at all. Think about why Occitan and Low German no longer exist.

    Meanwhile in Great Britain, the continued and unnecessary existence of hideous Gaelic tongues that sound like a cat being strangled has been slowly unraveling the United Kingdom for the past century.

    This is why it's crucial to terminate the Ukraine's independence as soon as possible. The longer the Kiev regime exists the greater the danger of a real Ukrainian language and identity.

    Just look at Canada. The failures of 1776 and 1812 have led people on both sides of the 49th parallel to accept the bizarre, disgusting existence of Canada as something natural.

    74.40 or fight!

    I don’t see any good reason to think that the US would be better off with Canada as a part of the US.

    Although, I have thought that it might be nice to have the prairie provinces, maybe BC if they would keep Vancouver.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    The benefits are legion. Annexation of English Canada (Quebec should be an independent protectorate) include:

    • Immediate addition of 20-million English-speaking whites to America
    • USA becomes world's largest country by land area (suck it Russia!)
    • US oil production immediately increases by one-third
    • Major increases in cereals, timber, steel, aluminum, electricity, etc. production
    • US EEZ increases by 50% and overtakes France to become #1
    • Major increase in Artic shoreline, and can turn the Northwest Passage into territorial waters (something Canada currently claims but America currently rejects)
    • American exposure to Canadian medicine might de-pathologize the incredibly stupid healthcare debate in America
    • Sets in motion the possibility of other Anglo settler countries joining America (Britain I assume is a bridge too far with its monarchism and presence in Europe)
    • Most importantly, I will no longer have to fill out NAFTA certificates or explain to Canadians that no, they do not in fact require CSA approval

    There are also major benefits for Canadians such as:

    • Canadian per capita GDP would rapidly converge with America's
    • Talented Canadians would finally be able to escape the Canadian jail and join the big leagues instead of pretending like Bay Street is a big deal
    • "Hate speech" laws immediately eliminated
    • Target will return to Canada, and Canadians finally get Jet.com
    • Cheaper postage
    • No longer need to use stupid looking Canadian money
    • Lower-cost investing options
    • Cheaper goods in general
    • The endless softwood lumber trade dispute finally ends
    • Canadians gain the right to pack some serious firepower
    • Americans know how to put the "First Nations" in their rightful place
    • The new olympic hockey team will be more competitive, and in general the national team will be more competitive at the winter olympics

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @reiner Tor
    Didn't watch the video, only looked into it, but aren't these Sikhs? I think the stereotype of Sikhs is that they are a martial people. A Sikh Army would get bonus points. But obviously not an Indian Army, which is far more diverse and probably has a lot of soldiers from less martial peoples or cultures.

    They are a “martial” race in the context of the Indian subcontinent. Which is to say they are more manly than the average Pajeet.

    The total number of Sikhs in the British Armed Forces is less than 150, out of a total force of 150,000. There are over 430,000 Sikhs in the UK from a total population of 65 million. That means on average they are nearly 7x under represented compared to the national average. The same sort of under-representation is true in Canada as well, they are only overrepresented in India itself.

    I actually watched the video, or rather two thirds of it. I understand the intention was to impress the viewer of the Sikhs as a manly virile people but all I got from it was the usual hollow posturing machismo that is endemic to South Asia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Are the North Koreans less formidable soldiers because the have the smallest penes in the world? Richard Lynn can't be wrong about everything.
    , @reiner Tor
    Could not some or all of the underrepresentation be due to their requirement to wear their funny headgears?
    , @Singh
    Toxic masculinity goy।।

    I just happened to be listening to the song at the time.

    Listening to this song Jigri Yaar off Rupinder Gandhi now, but not gonna post it when posting GurBani।।

    Idk, I think it's Sikh duty to be strong/warrior. If they not then they not real Sikh।।

    If they're weak then they should go lift।।

    https://i.imgur.com/7cKMPtN.png
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Sean says:
    @Duke of Qin
    They are a "martial" race in the context of the Indian subcontinent. Which is to say they are more manly than the average Pajeet.

    The total number of Sikhs in the British Armed Forces is less than 150, out of a total force of 150,000. There are over 430,000 Sikhs in the UK from a total population of 65 million. That means on average they are nearly 7x under represented compared to the national average. The same sort of under-representation is true in Canada as well, they are only overrepresented in India itself.

    I actually watched the video, or rather two thirds of it. I understand the intention was to impress the viewer of the Sikhs as a manly virile people but all I got from it was the usual hollow posturing machismo that is endemic to South Asia.

    Are the North Koreans less formidable soldiers because the have the smallest penes in the world? Richard Lynn can’t be wrong about everything.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Gerard2 says:
    @Mr. Hack
    The reality is that there are over 40 million people that inhabit the very real country of Ukraine, that want it to exist in the family of world nations, and are willing to give their lives to see that it continues to exist. It has its own language, history, literature and its own governments, universities, mail system, news sources, television and radio stations and armed forces. It really doesn't matter what a few flakes like you or anybody else thinks is real or is not. The insane asylums are full of lunatics that see the world in their own unique way.

    over 40 million people

    …more like 22-25 million you idiot

    very real country

    …very fake, abnormal, artificial country whose fathers are Stalin and Lenin mainly

    willing to give their lives to see that it continues to exist

    …you mean leave by the millions…or if they do try and “help” it….then they invariable fuck it up even more. How’s that daft retard Canadian Nazi bitch doing with the health there?(poorly) ..Jaresko has gone very quickly back to the US …the “Ukrainian” “patriot” that she is

    It has its own language

    …no it doesn’t..you remember that Yushchenko clip I linked here?

    own governments

    …you really want to claim ownership of the freakshow?
    Even if you did…this government set-up directly or behind the scenes of Gruzians, Poles,Lithuanians,Canadians and the Americans(of whom they are a puppet state of now) is really not “Ukrainian”…the oligarchs though who control even more % of a much smaller pie of shit now , thean 4 years before…..you can have them…they are “Ukrainian? in the truest sense

    history, literature

    …errm no it doesn’t…SHARED history of the Russian peoples yes

    news sources, television and radio stations

    ….before the bans, Russian television shows on state tv were the most watched in Ukraine, radio followed keenly, most Ukrainian media publications have the same titles as you would only find in Russia/Belarus ( hmmm..I wonder why?), pretty much every Russian music group, singer, tv health doctor is famous in Ukraine and vice-versa…and these same people are virtually anonymous outside the post-soviet space ( not even post-Warsaw pact countries)..this is because Russians and Ukrainians are the same people

    universities

    ..yes the ones in Ukraine with the rich Soviet history do offer academic excellence

    armed forces

    ..hahahahaha! You want to claim ownership of these suicidal, war-crime loving dipshits ?( except the true patriots who have defected by the bucketload)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Sean says:
    @reiner Tor
    Apparently he didn't.

    Or actually, he did, in the sense that he did understand how Hitler needed the oil. What Stalin couldn't comprehend is how Hitler was willing to risk everything when all he had was the Romanian oil and some synthetic production, plus the reserves he bought from him (Stalin). Stalin thought that would be insanity. So Stalin thought that Hitler would do as he (Stalin) would do if he were in Berlin: first finish of the British Empire, and only after that turn on the USSR. So Stalin thought he still had some time.

    Stalin sent oil to facilitate the attack on the West, because was a Marxist who thought capitalist powers would fight each other to exhaustion, whereupon he could walk in. However, Russia’s fate is to do the West’s fighting for it. A war with China would be the same.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. AP says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    As he's explained many times and you clearly are daft not to understand by this point, he considers Ukraine as "country" like unicorn is an "animal." Only the latter actually can exist as heraldry and mythology to provide beauty and grace, while the former just cultivates gay parades.

    You seem to have the mistaken idea that Ukraine is to Russia as Taiwan is to China.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Some people think that the Ukraine is to Russia as Tibet is to China.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. songbird says:
    @iffen
    Ebonics for all!

    Ebonics for all!

    Ebonics is for people who don’t know how to speak a language. There is no poetry or epic literature in ebonics. Still, maybe it is a good strategy to promote ebonics. Maybe, blacks should be encouraged to speak a different tongue in the West. It might limit the egalitarian impulse, and the decadence of rap, etc. Or perhaps better yet, they should be immersed in real African languages. Maybe, sports terms should be replaced with African ones, once the players reach a certain threshold. Even on national teams.

    What is that test they give in Africa to hide their PISA results? Maybe, we should give that in America to prevent people from constantly talking about “closing the gap.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Ebonics is for people who don’t know how to speak a language. There is no poetry or epic literature in ebonics.
     
    Tupac was a bit poetic. And his life a bit of an epic literature.

    I wonder if Surkov was joking when claimed 2pac as the only interesting thing Americans have produced in the cultural sphere of the last twenty years.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyKDhhyIGNQ
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @Duke of Qin
    They are a "martial" race in the context of the Indian subcontinent. Which is to say they are more manly than the average Pajeet.

    The total number of Sikhs in the British Armed Forces is less than 150, out of a total force of 150,000. There are over 430,000 Sikhs in the UK from a total population of 65 million. That means on average they are nearly 7x under represented compared to the national average. The same sort of under-representation is true in Canada as well, they are only overrepresented in India itself.

    I actually watched the video, or rather two thirds of it. I understand the intention was to impress the viewer of the Sikhs as a manly virile people but all I got from it was the usual hollow posturing machismo that is endemic to South Asia.

    Could not some or all of the underrepresentation be due to their requirement to wear their funny headgears?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Never stopped the Brits from using them before. The problem is; why would any person want to join the British (or US) forces other than out of some misplaced patriotism? They don't defend Britain - they ride shotgun with the US on any imperial adventures it goes cowboy on across the world.

    And it's not easy either, the people fight back, it's not like Grenada or Panama - you want to come back missing a leg to help make sure this guy's guarantee works out?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHmhf_wrcrM

    And then you wrestle with demons for the rest of your life until you take the shotgun-to-the-face exit:
    "Roughly 20 veterans a day commit suicide nationwide, according to new data from the Department of Veterans Affairs — a figure that dispels the often quoted, but problematic, '22 a day' estimate yet solidifies the disturbing mental health crisis the number implied."
    https://www.militarytimes.com/veterans/2016/07/07/new-va-study-finds-20-veterans-commit-suicide-each-day/

    Peace.

    , @Duke of Qin
    Unlikely. Like Ivy League educated blacks, visible underrepresented minorities in the armed services are magic pixie dust to recruiters and the turban has never been a deal breaker. Uniform and equipment regulations are for the native plebes, exemptions have always existed and it doesn't really preclude a Sikh from joining, particularly those that aren't super devout which is the vast majority of them. The turban, like similar Jewish and Muslim illogical behavioral norms, is not important in and of itself, it's primary purpose is for intentional social segregation and signal that this is an outsider (and thus part of his own particular ingroup) and oh "fuck you" to the rest of society.

    You have to understand Sikhism for what it is, a failed Hindu reformist movement, like Jainism and Buddhism before it, that tried to end Brahmanical casteism yet ended up defeated and marginalized. Ending up as an endogamous caste in and of itself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Gerard2 says:
    @Thorfinnsson


    Russian nationalists who hope that Ukriane is forever in 2014 will be dissappointed.
     
    Karlin deserves praise for forecasting this and reporting accurately on it despite his own nationality and ideology.

    [MORE]

    Karlin deserves praise for forecasting this and reporting accurately on it despite his own nationality and ideology.

    Are you are impaired? It’s in an even worse and more failed state now then it was then. This is worse then the post-Orange situation…..that is, unless you think cleaning toilets in the EU is a wonderful life choice

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    The Ukraine now has positive economic growth, and its armed forces are in better condition.

    The worst is clearly over for the Maidan regime.

    Cleaning toilets in the EU is positive for the Ukraine as it will reduce unemployment and lead to an inflow of remittances.

    Besides, Ukrainians also have the choice of cleaning toilets in Russia and Canada! :)

    The Ukraine has done worse than any other post-Soviet state other than the extremely fake country of Moldova, and this was the case long before the Maidan. It will be a long time before living standards converge its neighbors. Certainly the Maidan was an "own goal" that did not help matters, of course.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. AP says:
    @reiner Tor
    Ukraine is a "strategic asset worth having" only if you are

    - Ukrainian or

    - interested in attacking Russia or

    - interested in colonizing Ukraine

    Otherwise, a neutral Ukraine would be just fine. The irony is that by giving Ukraine the (false?) hope of joining the West, the Russians felt compelled to do something. In other words, if Russia was sure that Ukraine was to stay neutral forever, it would probably not have annexed Crimea etc.

    Ukraine is a “strategic asset worth having” only if you are

    - Ukrainian or

    - interested in attacking Russia or

    - interested in colonizing Ukraine

    The Polish elites disagree, for good reason. Pilsudski was right, you know. He did not want Ukraine on his side as a first step to a conquest of Moscow. Ukraine and its 40 million make central Europe more important and viable as an independent historical actor. Conversely, a Ukraine linked to Russia expands “Russia’s” population by about a third.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    Ukraine linked to Russia expands “Russia’s” population by about a third
     
    This is a fantasy. It was possible in the 1920s. Impossible in the 2020s. The Russians didn’t dare do it in 2014.

    What would have been possible is a neutral Ukraine. It’s no longer possible.
    , @Thorfinnsson
    Polish elites disagreed for the simple reason that Poland in the 20th century no longer had the power to challenge Russia at all, unlike Germany.

    Polish elites in the 17th century had a decidedly different take on the matter.

    The big Polish idea in the past century is that all the third and fourth rate states in between Germany and Russia should band together for mutual protection. Poland, having the largest population of these "intermarum" states, would be primus inter pares.

    Completely failed owing to numerous squabbles between these lightweight states, and Poland then went on to feast on scraps of Czechoslovkia thrown to it by the H-man as a practical joke.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @AP

    Ukraine is a “strategic asset worth having” only if you are

    - Ukrainian or

    - interested in attacking Russia or

    - interested in colonizing Ukraine
     
    The Polish elites disagree, for good reason. Pilsudski was right, you know. He did not want Ukraine on his side as a first step to a conquest of Moscow. Ukraine and its 40 million make central Europe more important and viable as an independent historical actor. Conversely, a Ukraine linked to Russia expands "Russia's" population by about a third.

    Ukraine linked to Russia expands “Russia’s” population by about a third

    This is a fantasy. It was possible in the 1920s. Impossible in the 2020s. The Russians didn’t dare do it in 2014.

    What would have been possible is a neutral Ukraine. It’s no longer possible.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. AP says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    Not at all. Think about why Occitan and Low German no longer exist.

    Meanwhile in Great Britain, the continued and unnecessary existence of hideous Gaelic tongues that sound like a cat being strangled has been slowly unraveling the United Kingdom for the past century.

    This is why it's crucial to terminate the Ukraine's independence as soon as possible. The longer the Kiev regime exists the greater the danger of a real Ukrainian language and identity.

    Just look at Canada. The failures of 1776 and 1812 have led people on both sides of the 49th parallel to accept the bizarre, disgusting existence of Canada as something natural.

    Not at all. Think about why Occitan and Low German no longer exist.

    Absorbed and snuffed out centuries earlier.

    This is why it’s crucial to terminate the Ukraine’s independence as soon as possible. The longer the Kiev regime exists the greater the danger of a real Ukrainian language and identity.

    You are writing 200 years too late.

    Even in 1917 most Ukrainians voted for Ukrainian nationalist parties and during the Civil War there were no pro-Russian military formations or commanders from Ukraine. There were mostly a bunch of disorganized nationalists, anarchists and a small number of Commies, all of whom despised Russian patriots.

    Indeed, whenever there was a war or invasion people in Ukraine behaved as do occupied peoples like Poles or Balts, and not like “other Russians” as in Oryl or Pskov. Join the invaders, rebel, “betray.” If Occitania were analogous to Ukraine Occitanians would joined the Germans during various wars.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    whenever there was a war or invasion people in Ukraine behaved as do occupied peoples like Poles or Balts

    If this is true, and is not just isolated incidents, this would be a double plus good point for your side.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. AP says:
    @iffen
    indicative of its unnatural nature.

    That's it?

    Natural or unnatural?

    Do we have to confine ourselves to the Ukrainian question as to what is natural? Because if we can apply this criterion to other situations, I have a list.

    If Ukraine were an organic or natural part of Russia its people would behave like people from Oryol or Volgograd or Pskov. Instead they act like Balts or Poles, rebelling or joining any western invader when given the chance. Deluded Russian nationalists who really believe that Ukraine is Russia think this is “betrayal.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gerard2

    If Ukraine were an organic or natural part of Russia its people would behave like people from Oryol or Volgograd or Pskov. Instead they act like Balts or Poles, rebelling or joining any western invader when given the chance. Deluded Russian nationalists who really believe that Ukraine is Russia think this is “betrayal.”
     
    ....again...more attention-whore lies from a sociopathic retarded scumbag who would commit suicide due to shame if anonymity as a POS was lost.

    In terms of "differences" promoted by fucktard,spambot propagnda algorithm accounts....here are the actual facts :-

    reading habits, music habits, education habits, criminality habits, eating habits, temperamental habits, television-viewing habits, social-media habits (well until their authority retards decided to ban Russian popular sites).inter-marrying habits, the style,temperament and wisdom of a babushka in a "Ukrainian" village is identical to that of a Russian one, the occasional bad-driving habits, comedy habits, historical idols, architectural habits and..of course...language .... and zillion more things are identical for Ukraine and Russia like they are for no two other states, because they are the same people you fucked in the head time-wasting spambot troll cunt
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Sean says:

    Putin’s Power of Siberia pipline, biggest project in 25 years. Biggest mistake since Stalin sent oil to Hitler

    There are already said to be several million Chinese who have moved to Siberia.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @songbird
    It is interesting to contrast the psychology of today with that of the past.

    The sheer numbers of Chinese used to seem an enormous threat. Many calculated they would pour into Russia and through Russia into Western Europe, drowning all in their path. Obviously, despite current alliances and falling birthrates, China still remains a massive strategic threat to Russia, although the scenario probably isn't as apocalyptic today, even though the Chinese army is arguably much stronger.

    Today, we are facing an even more apocalyptic threat - the population bomb in Africa, which threatens the whole of Eurasia, including China. But political correctness has hampered the dialogue. Few are speaking about it openly, even though it is known that they want to come.
    , @A.A.

    There are already said to be several million Chinese who have moved to Siberia.
     
    No, millions of Chinese in Siberia is just wishful thinking. I've noticed that some westerners absolutely love jerking off to the idea that Chinese are moving to Siberia en masse, even if this does not correlate with reality.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Mr. Hack says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    There are also over 40 million people who reside between New York and Washington. I guess that's now a country.

    There are people in Oregon who are convinced they are their own country that should exist in the "family of world nations".

    Ukrainian language--dialect of Russian

    Ukrainian history--cradle of Russian civilization, followed by domination by Poland and Russia

    Ukrainian literature--have never heard of it, likely doesn't even exist

    Ukrainian government--exists because Boris Yelstin found it was the only way he could replace Gorbachev

    Ukrainian universities--established by Poland and Russia, and in any case the fucking city of New York has universities

    Ukrainian mail system--established by the Russian Empire

    Ukrainian news sources--fake news

    Ukrainian television--established in the USSR

    Ukrainian radio stations--established in the USSR

    Ukrainian armed forces--nice T-72s and MiGs

    Maybe it's not us brah. Maybe it's you.

    Ukrainian statehood is an anomaly which only exists in the event of a power vacuum between Poland and Russia.

    You could compare the Ukraine's contemporary "independence" to the long-time efforts of France to turn the Rhineland into an "independent" French satellite state.

    But you won't because you're a brainwashed petty-nationalist Ukrocuck who wants to be a loser member of a loser country that doesn't exist.

    KIEV

    KIEV

    KIEV

    KIEV

    KIEV

    If AP is reading apologies in advance, but Mr. Hack really is...a hack.

    And I thought that you were doing so well after just one treatment?…It looks like a follow-up treatment is looming on the horizon….(#145, you know the one!)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Talha says:
    @reiner Tor
    Could not some or all of the underrepresentation be due to their requirement to wear their funny headgears?

    Never stopped the Brits from using them before. The problem is; why would any person want to join the British (or US) forces other than out of some misplaced patriotism? They don’t defend Britain – they ride shotgun with the US on any imperial adventures it goes cowboy on across the world.

    And it’s not easy either, the people fight back, it’s not like Grenada or Panama – you want to come back missing a leg to help make sure this guy’s guarantee works out?

    And then you wrestle with demons for the rest of your life until you take the shotgun-to-the-face exit:
    “Roughly 20 veterans a day commit suicide nationwide, according to new data from the Department of Veterans Affairs — a figure that dispels the often quoted, but problematic, ’22 a day’ estimate yet solidifies the disturbing mental health crisis the number implied.”

    https://www.militarytimes.com/veterans/2016/07/07/new-va-study-finds-20-veterans-commit-suicide-each-day/

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Mercenary used to be an honorable profession. I guess it's just another indication of how degraded civilization had become.
    , @Escher

    And it’s not easy either, the people fight back, it’s not like Grenada or Panama – you want to come back missing a leg to help make sure this guy’s guarantee works out?
     
    Well said.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @songbird
    That is interesting, but the UN connection is kind of weird. On Korea, the USSR foolishly made a mistake in the UN. I don't think they would have done the same regarding Hungary, but perhaps Hungarians at the time would not have had the knowledge to understand how the Security Council worked.

    On Korea, the USSR foolishly made a mistake in the UN

    This is certainly the conventional wisdom, but apparently it was not a mistake but a calculated decision.

    From Stalin to Gottwald, 27 August 1950

    We view the issue of the Soviet Union’s withdrawal from the Security Council on 27 June and the events which unfolded afterwards somewhat differently from Comrade Gottwald.

    We left the Security Council for four reasons: first, to demonstrate solidarity of the Soviet Union with the new China.

    Second, to underscore the foolishness and idiocy of the United States policy of recognizing the Guomindang puppet in the Security Council as the representative of China and not wanting to admit the genuine representative of China to the Security Council; third, to render decisions of the Security Council illegitimate by virtue of the absence of representatives of two great powers; fourth, to give the American government a free hand and give it an opportunity to commit more foolishness using a majority in the Security Council so that public opinion can see the true face of the American government.

    I believe that we have achieved all of these goals.

    Following our withdrawal from the Security Council, America became entangled in a military intervention in Korea and is now squandering its military prestige and moral authority. Few honest people can now doubt that America is now acting as an aggressor and tyrant in Korea and that it is not as militarily powerful as it claims to be. In addition, it is clear that the United States of America is presently distracted from Europe in the Far East. Does it not give us an advantage in the global balance of power? It undoubtedly does

    . . .

    http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/112225

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird
    Sounds like a classic ex post facto rationalization to me.
    , @Sean
    The real failure was the CIA and State department inability to heed clear indications and understand the Chinese would come in and do the lion's share of the fighting. In Nam the Chinese sent 300,000 rear echelon troops to free North Vietnamese for killing American and the threat of a Korea style Chinese intervention was responsible for the paralysis of US military strategy in Vietnam war.

    The trade talks with China are ongoing just after Trump apparently successful negotiations with North Korea. The idea that Kim's sudden nuke and missile progress was facilitated by and is being used by China to make their help necessary and a wedge on trade is funny. China defeated the US in Korea and Vietnam, it will win the war for wealth too. There is a Chinese factory complex making laptops that has more people than the entire British army--economies of scale makes such installations unbeatable. Elon Musk has the supposedly biggest factory in the world, but the products have to be dumped on Mars.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @reiner Tor
    Could not some or all of the underrepresentation be due to their requirement to wear their funny headgears?

    Unlikely. Like Ivy League educated blacks, visible underrepresented minorities in the armed services are magic pixie dust to recruiters and the turban has never been a deal breaker. Uniform and equipment regulations are for the native plebes, exemptions have always existed and it doesn’t really preclude a Sikh from joining, particularly those that aren’t super devout which is the vast majority of them. The turban, like similar Jewish and Muslim illogical behavioral norms, is not important in and of itself, it’s primary purpose is for intentional social segregation and signal that this is an outsider (and thus part of his own particular ingroup) and oh “fuck you” to the rest of society.

    You have to understand Sikhism for what it is, a failed Hindu reformist movement, like Jainism and Buddhism before it, that tried to end Brahmanical casteism yet ended up defeated and marginalized. Ending up as an endogamous caste in and of itself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @Gerard2

    Karlin deserves praise for forecasting this and reporting accurately on it despite his own nationality and ideology.
     
    Are you are impaired? It's in an even worse and more failed state now then it was then. This is worse then the post-Orange situation.....that is, unless you think cleaning toilets in the EU is a wonderful life choice

    The Ukraine now has positive economic growth, and its armed forces are in better condition.

    The worst is clearly over for the Maidan regime.

    Cleaning toilets in the EU is positive for the Ukraine as it will reduce unemployment and lead to an inflow of remittances.

    Besides, Ukrainians also have the choice of cleaning toilets in Russia and Canada! :)

    The Ukraine has done worse than any other post-Soviet state other than the extremely fake country of Moldova, and this was the case long before the Maidan. It will be a long time before living standards converge its neighbors. Certainly the Maidan was an “own goal” that did not help matters, of course.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    Cleaning toilets in the EU is positive for the Ukraine as it will reduce unemployment and lead to an inflow of remittances.
     
    Possibly, if you're older, and alcoholic or unemployed, but not among the younger (25-45) year olds that I'm acquainted with in the states. Most are pulling 6 figures or more as systems operators, two gals are making almost as much in the banking sector (strong math backgrounds). Where I'm at it's lunchtime, but I notice that you write here, it seems like day and night, you're not working are you? :-)
    , @Gerard2

    The Ukraine now has positive economic growth
     
    So what? That's completely irrelevant..whoever said it was going to be a bottomless pit of descent in Ukraine's GDP? The fact is this "growth " is absurdly abysmal, 0.2% in last quarter of 2017 ( they cheated and changed the figures to slightly higher but still very low figure)industry nowhere in practically all sectors, likewise services, huge population loss, FDI nowhere, trade nowhere, crime?...at skyhigh levels throughout the country, corruption? through the roof--and it was already obscene before. After a 20% loss in GDP , they should now be experiencing at least a 5-7% increase in GDP per annum...they are so far away from this it's beyond a joke.

    Libya is in growth ( and their population still earning more than ukrops...as are Iraq's), Iran under sanctions has still been growing nicely, even Syria's is growing...and all of these at much higher rates than Ukraine's failed economy is doing. All those facts still don't take away from the fact that all those countries, with the exemption of Iran are in a dreadful position. Almost all countries have faced a fight to get to their pre financial crash 2008 GDP levels...but Ukraine is struggling to get to their pre-1991 levels, before that it ,must get to it's 2013 levels ( which should about take 15+ years) ..and in turn must get into it's still inadequate 2008 levels ( which would have been still much lower if Yanukovich had not been PM at the time to try and repair the farce from the Yushchenko/Tymoshenko idiot competition)_

    armed forces are in better condition.
     
    ....don't make me laugh...this is probably worse for them then it was for the Gruzians in 2008

    Cleaning toilets in the EU is positive for the Ukraine as it will reduce unemployment and lead to an inflow of remittances.

     

    ...well here's the thing...this absymal "growth", is pretty much down to the increase in remittances over the same period....that's it! Nothing to do with the internal dynamics of the Ukrainian economy

    The Ukraine has done worse than any other post-Soviet state other than the extremely fake country of Moldova,
     
    I would take it that Priednistroviye has made more of a success of itself , much more, than Ukraine has since Independence. Ukraine has had every possible positive thing going for it to be not just the most successful ex-USSR country...but even the most successful ex-Warsaw Pact country ( with the exception of perhaps Czechs/Slovaks & maybe Hungary)...in a much more advantageous position than Moldova in 1991....but it has failed spectacularly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. songbird says:
    @for-the-record
    On Korea, the USSR foolishly made a mistake in the UN

    This is certainly the conventional wisdom, but apparently it was not a mistake but a calculated decision.

    From Stalin to Gottwald, 27 August 1950

    We view the issue of the Soviet Union's withdrawal from the Security Council on 27 June and the events which unfolded afterwards somewhat differently from Comrade Gottwald.

    We left the Security Council for four reasons: first, to demonstrate solidarity of the Soviet Union with the new China.

    Second, to underscore the foolishness and idiocy of the United States policy of recognizing the Guomindang puppet in the Security Council as the representative of China and not wanting to admit the genuine representative of China to the Security Council; third, to render decisions of the Security Council illegitimate by virtue of the absence of representatives of two great powers; fourth, to give the American government a free hand and give it an opportunity to commit more foolishness using a majority in the Security Council so that public opinion can see the true face of the American government.

    I believe that we have achieved all of these goals.

    Following our withdrawal from the Security Council, America became entangled in a military intervention in Korea and is now squandering its military prestige and moral authority. Few honest people can now doubt that America is now acting as an aggressor and tyrant in Korea and that it is not as militarily powerful as it claims to be. In addition, it is clear that the United States of America is presently distracted from Europe in the Far East. Does it not give us an advantage in the global balance of power? It undoubtedly does

    . . .

    http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/112225

     

    Sounds like a classic ex post facto rationalization to me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @AP

    Ukraine is a “strategic asset worth having” only if you are

    - Ukrainian or

    - interested in attacking Russia or

    - interested in colonizing Ukraine
     
    The Polish elites disagree, for good reason. Pilsudski was right, you know. He did not want Ukraine on his side as a first step to a conquest of Moscow. Ukraine and its 40 million make central Europe more important and viable as an independent historical actor. Conversely, a Ukraine linked to Russia expands "Russia's" population by about a third.

    Polish elites disagreed for the simple reason that Poland in the 20th century no longer had the power to challenge Russia at all, unlike Germany.

    Polish elites in the 17th century had a decidedly different take on the matter.

    The big Polish idea in the past century is that all the third and fourth rate states in between Germany and Russia should band together for mutual protection. Poland, having the largest population of these “intermarum” states, would be primus inter pares.

    Completely failed owing to numerous squabbles between these lightweight states, and Poland then went on to feast on scraps of Czechoslovkia thrown to it by the H-man as a practical joke.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Polish elites disagreed for the simple reason that Poland in the 20th century no longer had the power to challenge Russia at all, unlike Germany.
     
    Correct, and under such conditions Poland's approach was the most reasonable one.

    Polish elites in the 17th century had a decidedly different take on the matter.
     
    In the 17th century "Polish" elites weren't Polish in the modern sense. They were simply nobles, some would nowadays be Ukrainians or Lithuanians as well as Poles. Nobles thought of themselves as a different people than peasants (there was the idea that they were descendants of Sarmatians, while the peasants were Slavs, good for nothing but servitude).

    Completely failed owing to numerous squabbles between these lightweight states
     
    The punishment they received for their squabbling brought them some wisdom. This, plus the relative weakness of both the West and Russia than in the mid 20th century, makes the project much more viable now than it was before.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @iffen
    74.40 or fight!

    I don't see any good reason to think that the US would be better off with Canada as a part of the US.

    Although, I have thought that it might be nice to have the prairie provinces, maybe BC if they would keep Vancouver.

    The benefits are legion. Annexation of English Canada (Quebec should be an independent protectorate) include:

    • Immediate addition of 20-million English-speaking whites to America
    • USA becomes world’s largest country by land area (suck it Russia!)
    • US oil production immediately increases by one-third
    • Major increases in cereals, timber, steel, aluminum, electricity, etc. production
    • US EEZ increases by 50% and overtakes France to become #1
    • Major increase in Artic shoreline, and can turn the Northwest Passage into territorial waters (something Canada currently claims but America currently rejects)
    • American exposure to Canadian medicine might de-pathologize the incredibly stupid healthcare debate in America
    • Sets in motion the possibility of other Anglo settler countries joining America (Britain I assume is a bridge too far with its monarchism and presence in Europe)
    • Most importantly, I will no longer have to fill out NAFTA certificates or explain to Canadians that no, they do not in fact require CSA approval

    There are also major benefits for Canadians such as:

    • Canadian per capita GDP would rapidly converge with America’s
    • Talented Canadians would finally be able to escape the Canadian jail and join the big leagues instead of pretending like Bay Street is a big deal
    • “Hate speech” laws immediately eliminated
    • Target will return to Canada, and Canadians finally get Jet.com
    • Cheaper postage
    • No longer need to use stupid looking Canadian money
    • Lower-cost investing options
    • Cheaper goods in general
    • The endless softwood lumber trade dispute finally ends
    • Canadians gain the right to pack some serious firepower
    • Americans know how to put the “First Nations” in their rightful place
    • The new olympic hockey team will be more competitive, and in general the national team will be more competitive at the winter olympics

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird

    Talented Canadians would finally be able to escape the Canadian jail and join the big leagues
     
    Trebek is already a citizen and John Candy died years ago. Who else is there?
    , @iffen
    (Britain I assume is a bridge too far

    Forget the bridge, we could build a tunnel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. songbird says:
    @Sean
    Putin's Power of Siberia pipline, biggest project in 25 years. Biggest mistake since Stalin sent oil to Hitler

    https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/ft-ig-content-prod/v2/ft-interactive/gas-pipelines/video/drone-footage.mp4


    There are already said to be several million Chinese who have moved to Siberia.

    It is interesting to contrast the psychology of today with that of the past.

    The sheer numbers of Chinese used to seem an enormous threat. Many calculated they would pour into Russia and through Russia into Western Europe, drowning all in their path. Obviously, despite current alliances and falling birthrates, China still remains a massive strategic threat to Russia, although the scenario probably isn’t as apocalyptic today, even though the Chinese army is arguably much stronger.

    Today, we are facing an even more apocalyptic threat – the population bomb in Africa, which threatens the whole of Eurasia, including China. But political correctness has hampered the dialogue. Few are speaking about it openly, even though it is known that they want to come.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Mr. Hack says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    The Ukraine now has positive economic growth, and its armed forces are in better condition.

    The worst is clearly over for the Maidan regime.

    Cleaning toilets in the EU is positive for the Ukraine as it will reduce unemployment and lead to an inflow of remittances.

    Besides, Ukrainians also have the choice of cleaning toilets in Russia and Canada! :)

    The Ukraine has done worse than any other post-Soviet state other than the extremely fake country of Moldova, and this was the case long before the Maidan. It will be a long time before living standards converge its neighbors. Certainly the Maidan was an "own goal" that did not help matters, of course.

    Cleaning toilets in the EU is positive for the Ukraine as it will reduce unemployment and lead to an inflow of remittances.

    Possibly, if you’re older, and alcoholic or unemployed, but not among the younger (25-45) year olds that I’m acquainted with in the states. Most are pulling 6 figures or more as systems operators, two gals are making almost as much in the banking sector (strong math backgrounds). Where I’m at it’s lunchtime, but I notice that you write here, it seems like day and night, you’re not working are you? :-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    This was in reference to previous poster Gerard2, who mentioned toilets. I'm aware that many Ukrainians are skilled.

    Karlin's blog has been quite good lately so I make sure to keep up with the comments. This can be my vice (if one can call it that) as I am not on social media (other than LinkedIn) and generally don't comment elsewhere.

    It is daytime here and I am in my private office.
    , @Gerard2

    unemployed
     
    .....already 10% of the Ukrainian population, that's without factoring in the toilet cleaners and prostitutes from Ivano-Frankovsk.

    but not among the younger (25-45) year olds that I’m acquainted with in the states. Most are pulling 6 figures or more as systems operators, two gals are making almost as much in the banking sector (strong math backgrounds).

     

    ....it's the over 45-50's who are cleaning toilets and into prostitution? What is wrong with you. And I wouldn't tolerate an alcoholic toilet cleaner...it requires sobriety....but evidently alcoholism is a "virtue" for illegal Presidents in Ukraine.

    Even if we take your ( clearly BS ) claims at face value...then it's most likely Soviet people definitely not identifying as "Ukrainians" and/or their first generation kids (incidentally "Ukrainian" immigrants in US are on the lowest pay-level historically compared to the other many ,many migrant groups from Europe) ....what we are not talking about here is Ukrops who have suddenly gone to North America after February 2014 and are now suddenly making these fictitious amounts of money
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Sean says:
    @for-the-record
    On Korea, the USSR foolishly made a mistake in the UN

    This is certainly the conventional wisdom, but apparently it was not a mistake but a calculated decision.

    From Stalin to Gottwald, 27 August 1950

    We view the issue of the Soviet Union's withdrawal from the Security Council on 27 June and the events which unfolded afterwards somewhat differently from Comrade Gottwald.

    We left the Security Council for four reasons: first, to demonstrate solidarity of the Soviet Union with the new China.

    Second, to underscore the foolishness and idiocy of the United States policy of recognizing the Guomindang puppet in the Security Council as the representative of China and not wanting to admit the genuine representative of China to the Security Council; third, to render decisions of the Security Council illegitimate by virtue of the absence of representatives of two great powers; fourth, to give the American government a free hand and give it an opportunity to commit more foolishness using a majority in the Security Council so that public opinion can see the true face of the American government.

    I believe that we have achieved all of these goals.

    Following our withdrawal from the Security Council, America became entangled in a military intervention in Korea and is now squandering its military prestige and moral authority. Few honest people can now doubt that America is now acting as an aggressor and tyrant in Korea and that it is not as militarily powerful as it claims to be. In addition, it is clear that the United States of America is presently distracted from Europe in the Far East. Does it not give us an advantage in the global balance of power? It undoubtedly does

    . . .

    http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/112225

     

    The real failure was the CIA and State department inability to heed clear indications and understand the Chinese would come in and do the lion’s share of the fighting. In Nam the Chinese sent 300,000 rear echelon troops to free North Vietnamese for killing American and the threat of a Korea style Chinese intervention was responsible for the paralysis of US military strategy in Vietnam war.

    The trade talks with China are ongoing just after Trump apparently successful negotiations with North Korea. The idea that Kim’s sudden nuke and missile progress was facilitated by and is being used by China to make their help necessary and a wedge on trade is funny. China defeated the US in Korea and Vietnam, it will win the war for wealth too. There is a Chinese factory complex making laptops that has more people than the entire British army–economies of scale makes such installations unbeatable. Elon Musk has the supposedly biggest factory in the world, but the products have to be dumped on Mars.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @Mr. Hack

    Cleaning toilets in the EU is positive for the Ukraine as it will reduce unemployment and lead to an inflow of remittances.
     
    Possibly, if you're older, and alcoholic or unemployed, but not among the younger (25-45) year olds that I'm acquainted with in the states. Most are pulling 6 figures or more as systems operators, two gals are making almost as much in the banking sector (strong math backgrounds). Where I'm at it's lunchtime, but I notice that you write here, it seems like day and night, you're not working are you? :-)

    This was in reference to previous poster Gerard2, who mentioned toilets. I’m aware that many Ukrainians are skilled.

    Karlin’s blog has been quite good lately so I make sure to keep up with the comments. This can be my vice (if one can call it that) as I am not on social media (other than LinkedIn) and generally don’t comment elsewhere.

    It is daytime here and I am in my private office.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. songbird says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    The benefits are legion. Annexation of English Canada (Quebec should be an independent protectorate) include:

    • Immediate addition of 20-million English-speaking whites to America
    • USA becomes world's largest country by land area (suck it Russia!)
    • US oil production immediately increases by one-third
    • Major increases in cereals, timber, steel, aluminum, electricity, etc. production
    • US EEZ increases by 50% and overtakes France to become #1
    • Major increase in Artic shoreline, and can turn the Northwest Passage into territorial waters (something Canada currently claims but America currently rejects)
    • American exposure to Canadian medicine might de-pathologize the incredibly stupid healthcare debate in America
    • Sets in motion the possibility of other Anglo settler countries joining America (Britain I assume is a bridge too far with its monarchism and presence in Europe)
    • Most importantly, I will no longer have to fill out NAFTA certificates or explain to Canadians that no, they do not in fact require CSA approval

    There are also major benefits for Canadians such as:

    • Canadian per capita GDP would rapidly converge with America's
    • Talented Canadians would finally be able to escape the Canadian jail and join the big leagues instead of pretending like Bay Street is a big deal
    • "Hate speech" laws immediately eliminated
    • Target will return to Canada, and Canadians finally get Jet.com
    • Cheaper postage
    • No longer need to use stupid looking Canadian money
    • Lower-cost investing options
    • Cheaper goods in general
    • The endless softwood lumber trade dispute finally ends
    • Canadians gain the right to pack some serious firepower
    • Americans know how to put the "First Nations" in their rightful place
    • The new olympic hockey team will be more competitive, and in general the national team will be more competitive at the winter olympics

    Talented Canadians would finally be able to escape the Canadian jail and join the big leagues

    Trebek is already a citizen and John Candy died years ago. Who else is there?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Terrance and Phillip?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @songbird

    Talented Canadians would finally be able to escape the Canadian jail and join the big leagues
     
    Trebek is already a citizen and John Candy died years ago. Who else is there?

    Terrance and Phillip?

    Read More
    • LOL: songbird
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    I admire Alex Trebek too. He's another one of those Ukies that can bee seen eating his share of pierogies at Ukrainian festivals in North America. We can be found everywhere, and we're proud of our ethnicity!

    https://youtu.be/CtUO_UkvSHw

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Mr. Hack says:
    @reiner Tor
    Terrance and Phillip?

    I admire Alex Trebek too. He’s another one of those Ukies that can bee seen eating his share of pierogies at Ukrainian festivals in North America. We can be found everywhere, and we’re proud of our ethnicity!

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward
    "Pierogies" are Polish, not Ukrainian.

    American second- and third-generation immigrants should be banned from ever posting about the Old Country, the results are usually too stupid for words. Just stop.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Dmitry says:
    @songbird

    Ebonics for all!
     
    Ebonics is for people who don't know how to speak a language. There is no poetry or epic literature in ebonics. Still, maybe it is a good strategy to promote ebonics. Maybe, blacks should be encouraged to speak a different tongue in the West. It might limit the egalitarian impulse, and the decadence of rap, etc. Or perhaps better yet, they should be immersed in real African languages. Maybe, sports terms should be replaced with African ones, once the players reach a certain threshold. Even on national teams.

    What is that test they give in Africa to hide their PISA results? Maybe, we should give that in America to prevent people from constantly talking about "closing the gap."

    Ebonics is for people who don’t know how to speak a language. There is no poetry or epic literature in ebonics.

    Tupac was a bit poetic. And his life a bit of an epic literature.

    I wonder if Surkov was joking when claimed 2pac as the only interesting thing Americans have produced in the cultural sphere of the last twenty years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird
    There seems to be a apocryphal story about Surkov keeping a picture of Tupac on his desk next to Putin. Without knowing much about the man, I'm inclined to think it is one of his favorite jokes to rib the US with Tupac, and, in so doing, to also mess with gullible journalists.

    When sanctions were put on him in 2014, he said, "The U.S. I am interested in is Tupac Shakur, Allen Ginsberg, and Jackson Pollock. I don’t need a visa to access their work. So I lose nothing."

    I'd never speak the name of anyone I secretly revere in the same breath with Ginsberg or Pollock, but that is the spin some facetious journalists have put on it - that he is secretly a fan of all three.

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    He's half-Black, figures.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. songbird says:
    @Dmitry

    Ebonics is for people who don’t know how to speak a language. There is no poetry or epic literature in ebonics.
     
    Tupac was a bit poetic. And his life a bit of an epic literature.

    I wonder if Surkov was joking when claimed 2pac as the only interesting thing Americans have produced in the cultural sphere of the last twenty years.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyKDhhyIGNQ

    There seems to be a apocryphal story about Surkov keeping a picture of Tupac on his desk next to Putin. Without knowing much about the man, I’m inclined to think it is one of his favorite jokes to rib the US with Tupac, and, in so doing, to also mess with gullible journalists.

    When sanctions were put on him in 2014, he said, “The U.S. I am interested in is Tupac Shakur, Allen Ginsberg, and Jackson Pollock. I don’t need a visa to access their work. So I lose nothing.”

    I’d never speak the name of anyone I secretly revere in the same breath with Ginsberg or Pollock, but that is the spin some facetious journalists have put on it – that he is secretly a fan of all three.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    I’d never speak the name of anyone I secretly revere in the same breath with Ginsberg or Pollock, but that is the spin some facetious journalists have put on it – that he is secretly a fan of all three.

     

    He's being serious - he is a man of culture.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. AP says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    Polish elites disagreed for the simple reason that Poland in the 20th century no longer had the power to challenge Russia at all, unlike Germany.

    Polish elites in the 17th century had a decidedly different take on the matter.

    The big Polish idea in the past century is that all the third and fourth rate states in between Germany and Russia should band together for mutual protection. Poland, having the largest population of these "intermarum" states, would be primus inter pares.

    Completely failed owing to numerous squabbles between these lightweight states, and Poland then went on to feast on scraps of Czechoslovkia thrown to it by the H-man as a practical joke.

    Polish elites disagreed for the simple reason that Poland in the 20th century no longer had the power to challenge Russia at all, unlike Germany.

    Correct, and under such conditions Poland’s approach was the most reasonable one.

    Polish elites in the 17th century had a decidedly different take on the matter.

    In the 17th century “Polish” elites weren’t Polish in the modern sense. They were simply nobles, some would nowadays be Ukrainians or Lithuanians as well as Poles. Nobles thought of themselves as a different people than peasants (there was the idea that they were descendants of Sarmatians, while the peasants were Slavs, good for nothing but servitude).

    Completely failed owing to numerous squabbles between these lightweight states

    The punishment they received for their squabbling brought them some wisdom. This, plus the relative weakness of both the West and Russia than in the mid 20th century, makes the project much more viable now than it was before.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson


    Correct, and under such conditions Poland’s approach was the most reasonable one.
     
    Agreed.


    In the 17th century “Polish” elites weren’t Polish in the modern sense. They were simply nobles, some would nowadays be Ukrainians or Lithuanians as well as Poles. Nobles thought of themselves as a different people than peasants (there was the idea that they were descendants of Sarmatians, while the peasants were Slavs, good for nothing but servitude).
     
    Even if this is correct, they were still a ruling class who controlled a state and an army. My point was that Poland's policy in the past century was a reflection of its weakness.

    And I'd be interested in @Polish Perspective weighing in if he's reading this. Lots of pinko faggot "intellectuals" claim nationalism is a 19th century invention, which is complete bullshit. But national consciousness develops at different times in different places so you may be completely correct.


    The punishment they received for their squabbling brought them some wisdom. This, plus the relative weakness of both the West and Russia than in the mid 20th century, makes the project much more viable now than it was before.
     
    I don't know about wisdom--Poland's leaders today strike me as boneheads, even if they generally have the right idea. Kind of like DJT without the razzle dazzle.

    Rather WW2 successfully ethnically cleansed all of Europe, so now there's nothing to squabble about and these states can focus on their common interest of avoiding falling under German (now Western perhaps?) or Russian domination. Plus they all quietly accept German economic domination anyway, as in fact many of these states did in the interwar period as well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Singh says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    I'm not sure that Karlin (he can speak for himself) has ever heard of Rajputs or Jats. Sikhs are kind of well known, but their history isn't to white people.

    I only learned of Rajputs when I first visited India in 2016 and visited Udaipur, Rajasthan. I even got to see the last Maharana, who was a jerk and refused to wave back to me.

    Your post is literally the first I've heard of "Jats". I'll look into it.

    Point being is that white people are generally ignorant of India and its history for reasons that should be obvious.

    I'll take your word for it that half the Indian Army is these three martial races (I'm assuming the Jats are martial?), but I really have no idea.

    Most Sikh are Jat.

    https://twitter.com/i/moments/886381027622621184?s=13

    We technically Chandalas not even Ksytria, still out fighting everyone।। xD

    भगवन् सर्वं भूतेश सर्व धर्म विदांबरः।
    कृपया कथ्यतां नाथ जाटानां जन्म कर्मजम् ।।12।।
    Translation – Pārvatī asks Shiva, O Lord Bhutesha, knower of all religions, kindly narrate about the birth and exploits of the Jat race.
    का च माता पिता ह्वेषां का जाति वद किकुलं।
    कस्तिन काले शुभे जाता प्रश्नानेतान वद प्रभो ।।13।।
    Translation – Pārvatī asks Shiva, Who is their father?, Who is their mother? Which race are they? When were they born?
    श्रृणु देवि जगद्वन्दे सत्यमं सत्यमं वदामिते।
    जटानां जन्मकर्माणि यन्न पूर्व प्रकाशितं ।।14।।
    Translation – Having read the mind of Parvati, Shiva said, “O mother of the world, I may tell you honestly the origin and exploits of the Jats about whom none else has so far revealed anything to you.
    महाबला महावीर्या, महासत्य पराक्रमाः Mahābalā mahāvīryā, Mahāsatya parākramāḥ
    सर्वाग्रे क्षत्रिया जट्‌टा देवकल्‍पा दृढ़-व्रता: Sarvāgre kshatriyā jattā Devakalpā dridh-vratāḥ ।।15।।
    Translation – “Shiva said, They are symbol of sacrifice, bravery and industry. They are, like gods, firm of determination and of all the kshatriyā, the Jats are the prime rulers of the earth.”

    श्रृष्टेरादौ महामाये वीर भद्रस्य शक्तित: Shrishterādau mahāmāye Virabhadrasya shaktitaḥ
    कन्यानां दक्षस्य गर्भे जाता जट्टा महेश्वरी Kanyānām Dakshasya garbhe jātā jattā maheshwarī. ।।16।।
    Translation – “Shiva said, In the beginning of the universe with the personification of the illusionary powers of Virabhadra and Daksha’s daughter gani’s womb originated the caste of Jats.”

    गर्व खर्चोत्र विग्राणां देवानां च महेश्वरी Garva kharchotra vigrānam devānām cha maheshwarī
    विचित्रं विस्‍मयं सत्‍वं पौराण कै साङ्गीपितं Vichitram vismayam satvam Pauran kai sāngīpitam ।।17।।

    Translation – “Shiva said, The history of origin of Jats is extremely wonderful and their antiquity glorious. The Pundits of history did not record their annals, lest it should injure and impair their false pride and of the vipras and gods.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @Anatoly Karlin
    Thanks for the substantive comments.

    1. I speculated that there's something culturally or even biologically innate to the Germans, since I noted that lots of countries tried to ape the Prussian General Staff after 1870 but failed to recreate their combat effectiveness. And as you yourself point out, the Bundeswehr was highly regarded during the Cold War. Still, you are correct that there is ample cause to be skeptical that this extends to the present day. Military service in Germany is extremely unprestigious and the best don't go there.

    2. When it comes to doing the next iteration of the CMP, I am going to:

    (a) Drop unquantifiable cultural factors, replace them with average national IQ.

    (b) Hopefully move all the data online.

    More on this.

    Not modern, but an interesting dataset which certainly suggests Bundeswehr skill during the Cold War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Army_Trophy

    German units won the Canadian Army Trophy 35% of the time, and the platoon/section trophy 55% of the time.

    USA’s performance is notably appalling.

    Russia has a modern-day equivalent in which a number of countries participate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_biathlon

    War games are another highly useful dataset. International war games are sufficiently high profile that it should be possible to build a comprehensive dataset.

    You can probably fine tune military capital in a number of ways as well. As an example, what’s the total payload capacity of a given country’s air force?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Thanks, this is pretty interesting. And I agree that it's much better than nothing.

    I notice that the Wiki also links to this. For all the stories of Germans practicing with brooms instead of rifles, it appears that the Germanics continue to do very well: Germany came first in 2016, and second in 2017 (Austria was first).

    Tank biathlons organized by Russia are only interesting in that they show Russia is consistently ahead of China, which is usually 2nd, and that India does very badly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Singh says:
    @Duke of Qin
    They are a "martial" race in the context of the Indian subcontinent. Which is to say they are more manly than the average Pajeet.

    The total number of Sikhs in the British Armed Forces is less than 150, out of a total force of 150,000. There are over 430,000 Sikhs in the UK from a total population of 65 million. That means on average they are nearly 7x under represented compared to the national average. The same sort of under-representation is true in Canada as well, they are only overrepresented in India itself.

    I actually watched the video, or rather two thirds of it. I understand the intention was to impress the viewer of the Sikhs as a manly virile people but all I got from it was the usual hollow posturing machismo that is endemic to South Asia.

    Toxic masculinity goy।।

    I just happened to be listening to the song at the time.

    Listening to this song Jigri Yaar off Rupinder Gandhi now, but not gonna post it when posting GurBani।।

    Idk, I think it’s Sikh duty to be strong/warrior. If they not then they not real Sikh।।

    If they’re weak then they should go lift।।

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    I don't think the Duke of Qin's example is relevant, as in Britain Sikhs are an alien element and obviously don't identify with the country they're more or less invading. So we can't look at the diaspora of any of India's martial races. They have to go back. ;)

    But we can look at martial European groups that emigrated to the New World.

    Another interesting possibility would be to study the "Confederados", the ex-Confederates who emigrated to Brazil. It would be especially helpful if some of the Confederados happened to be Scotch-Irish, who are known to be the most martial of all Americans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @AP

    Polish elites disagreed for the simple reason that Poland in the 20th century no longer had the power to challenge Russia at all, unlike Germany.
     
    Correct, and under such conditions Poland's approach was the most reasonable one.

    Polish elites in the 17th century had a decidedly different take on the matter.
     
    In the 17th century "Polish" elites weren't Polish in the modern sense. They were simply nobles, some would nowadays be Ukrainians or Lithuanians as well as Poles. Nobles thought of themselves as a different people than peasants (there was the idea that they were descendants of Sarmatians, while the peasants were Slavs, good for nothing but servitude).

    Completely failed owing to numerous squabbles between these lightweight states
     
    The punishment they received for their squabbling brought them some wisdom. This, plus the relative weakness of both the West and Russia than in the mid 20th century, makes the project much more viable now than it was before.

    Correct, and under such conditions Poland’s approach was the most reasonable one.

    Agreed.

    In the 17th century “Polish” elites weren’t Polish in the modern sense. They were simply nobles, some would nowadays be Ukrainians or Lithuanians as well as Poles. Nobles thought of themselves as a different people than peasants (there was the idea that they were descendants of Sarmatians, while the peasants were Slavs, good for nothing but servitude).

    Even if this is correct, they were still a ruling class who controlled a state and an army. My point was that Poland’s policy in the past century was a reflection of its weakness.

    And I’d be interested in @Polish Perspective weighing in if he’s reading this. Lots of pinko faggot “intellectuals” claim nationalism is a 19th century invention, which is complete bullshit. But national consciousness develops at different times in different places so you may be completely correct.

    The punishment they received for their squabbling brought them some wisdom. This, plus the relative weakness of both the West and Russia than in the mid 20th century, makes the project much more viable now than it was before.

    I don’t know about wisdom–Poland’s leaders today strike me as boneheads, even if they generally have the right idea. Kind of like DJT without the razzle dazzle.

    Rather WW2 successfully ethnically cleansed all of Europe, so now there’s nothing to squabble about and these states can focus on their common interest of avoiding falling under German (now Western perhaps?) or Russian domination. Plus they all quietly accept German economic domination anyway, as in fact many of these states did in the interwar period as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Lots of pinko faggot “intellectuals” claim nationalism is a 19th century invention, which is complete bullshit.
     
    More like an 18th century invention. It's not just a leftist idea, the reactionary Lukacs had the same conclusion.

    But national consciousness develops at different times in different places so you may be completely correct.
     
    Correct, in some places it arrived in the 18th century, in others in the 19th century. Tribalism is related but not the same thing - it would be odd to consider Sitting Bull to be a "Sioux nationalist."

    The key time to assimilate peoples is before there was such a thing as national consciousness. That's when the Provencals were assimilated into the French, it's how tribals get assimilated. Once a national consciousness develops and is widely adopted, it's game over. I can't think of a single example when a nationally conscious people took on a different identity. Can you?

    I don’t know about wisdom–Poland’s leaders today strike me as boneheads, even if they generally have the right idea. Kind of like DJT without the razzle dazzle.
     
    They've taken lots of EU money and avoided taking in any Muslims. Trump in contrast has not accomplished much at all. He slowed the flow of illegals a little.

    Plus they all quietly accept German economic domination anyway,
     
    Polish government is reversing this, which is why there are all those Western squeals about Polish "anti-democratic" reforms.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @Singh
    Toxic masculinity goy।।

    I just happened to be listening to the song at the time.

    Listening to this song Jigri Yaar off Rupinder Gandhi now, but not gonna post it when posting GurBani।।

    Idk, I think it's Sikh duty to be strong/warrior. If they not then they not real Sikh।।

    If they're weak then they should go lift।।

    https://i.imgur.com/7cKMPtN.png

    I don’t think the Duke of Qin’s example is relevant, as in Britain Sikhs are an alien element and obviously don’t identify with the country they’re more or less invading. So we can’t look at the diaspora of any of India’s martial races. They have to go back. ;)

    But we can look at martial European groups that emigrated to the New World.

    Another interesting possibility would be to study the “Confederados”, the ex-Confederates who emigrated to Brazil. It would be especially helpful if some of the Confederados happened to be Scotch-Irish, who are known to be the most martial of all Americans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Singh
    No, Duke of Qin is right.

    He is a friend of the Sikhs as he offers honest criticism।।
    If his comments make even one Arya take up arms to protect his name, he has done more than 99% politicians today & this is commendable.

    A Ksytria is only one bout of cowardice from losing his Warriorship।।

    http://www.guns.com/2013/03/15/sikh-files-lawsuit-against-california-assault-weapon-ban-violates-freedom-of-religion/

    https://i.imgur.com/vNooGHZ.png
    https://i.imgur.com/2UstGIH.png

    You carry forward the Lineage as well as the name associated with it।।

    Most Ethno Nationalist have it backward, as even a man from a contemptible Lineage should consider it an honor to be born there।।

    He now has the opportunity to bring it to Greatness Through Battle।।

    ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖਾਲਸਾ।।ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫਤਿਹ।।
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Gerard2 says:
    @Mr. Hack

    Cleaning toilets in the EU is positive for the Ukraine as it will reduce unemployment and lead to an inflow of remittances.
     
    Possibly, if you're older, and alcoholic or unemployed, but not among the younger (25-45) year olds that I'm acquainted with in the states. Most are pulling 6 figures or more as systems operators, two gals are making almost as much in the banking sector (strong math backgrounds). Where I'm at it's lunchtime, but I notice that you write here, it seems like day and night, you're not working are you? :-)

    [MORE]

    unemployed

    …..already 10% of the Ukrainian population, that’s without factoring in the toilet cleaners and prostitutes from Ivano-Frankovsk.

    but not among the younger (25-45) year olds that I’m acquainted with in the states. Most are pulling 6 figures or more as systems operators, two gals are making almost as much in the banking sector (strong math backgrounds).

    ….it’s the over 45-50′s who are cleaning toilets and into prostitution? What is wrong with you. And I wouldn’t tolerate an alcoholic toilet cleaner…it requires sobriety….but evidently alcoholism is a “virtue” for illegal Presidents in Ukraine.

    Even if we take your ( clearly BS ) claims at face value…then it’s most likely Soviet people definitely not identifying as “Ukrainians” and/or their first generation kids (incidentally “Ukrainian” immigrants in US are on the lowest pay-level historically compared to the other many ,many migrant groups from Europe) ….what we are not talking about here is Ukrops who have suddenly gone to North America after February 2014 and are now suddenly making these fictitious amounts of money

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack


    The only thing that is not 'fictitious' in your reply is your hatred of all things Ukrainian. Imagine, another Ukrainaphobe at Karlin's blog venting his impassioned hatred for all things Ukrainian, how unique. Get a life you looser! :-(
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @Dmitry

    Ebonics is for people who don’t know how to speak a language. There is no poetry or epic literature in ebonics.
     
    Tupac was a bit poetic. And his life a bit of an epic literature.

    I wonder if Surkov was joking when claimed 2pac as the only interesting thing Americans have produced in the cultural sphere of the last twenty years.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyKDhhyIGNQ

    He’s half-Black, figures.

    Read More
    • LOL: songbird
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    But no Ukrainian blood; works for Putler - he can never be a real nigger.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Gerard2 says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    The Ukraine now has positive economic growth, and its armed forces are in better condition.

    The worst is clearly over for the Maidan regime.

    Cleaning toilets in the EU is positive for the Ukraine as it will reduce unemployment and lead to an inflow of remittances.

    Besides, Ukrainians also have the choice of cleaning toilets in Russia and Canada! :)

    The Ukraine has done worse than any other post-Soviet state other than the extremely fake country of Moldova, and this was the case long before the Maidan. It will be a long time before living standards converge its neighbors. Certainly the Maidan was an "own goal" that did not help matters, of course.

    The Ukraine now has positive economic growth

    So what? That’s completely irrelevant..whoever said it was going to be a bottomless pit of descent in Ukraine’s GDP? The fact is this “growth ” is absurdly abysmal, 0.2% in last quarter of 2017 ( they cheated and changed the figures to slightly higher but still very low figure)industry nowhere in practically all sectors, likewise services, huge population loss, FDI nowhere, trade nowhere, crime?…at skyhigh levels throughout the country, corruption? through the roof–and it was already obscene before. After a 20% loss in GDP , they should now be experiencing at least a 5-7% increase in GDP per annum…they are so far away from this it’s beyond a joke.

    Libya is in growth ( and their population still earning more than ukrops…as are Iraq’s), Iran under sanctions has still been growing nicely, even Syria’s is growing…and all of these at much higher rates than Ukraine’s failed economy is doing. All those facts still don’t take away from the fact that all those countries, with the exemption of Iran are in a dreadful position. Almost all countries have faced a fight to get to their pre financial crash 2008 GDP levels…but Ukraine is struggling to get to their pre-1991 levels, before that it ,must get to it’s 2013 levels ( which should about take 15+ years) ..and in turn must get into it’s still inadequate 2008 levels ( which would have been still much lower if Yanukovich had not been PM at the time to try and repair the farce from the Yushchenko/Tymoshenko idiot competition)_

    armed forces are in better condition.

    ….don’t make me laugh…this is probably worse for them then it was for the Gruzians in 2008

    Cleaning toilets in the EU is positive for the Ukraine as it will reduce unemployment and lead to an inflow of remittances.

    …well here’s the thing…this absymal “growth”, is pretty much down to the increase in remittances over the same period….that’s it! Nothing to do with the internal dynamics of the Ukrainian economy

    The Ukraine has done worse than any other post-Soviet state other than the extremely fake country of Moldova,

    I would take it that Priednistroviye has made more of a success of itself , much more, than Ukraine has since Independence. Ukraine has had every possible positive thing going for it to be not just the most successful ex-USSR country…but even the most successful ex-Warsaw Pact country ( with the exception of perhaps Czechs/Slovaks & maybe Hungary)…in a much more advantageous position than Moldova in 1991….but it has failed spectacularly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Your original claim was:

    Are you are impaired? It’s in an even worse and more failed state now then it was then.
     


    So what? That’s completely irrelevant..whoever said it was going to be a bottomless pit of descent in Ukraine’s GDP? The fact is this “growth ” is absurdly abysmal, 0.2% in last quarter of 2017 ( they cheated and changed the figures to slightly higher but still very low figure)industry nowhere in practically all sectors, likewise services, huge population loss, FDI nowhere, trade nowhere, crime?…at skyhigh levels throughout the country, corruption? through the roof–and it was already obscene before. After a 20% loss in GDP , they should now be experiencing at least a 5-7% increase in GDP per annum…they are so far away from this it’s beyond a joke.
     
    Let's unpack this.

    First--low growth after big GDP loss. Completely true, but point being it seems the worst is over. We'll see what the Ukrainian government does from now. Low hanging fruit would be permitting the sale of agricultural land, at the very least to other Ukrainians.

    Huge population loss is at this time useful for the Ukraine for reasons I mentioned earlier.

    I don't know the FDI levels for the Ukraine (I assume they are nonexistent) and am not going to look them up, but if the Ukraine can create some reasonable certainly for foreign investors there is obviously great potential here. And since the Ukrainian regime is more or less a Western puppet government I don't see why that would be impossible.

    And bear in mind that I am not a Ukrainophile or a Russophobe. In fact if you read many of my other comments you'll see that I am annoyed by Ukrainian independence.

    None the less, I get the impression that Ukrainian state capacity has improved since the Maidan.


    Libya is in growth ( and their population still earning more than ukrops…as are Iraq’s), Iran under sanctions has still been growing nicely, even Syria’s is growing…and all of these at much higher rates than Ukraine’s failed economy is doing. All those facts still don’t take away from the fact that all those countries, with the exemption of Iran are in a dreadful position. Almost all countries have faced a fight to get to their pre financial crash 2008 GDP levels…but Ukraine is struggling to get to their pre-1991 levels, before that it ,must get to it’s 2013 levels ( which should about take 15+ years) ..and in turn must get into it’s still inadequate 2008 levels ( which would have been still much lower if Yanukovich had not been PM at the time to try and repair the farce from the Yushchenko/Tymoshenko idiot competition)_
     
    Libya has recovering oil production, and the fact that Arabs outbreed whites is not exactly newsworthy. Iran has been under sanctions since 1979 and has adapted.

    As for Syria the IMF has this to say: https://www.imf.org/en/Countries/SYR#featured (no data)

    The CIA claims -10%, but the latest year is 2014.

    The World Bank also doesn't show recent data.

    That said I would expect a recovering economy in much of Syria as so much of Syria has recently been reconquered from various jihadists. The Ukraine on the other hand did not retake the Donets Basin (let alone Crimea) and has obviously lost a lot of the Russian market.

    The Ukraine is indeed fighting (hopefully?) to restore its economy, but note that I said that the Ukraine's entire post-Soviet experience has been dreadful. The Maidan was an own goal which made things worse, but the deterioration from that appears to have now ended.

    ….don’t make me laugh…this is probably worse for them then it was for the Gruzians in 2008
     
    I had to look up "Gruzians". Is this what Russians call Georgians?

    I have no way of assessing this and rely on Anatoly Karlin's observations, which I generally trust.

    If the two of you wish to debate that would be interesting.


    I would take it that Priednistroviye has made more of a success of itself , much more, than Ukraine has since Independence. Ukraine has had every possible positive thing going for it to be not just the most successful ex-USSR country…but even the most successful ex-Warsaw Pact country ( with the exception of perhaps Czechs/Slovaks & maybe Hungary)…in a much more advantageous position than Moldova in 1991….but it has failed spectacularly.
     
    Something like one twentieth of Moldova's GDP was recently stolen by criminals I heard. This isn't a rumor or anything, I just don't recall the details or the exact sum. And the per capita GDP of Moldova is lower than the Ukraine, though the development since 1991 I do not know. I assume the Ukraine was one of the wealthier parts of the USSR based on its agriculture, industry, mines, etc. No clue how Bessarabia rated in the USSR.

    I had to look up "Priednistroviye" as well. I don't know much about Transnistria.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @Thorfinnsson
    More on this.

    Not modern, but an interesting dataset which certainly suggests Bundeswehr skill during the Cold War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Army_Trophy

    German units won the Canadian Army Trophy 35% of the time, and the platoon/section trophy 55% of the time.

    USA's performance is notably appalling.

    Russia has a modern-day equivalent in which a number of countries participate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_biathlon

    War games are another highly useful dataset. International war games are sufficiently high profile that it should be possible to build a comprehensive dataset.

    You can probably fine tune military capital in a number of ways as well. As an example, what's the total payload capacity of a given country's air force?

    Thanks, this is pretty interesting. And I agree that it’s much better than nothing.

    I notice that the Wiki also links to this. For all the stories of Germans practicing with brooms instead of rifles, it appears that the Germanics continue to do very well: Germany came first in 2016, and second in 2017 (Austria was first).

    Tank biathlons organized by Russia are only interesting in that they show Russia is consistently ahead of China, which is usually 2nd, and that India does very badly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Austrians are just Germans, no need to refer to them as Germanics which is a much more expansive term.

    The results of the Russian tank biathalon in fact strike me as quite interesting. A shame more countries don't participate.

    I was not aware of the Strong Europe Tank Challenge, but indeed it seems Germans are doing well. I always assumed the broom stuff was just goldbricking. Small sample size however and limited number of entrants. Let's hope it continues.

    There's also some kind of global special forces competition, but I don't remember what it's called or where it's held (not talking about the one in Jordan). I believe GSG 9 has done well in it many times.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Gerard2 says:
    @AP
    If Ukraine were an organic or natural part of Russia its people would behave like people from Oryol or Volgograd or Pskov. Instead they act like Balts or Poles, rebelling or joining any western invader when given the chance. Deluded Russian nationalists who really believe that Ukraine is Russia think this is "betrayal."

    [MORE]

    If Ukraine were an organic or natural part of Russia its people would behave like people from Oryol or Volgograd or Pskov. Instead they act like Balts or Poles, rebelling or joining any western invader when given the chance. Deluded Russian nationalists who really believe that Ukraine is Russia think this is “betrayal.”

    ….again…more attention-whore lies from a sociopathic retarded scumbag who would commit suicide due to shame if anonymity as a POS was lost.

    In terms of “differences” promoted by fucktard,spambot propagnda algorithm accounts….here are the actual facts :-

    reading habits, music habits, education habits, criminality habits, eating habits, temperamental habits, television-viewing habits, social-media habits (well until their authority retards decided to ban Russian popular sites).inter-marrying habits, the style,temperament and wisdom of a babushka in a “Ukrainian” village is identical to that of a Russian one, the occasional bad-driving habits, comedy habits, historical idols, architectural habits and..of course…language …. and zillion more things are identical for Ukraine and Russia like they are for no two other states, because they are the same people you fucked in the head time-wasting spambot troll cunt

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack


    Hey, did you take off your shoe and slam it on the table in front of you when you completed your moronic rant, Krushchev style (for emphasis)! Bliad, what an impressive rant! :-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Gerard2

    The Ukraine now has positive economic growth
     
    So what? That's completely irrelevant..whoever said it was going to be a bottomless pit of descent in Ukraine's GDP? The fact is this "growth " is absurdly abysmal, 0.2% in last quarter of 2017 ( they cheated and changed the figures to slightly higher but still very low figure)industry nowhere in practically all sectors, likewise services, huge population loss, FDI nowhere, trade nowhere, crime?...at skyhigh levels throughout the country, corruption? through the roof--and it was already obscene before. After a 20% loss in GDP , they should now be experiencing at least a 5-7% increase in GDP per annum...they are so far away from this it's beyond a joke.

    Libya is in growth ( and their population still earning more than ukrops...as are Iraq's), Iran under sanctions has still been growing nicely, even Syria's is growing...and all of these at much higher rates than Ukraine's failed economy is doing. All those facts still don't take away from the fact that all those countries, with the exemption of Iran are in a dreadful position. Almost all countries have faced a fight to get to their pre financial crash 2008 GDP levels...but Ukraine is struggling to get to their pre-1991 levels, before that it ,must get to it's 2013 levels ( which should about take 15+ years) ..and in turn must get into it's still inadequate 2008 levels ( which would have been still much lower if Yanukovich had not been PM at the time to try and repair the farce from the Yushchenko/Tymoshenko idiot competition)_

    armed forces are in better condition.
     
    ....don't make me laugh...this is probably worse for them then it was for the Gruzians in 2008

    Cleaning toilets in the EU is positive for the Ukraine as it will reduce unemployment and lead to an inflow of remittances.

     

    ...well here's the thing...this absymal "growth", is pretty much down to the increase in remittances over the same period....that's it! Nothing to do with the internal dynamics of the Ukrainian economy

    The Ukraine has done worse than any other post-Soviet state other than the extremely fake country of Moldova,
     
    I would take it that Priednistroviye has made more of a success of itself , much more, than Ukraine has since Independence. Ukraine has had every possible positive thing going for it to be not just the most successful ex-USSR country...but even the most successful ex-Warsaw Pact country ( with the exception of perhaps Czechs/Slovaks & maybe Hungary)...in a much more advantageous position than Moldova in 1991....but it has failed spectacularly.

    Your original claim was:

    Are you are impaired? It’s in an even worse and more failed state now then it was then.

    So what? That’s completely irrelevant..whoever said it was going to be a bottomless pit of descent in Ukraine’s GDP? The fact is this “growth ” is absurdly abysmal, 0.2% in last quarter of 2017 ( they cheated and changed the figures to slightly higher but still very low figure)industry nowhere in practically all sectors, likewise services, huge population loss, FDI nowhere, trade nowhere, crime?…at skyhigh levels throughout the country, corruption? through the roof–and it was already obscene before. After a 20% loss in GDP , they should now be experiencing at least a 5-7% increase in GDP per annum…they are so far away from this it’s beyond a joke.

    Let’s unpack this.

    First–low growth after big GDP loss. Completely true, but point being it seems the worst is over. We’ll see what the Ukrainian government does from now. Low hanging fruit would be permitting the sale of agricultural land, at the very least to other Ukrainians.

    Huge population loss is at this time useful for the Ukraine for reasons I mentioned earlier.

    I don’t know the FDI levels for the Ukraine (I assume they are nonexistent) and am not going to look them up, but if the Ukraine can create some reasonable certainly for foreign investors there is obviously great potential here. And since the Ukrainian regime is more or less a Western puppet government I don’t see why that would be impossible.

    And bear in mind that I am not a Ukrainophile or a Russophobe. In fact if you read many of my other comments you’ll see that I am annoyed by Ukrainian independence.

    None the less, I get the impression that Ukrainian state capacity has improved since the Maidan.

    Libya is in growth ( and their population still earning more than ukrops…as are Iraq’s), Iran under sanctions has still been growing nicely, even Syria’s is growing…and all of these at much higher rates than Ukraine’s failed economy is doing. All those facts still don’t take away from the fact that all those countries, with the exemption of Iran are in a dreadful position. Almost all countries have faced a fight to get to their pre financial crash 2008 GDP levels…but Ukraine is struggling to get to their pre-1991 levels, before that it ,must get to it’s 2013 levels ( which should about take 15+ years) ..and in turn must get into it’s still inadequate 2008 levels ( which would have been still much lower if Yanukovich had not been PM at the time to try and repair the farce from the Yushchenko/Tymoshenko idiot competition)_

    Libya has recovering oil production, and the fact that Arabs outbreed whites is not exactly newsworthy. Iran has been under sanctions since 1979 and has adapted.

    As for Syria the IMF has this to say: https://www.imf.org/en/Countries/SYR#featured (no data)

    The CIA claims -10%, but the latest year is 2014.

    The World Bank also doesn’t show recent data.

    That said I would expect a recovering economy in much of Syria as so much of Syria has recently been reconquered from various jihadists. The Ukraine on the other hand did not retake the Donets Basin (let alone Crimea) and has obviously lost a lot of the Russian market.

    The Ukraine is indeed fighting (hopefully?) to restore its economy, but note that I said that the Ukraine’s entire post-Soviet experience has been dreadful. The Maidan was an own goal which made things worse, but the deterioration from that appears to have now ended.

    ….don’t make me laugh…this is probably worse for them then it was for the Gruzians in 2008

    I had to look up “Gruzians”. Is this what Russians call Georgians?

    I have no way of assessing this and rely on Anatoly Karlin’s observations, which I generally trust.

    If the two of you wish to debate that would be interesting.

    I would take it that Priednistroviye has made more of a success of itself , much more, than Ukraine has since Independence. Ukraine has had every possible positive thing going for it to be not just the most successful ex-USSR country…but even the most successful ex-Warsaw Pact country ( with the exception of perhaps Czechs/Slovaks & maybe Hungary)…in a much more advantageous position than Moldova in 1991….but it has failed spectacularly.

    Something like one twentieth of Moldova’s GDP was recently stolen by criminals I heard. This isn’t a rumor or anything, I just don’t recall the details or the exact sum. And the per capita GDP of Moldova is lower than the Ukraine, though the development since 1991 I do not know. I assume the Ukraine was one of the wealthier parts of the USSR based on its agriculture, industry, mines, etc. No clue how Bessarabia rated in the USSR.

    I had to look up “Priednistroviye” as well. I don’t know much about Transnistria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    Something like one twentieth of Moldova’s GDP was recently stolen by criminals I heard. This isn’t a rumor or anything, I just don’t recall the details or the exact sum.
     
    One eighth of their GDP! :)

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/color-of-theft/

    Its color revolution was called the "Twitter Revolution." Ponder on that for a moment.

    It is indeed hard to imagine a country that is more fake and gay than Moldova.
    , @AP

    Let’s unpack this.

    First–low growth after big GDP loss. Completely true, but point being it seems the worst is over.
     
    Karlin already covered this:

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/ukrotriumph/

    Loss was mostly in the warzone. In 2014-2015 Ukraine's economy shrank 16%. It collapsed 60% in Donbas (!) but declined only 5% in Lviv.

    Lviv is already ahead of where it was in 2013, as are several other regions. Ukraine-outside-Donbas will get there if not by the end of this year than next year. The Sovoks in Donbas, OTOH, are screwed for many years to come.

    In summary, "celebration of Ukrainian economic hardship was mostly celebration of economic hardship in the most pro-Russian areas of the Ukraine."

    Russian nationalists who celebrate Ukraine's supposed hardship and blame the rebellion for it, are really talking about the consequences of rebellion upon the Donbas. The parts of Ukraine that rebelled against Yanukovich are doing relatively fine. The parts that rebelled against Kiev are in squalor.

    Huge population loss is at this time useful for the Ukraine for reasons I mentioned earlier.
     
    Well, Ukraine has very low real unemployment now. This is causing some local wages to rise. If you can't find a job in Ukraine, go to Poland for 6 months and send money back. It is not far - Warsaw is a lot closer to Kiev than Chicago is to New York. You can come home for holidays.

    I don’t know the FDI levels for the Ukraine (I assume they are nonexistent)
     
    Not much, but not zero. $2.3 billion in 2017:

    https://emerging-europe.com/in-brief/perceived-corruption-continues-hold-back-ukraine-fdi/

    The Maidan was an own goal which made things worse
     
    It screwed the Russian-dependent regions in the East but was good for the western regions. Ukraine had been stagnating prior to Maidan.

    I assume the Ukraine was one of the wealthier parts of the USSR based on its agriculture, industry, mines, etc
     
    It was the poorest of the three Slavic republics. It still has that position, although it has fallen further behind the other two.
    , @Gerard2

    I had to look up “Gruzians”. Is this what Russians call Georgians?
     
    Sorry about that!

    As for FDI. they are effectively zero for Ukraine, Russia which has terrible FDI but stll 12 times more
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @Thorfinnsson
    Your original claim was:

    Are you are impaired? It’s in an even worse and more failed state now then it was then.
     


    So what? That’s completely irrelevant..whoever said it was going to be a bottomless pit of descent in Ukraine’s GDP? The fact is this “growth ” is absurdly abysmal, 0.2% in last quarter of 2017 ( they cheated and changed the figures to slightly higher but still very low figure)industry nowhere in practically all sectors, likewise services, huge population loss, FDI nowhere, trade nowhere, crime?…at skyhigh levels throughout the country, corruption? through the roof–and it was already obscene before. After a 20% loss in GDP , they should now be experiencing at least a 5-7% increase in GDP per annum…they are so far away from this it’s beyond a joke.
     
    Let's unpack this.

    First--low growth after big GDP loss. Completely true, but point being it seems the worst is over. We'll see what the Ukrainian government does from now. Low hanging fruit would be permitting the sale of agricultural land, at the very least to other Ukrainians.

    Huge population loss is at this time useful for the Ukraine for reasons I mentioned earlier.

    I don't know the FDI levels for the Ukraine (I assume they are nonexistent) and am not going to look them up, but if the Ukraine can create some reasonable certainly for foreign investors there is obviously great potential here. And since the Ukrainian regime is more or less a Western puppet government I don't see why that would be impossible.

    And bear in mind that I am not a Ukrainophile or a Russophobe. In fact if you read many of my other comments you'll see that I am annoyed by Ukrainian independence.

    None the less, I get the impression that Ukrainian state capacity has improved since the Maidan.


    Libya is in growth ( and their population still earning more than ukrops…as are Iraq’s), Iran under sanctions has still been growing nicely, even Syria’s is growing…and all of these at much higher rates than Ukraine’s failed economy is doing. All those facts still don’t take away from the fact that all those countries, with the exemption of Iran are in a dreadful position. Almost all countries have faced a fight to get to their pre financial crash 2008 GDP levels…but Ukraine is struggling to get to their pre-1991 levels, before that it ,must get to it’s 2013 levels ( which should about take 15+ years) ..and in turn must get into it’s still inadequate 2008 levels ( which would have been still much lower if Yanukovich had not been PM at the time to try and repair the farce from the Yushchenko/Tymoshenko idiot competition)_
     
    Libya has recovering oil production, and the fact that Arabs outbreed whites is not exactly newsworthy. Iran has been under sanctions since 1979 and has adapted.

    As for Syria the IMF has this to say: https://www.imf.org/en/Countries/SYR#featured (no data)

    The CIA claims -10%, but the latest year is 2014.

    The World Bank also doesn't show recent data.

    That said I would expect a recovering economy in much of Syria as so much of Syria has recently been reconquered from various jihadists. The Ukraine on the other hand did not retake the Donets Basin (let alone Crimea) and has obviously lost a lot of the Russian market.

    The Ukraine is indeed fighting (hopefully?) to restore its economy, but note that I said that the Ukraine's entire post-Soviet experience has been dreadful. The Maidan was an own goal which made things worse, but the deterioration from that appears to have now ended.

    ….don’t make me laugh…this is probably worse for them then it was for the Gruzians in 2008
     
    I had to look up "Gruzians". Is this what Russians call Georgians?

    I have no way of assessing this and rely on Anatoly Karlin's observations, which I generally trust.

    If the two of you wish to debate that would be interesting.


    I would take it that Priednistroviye has made more of a success of itself , much more, than Ukraine has since Independence. Ukraine has had every possible positive thing going for it to be not just the most successful ex-USSR country…but even the most successful ex-Warsaw Pact country ( with the exception of perhaps Czechs/Slovaks & maybe Hungary)…in a much more advantageous position than Moldova in 1991….but it has failed spectacularly.
     
    Something like one twentieth of Moldova's GDP was recently stolen by criminals I heard. This isn't a rumor or anything, I just don't recall the details or the exact sum. And the per capita GDP of Moldova is lower than the Ukraine, though the development since 1991 I do not know. I assume the Ukraine was one of the wealthier parts of the USSR based on its agriculture, industry, mines, etc. No clue how Bessarabia rated in the USSR.

    I had to look up "Priednistroviye" as well. I don't know much about Transnistria.

    Something like one twentieth of Moldova’s GDP was recently stolen by criminals I heard. This isn’t a rumor or anything, I just don’t recall the details or the exact sum.

    One eighth of their GDP! :)

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/color-of-theft/

    Its color revolution was called the “Twitter Revolution.” Ponder on that for a moment.

    It is indeed hard to imagine a country that is more fake and gay than Moldova.

    Read More
    • LOL: Thorfinnsson
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    It is Ilan Shor, an Israeli local politician, has stolen 12% of Moldovan GDP.

    At the time when he was running away from the police, he entered and succeeded in winning an election to become mayor of a city in Moldova.

    I guess this is the definition of 'low state capacity'.

    3 years ago - Moldova has given him punishment of 7 years in jail.

    However, still today, he did not spend any time in jail, is allowed to live free, and does not tell Moldova where the money is.

    It seems last month he is a renting an airport from Kyrgyzstan


    http://www.gezitter.org/economics/68897_aeroport_manas_otdan_v_arendu_ilanu_shoru/
    , @Novak
    Work of a Israeli businessman

    http://candu.md/files/doc/Kroll_Project%20Tenor_Candu_02.04.15.pdf
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @Anatoly Karlin
    Thanks, this is pretty interesting. And I agree that it's much better than nothing.

    I notice that the Wiki also links to this. For all the stories of Germans practicing with brooms instead of rifles, it appears that the Germanics continue to do very well: Germany came first in 2016, and second in 2017 (Austria was first).

    Tank biathlons organized by Russia are only interesting in that they show Russia is consistently ahead of China, which is usually 2nd, and that India does very badly.

    Austrians are just Germans, no need to refer to them as Germanics which is a much more expansive term.

    The results of the Russian tank biathalon in fact strike me as quite interesting. A shame more countries don’t participate.

    I was not aware of the Strong Europe Tank Challenge, but indeed it seems Germans are doing well. I always assumed the broom stuff was just goldbricking. Small sample size however and limited number of entrants. Let’s hope it continues.

    There’s also some kind of global special forces competition, but I don’t remember what it’s called or where it’s held (not talking about the one in Jordan). I believe GSG 9 has done well in it many times.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    I assume Russians practice more for it since it's their event.

    Consistently strong performance of China is impressive, and suggests its soldiers are plain better than India's, apart from also being much better equipped these days (though we already knew that based on low Indian IQ and indeed the consistently poor Indian military performance against China). I have noticed that both Western and Russian (no, not just Admiral Martyanov) military experts have a persistent habit of belittling Chinese military capabilities. I suspect they may be in for a surprise.

    Just Googled, spec forces competition may be this one.

    2009 – Jordan: General Intelligence Directorate
    2010 – United States: United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance
    2011 – Austria: EKO Cobra
    2012 – Germany: GSG9
    2013 – China: Snow Leopard Commando Unit
    2014 – China: Snow Leopard Commando Unit
    2015 – Russia: SOBR
    2016 – Lebanon: Black Panthers
    2017 – China: Sky Sword Unit of the PAP

    China seems to absolutely dominate this: https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/eastern-arsenal/chinese-special-forces-take-1st-2nd-and-4th-place-%E2%80%9Colympics%E2%80%9D-elite

    Actually rather surprised about this, my Sinotriumphalism regardless. Driving a tank and firing rounds from it accurately would appear to cater to Mongoloid strengths (visuo-spatial acuity), while spec forces performance would seem to be more of an Indo-European thing (the grit, brawn, teamwork, and spirit of a band of battle brothers). But perhaps they just don't send their best.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. iffen says:
    @AP
    You seem to have the mistaken idea that Ukraine is to Russia as Taiwan is to China.

    Some people think that the Ukraine is to Russia as Tibet is to China.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. iffen says:
    @AP

    Not at all. Think about why Occitan and Low German no longer exist.
     
    Absorbed and snuffed out centuries earlier.

    This is why it’s crucial to terminate the Ukraine’s independence as soon as possible. The longer the Kiev regime exists the greater the danger of a real Ukrainian language and identity.
     
    You are writing 200 years too late.

    Even in 1917 most Ukrainians voted for Ukrainian nationalist parties and during the Civil War there were no pro-Russian military formations or commanders from Ukraine. There were mostly a bunch of disorganized nationalists, anarchists and a small number of Commies, all of whom despised Russian patriots.

    Indeed, whenever there was a war or invasion people in Ukraine behaved as do occupied peoples like Poles or Balts, and not like "other Russians" as in Oryl or Pskov. Join the invaders, rebel, "betray." If Occitania were analogous to Ukraine Occitanians would joined the Germans during various wars.

    whenever there was a war or invasion people in Ukraine behaved as do occupied peoples like Poles or Balts

    If this is true, and is not just isolated incidents, this would be a double plus good point for your side.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. iffen says:
    @Talha
    Never stopped the Brits from using them before. The problem is; why would any person want to join the British (or US) forces other than out of some misplaced patriotism? They don't defend Britain - they ride shotgun with the US on any imperial adventures it goes cowboy on across the world.

    And it's not easy either, the people fight back, it's not like Grenada or Panama - you want to come back missing a leg to help make sure this guy's guarantee works out?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHmhf_wrcrM

    And then you wrestle with demons for the rest of your life until you take the shotgun-to-the-face exit:
    "Roughly 20 veterans a day commit suicide nationwide, according to new data from the Department of Veterans Affairs — a figure that dispels the often quoted, but problematic, '22 a day' estimate yet solidifies the disturbing mental health crisis the number implied."
    https://www.militarytimes.com/veterans/2016/07/07/new-va-study-finds-20-veterans-commit-suicide-each-day/

    Peace.

    Mercenary used to be an honorable profession. I guess it’s just another indication of how degraded civilization had become.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. iffen says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    The benefits are legion. Annexation of English Canada (Quebec should be an independent protectorate) include:

    • Immediate addition of 20-million English-speaking whites to America
    • USA becomes world's largest country by land area (suck it Russia!)
    • US oil production immediately increases by one-third
    • Major increases in cereals, timber, steel, aluminum, electricity, etc. production
    • US EEZ increases by 50% and overtakes France to become #1
    • Major increase in Artic shoreline, and can turn the Northwest Passage into territorial waters (something Canada currently claims but America currently rejects)
    • American exposure to Canadian medicine might de-pathologize the incredibly stupid healthcare debate in America
    • Sets in motion the possibility of other Anglo settler countries joining America (Britain I assume is a bridge too far with its monarchism and presence in Europe)
    • Most importantly, I will no longer have to fill out NAFTA certificates or explain to Canadians that no, they do not in fact require CSA approval

    There are also major benefits for Canadians such as:

    • Canadian per capita GDP would rapidly converge with America's
    • Talented Canadians would finally be able to escape the Canadian jail and join the big leagues instead of pretending like Bay Street is a big deal
    • "Hate speech" laws immediately eliminated
    • Target will return to Canada, and Canadians finally get Jet.com
    • Cheaper postage
    • No longer need to use stupid looking Canadian money
    • Lower-cost investing options
    • Cheaper goods in general
    • The endless softwood lumber trade dispute finally ends
    • Canadians gain the right to pack some serious firepower
    • Americans know how to put the "First Nations" in their rightful place
    • The new olympic hockey team will be more competitive, and in general the national team will be more competitive at the winter olympics

    (Britain I assume is a bridge too far

    Forget the bridge, we could build a tunnel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Dmitry says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    I was just thinking that by the very the logic of Russian nationalists (i.e. that Ukrainians are in fact Russians), then logically an independent Ukraine should develop in similar ways to an independent Russia. Thus recent improvements in the Ukraine should have been predicted by them.

    The main reason that the Ukraine is so much poorer today than Russia is simply because Ukraine didn't get its own Putin and the oligarchs continued to run the country into the ground (plus no oil). The reason for this is obviously that the siloviks were for obvious reasons centered in Moscow, so in the Ukraine they were and are much weaker than the oligarchs.

    I'm not going to forecast this as I lack knowledge on the ground, but if Ukrainian independence and Western hostility to Russia both persist it's possible that the Ukraine will become wealthier than Russia in time owing to Western capital, technology, and management.

    I was just thinking that by the very the logic of Russian nationalists (i.e. that Ukrainians are in fact Russians),

    Compared to average population, being Russian nationalist would show some degree of correlation with being more pro-Ukraine, everything thing else equal.

    It’s not that all or even most nationalists are pro-Kiev. But they will be in higher frequency than in a non-nationalist sample group.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    I really don't think this is accurate.

    You could say that Russian nationalists would have a strange bipolar distribution, with well higher than average numbers of both anti-Ukrainians and zaukraintsy relative to the population at large (this would be correct).

    However, since zaukrainets Russian nationalists make up no more than 20% of their numbers - frankly, I think it's no more than 10% - net "anti-Ukrainian index" would still be way higher than the population at large.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Pharmakon says:

    Mr. Karlin,

    Unless the Russians are sourcing, both, their weapon systems and their rank and file guys from abroad, perhaps you should have re-conciliated for that dollar figure you are presenting to us. How much has the budget changed in terms of their national currency, is what I am trying to ask.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  153. @Thorfinnsson
    Austrians are just Germans, no need to refer to them as Germanics which is a much more expansive term.

    The results of the Russian tank biathalon in fact strike me as quite interesting. A shame more countries don't participate.

    I was not aware of the Strong Europe Tank Challenge, but indeed it seems Germans are doing well. I always assumed the broom stuff was just goldbricking. Small sample size however and limited number of entrants. Let's hope it continues.

    There's also some kind of global special forces competition, but I don't remember what it's called or where it's held (not talking about the one in Jordan). I believe GSG 9 has done well in it many times.

    I assume Russians practice more for it since it’s their event.

    Consistently strong performance of China is impressive, and suggests its soldiers are plain better than India’s, apart from also being much better equipped these days (though we already knew that based on low Indian IQ and indeed the consistently poor Indian military performance against China). I have noticed that both Western and Russian (no, not just Admiral Martyanov) military experts have a persistent habit of belittling Chinese military capabilities. I suspect they may be in for a surprise.

    Just Googled, spec forces competition may be this one.

    2009 – Jordan: General Intelligence Directorate
    2010 – United States: United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance
    2011 – Austria: EKO Cobra
    2012 – Germany: GSG9
    2013 – China: Snow Leopard Commando Unit
    2014 – China: Snow Leopard Commando Unit
    2015 – Russia: SOBR
    2016 – Lebanon: Black Panthers
    2017 – China: Sky Sword Unit of the PAP

    China seems to absolutely dominate this: https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/eastern-arsenal/chinese-special-forces-take-1st-2nd-and-4th-place-%E2%80%9Colympics%E2%80%9D-elite

    Actually rather surprised about this, my Sinotriumphalism regardless. Driving a tank and firing rounds from it accurately would appear to cater to Mongoloid strengths (visuo-spatial acuity), while spec forces performance would seem to be more of an Indo-European thing (the grit, brawn, teamwork, and spirit of a band of battle brothers). But perhaps they just don’t send their best.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Western commentary on China has been persistently abysmal as far back as I can remember. The following things have been boldly proclaimed:

    • You can't censor the internet (the same people now censor the internet)
    • China will not surpass America economically b/c Japan and West Germany didn't (nice math skills)
    • China will not surpass America economically because China will collapse (Real Soon Now)
    • China just copies and can't innovate (genetic engineering, supercomputing, quantum computing, etc.)
    • As China gets wealthier it will inevitably become a liberal democracy (on this basis we gave away the farm)

    Perhaps the worst I've seen is Stratfor. Because of China's "geopolitics" and the fact that it apparently takes centuries to build a "naval tradition", China will never pose a threat to America. So in other words an allegedly premier analyst has never heard of the Kaiserliche Marine, which despite no naval tradition at all developed technically superior ships and had mostly better tactical performance than the Royal Navy in WW1. I bet if you pressed Friedman on this he'd rationalize it with some bullshit about the Hanseatic League.

    The reality is that these people just want America to remain #1, which is of course entirely understandable, but then just make up nonsense to support their emotions. And this is taken seriously in policy circles.

    I don't get the sense that the Victorians and Edwardians were this childish in analyzing rising powers.
    , @Singh
    India defeated China in skirmishes post 62 & was DQd due to its tanks breaking down but was among the leaders.

    Its IQ of low 80s post Flyn would be the same as most of Slavia ie mid 90s so Idk wtf ur on about||

    The Chinks thought the 303 Lee Enfields were machine guns based on how fast they fired in 62||

    http://www.delhidefencereview.com/2017/08/13/did-indian-army-troops-save-chinese-troops-in-sudan/

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. Pharmakon says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    The 85-86 oil price collapse was certainly negative for the USSR, but "terminally catastrophic" is an exaggeration.

    The root of the problem was that the USSR had to pay for grain imports. I can think of many ways it could've solved that problem:

    • Rationing and/or substitution
    • A reduction in other imports (USSR was a major importer of capital goods)
    • Increase in prices of exports, including oil, to COMECON countries
    • Agricultural reform (e.g. Hungarian model)
    • Reduction of the bloated foreign aid budget
    • Increase non-oil exports

    Soviet collapse is complex but ultimately down to a loss of morale.

    Saudi Arabia can't control the oil price anymore. It is not able to cut its production very much owing to its budget situation.

    “Soviet collapse is complex but ultimately down to a loss of morale.”

    Having lived through those times in the Eastern Block, I cannot agree more. The so called “collapse” took place, mainly, in the psychological plane. Oil crises, military spending, etc. did not have a whole lot to do with the socialist system’s internally-directed breakdown (materially speaking, most people were quite well off during the end of the 80′s). Our elites simply believed that they could be a part of the boys’ club (they were wrong, their allocated place was with the servants) and the rest is history..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Dmitry

    I was just thinking that by the very the logic of Russian nationalists (i.e. that Ukrainians are in fact Russians),
     
    Compared to average population, being Russian nationalist would show some degree of correlation with being more pro-Ukraine, everything thing else equal.

    It's not that all or even most nationalists are pro-Kiev. But they will be in higher frequency than in a non-nationalist sample group.

    I really don’t think this is accurate.

    You could say that Russian nationalists would have a strange bipolar distribution, with well higher than average numbers of both anti-Ukrainians and zaukraintsy relative to the population at large (this would be correct).

    However, since zaukrainets Russian nationalists make up no more than 20% of their numbers – frankly, I think it’s no more than 10% – net “anti-Ukrainian index” would still be way higher than the population at large.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. Dmitry says:
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Something like one twentieth of Moldova’s GDP was recently stolen by criminals I heard. This isn’t a rumor or anything, I just don’t recall the details or the exact sum.
     
    One eighth of their GDP! :)

    http://www.unz.com/akarlin/color-of-theft/

    Its color revolution was called the "Twitter Revolution." Ponder on that for a moment.

    It is indeed hard to imagine a country that is more fake and gay than Moldova.

    It is Ilan Shor, an Israeli local politician, has stolen 12% of Moldovan GDP.

    At the time when he was running away from the police, he entered and succeeded in winning an election to become mayor of a city in Moldova.

    I guess this is the definition of ‘low state capacity’.

    3 years ago – Moldova has given him punishment of 7 years in jail.

    However, still today, he did not spend any time in jail, is allowed to live free, and does not tell Moldova where the money is.

    It seems last month he is a renting an airport from Kyrgyzstan

    http://www.gezitter.org/economics/68897_aeroport_manas_otdan_v_arendu_ilanu_shoru/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Singh says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    I don't think the Duke of Qin's example is relevant, as in Britain Sikhs are an alien element and obviously don't identify with the country they're more or less invading. So we can't look at the diaspora of any of India's martial races. They have to go back. ;)

    But we can look at martial European groups that emigrated to the New World.

    Another interesting possibility would be to study the "Confederados", the ex-Confederates who emigrated to Brazil. It would be especially helpful if some of the Confederados happened to be Scotch-Irish, who are known to be the most martial of all Americans.

    No, Duke of Qin is right.

    He is a friend of the Sikhs as he offers honest criticism।।
    If his comments make even one Arya take up arms to protect his name, he has done more than 99% politicians today & this is commendable.

    A Ksytria is only one bout of cowardice from losing his Warriorship।।

    http://www.guns.com/2013/03/15/sikh-files-lawsuit-against-california-assault-weapon-ban-violates-freedom-of-religion/

    You carry forward the Lineage as well as the name associated with it।।

    Most Ethno Nationalist have it backward, as even a man from a contemptible Lineage should consider it an honor to be born there।।

    He now has the opportunity to bring it to Greatness Through Battle।।

    ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕਾਖਾਲਸਾ।।ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂਜੀਕੀਫਤਿਹ।।

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. AP says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    Your original claim was:

    Are you are impaired? It’s in an even worse and more failed state now then it was then.
     


    So what? That’s completely irrelevant..whoever said it was going to be a bottomless pit of descent in Ukraine’s GDP? The fact is this “growth ” is absurdly abysmal, 0.2% in last quarter of 2017 ( they cheated and changed the figures to slightly higher but still very low figure)industry nowhere in practically all sectors, likewise services, huge population loss, FDI nowhere, trade nowhere, crime?…at skyhigh levels throughout the country, corruption? through the roof–and it was already obscene before. After a 20% loss in GDP , they should now be experiencing at least a 5-7% increase in GDP per annum…they are so far away from this it’s beyond a joke.
     
    Let's unpack this.

    First--low growth after big GDP loss. Completely true, but point being it seems the worst is over. We'll see what the Ukrainian government does from now. Low hanging fruit would be permitting the sale of agricultural land, at the very least to other Ukrainians.

    Huge population loss is at this time useful for the Ukraine for reasons I mentioned earlier.

    I don't know the FDI levels for the Ukraine (I assume they are nonexistent) and am not going to look them up, but if the Ukraine can create some reasonable certainly for foreign investors there is obviously great potential here. And since the Ukrainian regime is more or less a Western puppet government I don't see why that would be impossible.

    And bear in mind that I am not a Ukrainophile or a Russophobe. In fact if you read many of my other comments you'll see that I am annoyed by Ukrainian independence.

    None the less, I get the impression that Ukrainian state capacity has improved since the Maidan.


    Libya is in growth ( and their population still earning more than ukrops…as are Iraq’s), Iran under sanctions has still been growing nicely, even Syria’s is growing…and all of these at much higher rates than Ukraine’s failed economy is doing. All those facts still don’t take away from the fact that all those countries, with the exemption of Iran are in a dreadful position. Almost all countries have faced a fight to get to their pre financial crash 2008 GDP levels…but Ukraine is struggling to get to their pre-1991 levels, before that it ,must get to it’s 2013 levels ( which should about take 15+ years) ..and in turn must get into it’s still inadequate 2008 levels ( which would have been still much lower if Yanukovich had not been PM at the time to try and repair the farce from the Yushchenko/Tymoshenko idiot competition)_
     
    Libya has recovering oil production, and the fact that Arabs outbreed whites is not exactly newsworthy. Iran has been under sanctions since 1979 and has adapted.

    As for Syria the IMF has this to say: https://www.imf.org/en/Countries/SYR#featured (no data)

    The CIA claims -10%, but the latest year is 2014.

    The World Bank also doesn't show recent data.

    That said I would expect a recovering economy in much of Syria as so much of Syria has recently been reconquered from various jihadists. The Ukraine on the other hand did not retake the Donets Basin (let alone Crimea) and has obviously lost a lot of the Russian market.

    The Ukraine is indeed fighting (hopefully?) to restore its economy, but note that I said that the Ukraine's entire post-Soviet experience has been dreadful. The Maidan was an own goal which made things worse, but the deterioration from that appears to have now ended.

    ….don’t make me laugh…this is probably worse for them then it was for the Gruzians in 2008
     
    I had to look up "Gruzians". Is this what Russians call Georgians?

    I have no way of assessing this and rely on Anatoly Karlin's observations, which I generally trust.

    If the two of you wish to debate that would be interesting.


    I would take it that Priednistroviye has made more of a success of itself , much more, than Ukraine has since Independence. Ukraine has had every possible positive thing going for it to be not just the most successful ex-USSR country…but even the most successful ex-Warsaw Pact country ( with the exception of perhaps Czechs/Slovaks & maybe Hungary)…in a much more advantageous position than Moldova in 1991….but it has failed spectacularly.
     
    Something like one twentieth of Moldova's GDP was recently stolen by criminals I heard. This isn't a rumor or anything, I just don't recall the details or the exact sum. And the per capita GDP of Moldova is lower than the Ukraine, though the development since 1991 I do not know. I assume the Ukraine was one of the wealthier parts of the USSR based on its agriculture, industry, mines, etc. No clue how Bessarabia rated in the USSR.

    I had to look up "Priednistroviye" as well. I don't know much about Transnistria.

    Let’s unpack this.

    First–low growth after big GDP loss. Completely true, but point being it seems the worst is over.

    Karlin already covered this:

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/ukrotriumph/

    Loss was mostly in the warzone. In 2014-2015 Ukraine’s economy shrank 16%. It collapsed 60% in Donbas (!) but declined only 5% in Lviv.

    Lviv is already ahead of where it was in 2013, as are several other regions. Ukraine-outside-Donbas will get there if not by the end of this year than next year. The Sovoks in Donbas, OTOH, are screwed for many years to come.

    In summary, “celebration of Ukrainian economic hardship was mostly celebration of economic hardship in the most pro-Russian areas of the Ukraine.”

    Russian nationalists who celebrate Ukraine’s supposed hardship and blame the rebellion for it, are really talking about the consequences of rebellion upon the Donbas. The parts of Ukraine that rebelled against Yanukovich are doing relatively fine. The parts that rebelled against Kiev are in squalor.

    Huge population loss is at this time useful for the Ukraine for reasons I mentioned earlier.

    Well, Ukraine has very low real unemployment now. This is causing some local wages to rise. If you can’t find a job in Ukraine, go to Poland for 6 months and send money back. It is not far – Warsaw is a lot closer to Kiev than Chicago is to New York. You can come home for holidays.

    I don’t know the FDI levels for the Ukraine (I assume they are nonexistent)

    Not much, but not zero. $2.3 billion in 2017:

    https://emerging-europe.com/in-brief/perceived-corruption-continues-hold-back-ukraine-fdi/

    The Maidan was an own goal which made things worse

    It screwed the Russian-dependent regions in the East but was good for the western regions. Ukraine had been stagnating prior to Maidan.

    I assume the Ukraine was one of the wealthier parts of the USSR based on its agriculture, industry, mines, etc

    It was the poorest of the three Slavic republics. It still has that position, although it has fallen further behind the other two.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    I know a Ukrainian woman here (offshore Portugal) from Lviv who's son fled Ukraine to avoid military service and is now living and working in Poland. Is this a common situation?
    , @Felix Keverich

    Russian nationalists who celebrate Ukraine’s supposed hardship and blame the rebellion for it, are really talking about the consequences of rebellion upon the Donbas. The parts of Ukraine that rebelled against Yanukovich are doing relatively fine. The parts that rebelled against Kiev are in squalor.
     
    LMAO, Ukrainians are "doing well" trying to live on $200 average monthly wage. Between 2013 and 2017 the value of US dollar in Ukrainian currency went from 8 to 26. In a country that doesn't produce anything of what its people need, this caused a lot of hurt. For example, car sales in the Ukraine fell from 200.000 in 2013 to 80.000 in 2017.

    This is the effect of losing Donbass: that region used to be a major moneymaker for the Ukraine. It provided export revenues and paid lots of taxes to the government in Kiev.


    Not much, but not zero. $2.3 billion in 2017:

    https://emerging-europe.com/in-brief/perceived-corruption-continues-hold-back-ukraine-fdi/
     

    This is Russian and Ukrainian olygarch money from offshore tax havens. It is only "FDI" in the most technical sense. In reality this investment isn't actually foreign.

    If you can’t find a job in Ukraine, go to Poland for 6 months and send money back. It is not far – Warsaw is a lot closer to Kiev than Chicago is to New York. You can come home for holidays.
     
    And you could do this before Yanukovich was overthrown. That's the funniest part for me!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. AP says:
    @Thorfinnsson


    Correct, and under such conditions Poland’s approach was the most reasonable one.
     
    Agreed.


    In the 17th century “Polish” elites weren’t Polish in the modern sense. They were simply nobles, some would nowadays be Ukrainians or Lithuanians as well as Poles. Nobles thought of themselves as a different people than peasants (there was the idea that they were descendants of Sarmatians, while the peasants were Slavs, good for nothing but servitude).
     
    Even if this is correct, they were still a ruling class who controlled a state and an army. My point was that Poland's policy in the past century was a reflection of its weakness.

    And I'd be interested in @Polish Perspective weighing in if he's reading this. Lots of pinko faggot "intellectuals" claim nationalism is a 19th century invention, which is complete bullshit. But national consciousness develops at different times in different places so you may be completely correct.


    The punishment they received for their squabbling brought them some wisdom. This, plus the relative weakness of both the West and Russia than in the mid 20th century, makes the project much more viable now than it was before.
     
    I don't know about wisdom--Poland's leaders today strike me as boneheads, even if they generally have the right idea. Kind of like DJT without the razzle dazzle.

    Rather WW2 successfully ethnically cleansed all of Europe, so now there's nothing to squabble about and these states can focus on their common interest of avoiding falling under German (now Western perhaps?) or Russian domination. Plus they all quietly accept German economic domination anyway, as in fact many of these states did in the interwar period as well.

    Lots of pinko faggot “intellectuals” claim nationalism is a 19th century invention, which is complete bullshit.

    More like an 18th century invention. It’s not just a leftist idea, the reactionary Lukacs had the same conclusion.

    But national consciousness develops at different times in different places so you may be completely correct.

    Correct, in some places it arrived in the 18th century, in others in the 19th century. Tribalism is related but not the same thing – it would be odd to consider Sitting Bull to be a “Sioux nationalist.”

    The key time to assimilate peoples is before there was such a thing as national consciousness. That’s when the Provencals were assimilated into the French, it’s how tribals get assimilated. Once a national consciousness develops and is widely adopted, it’s game over. I can’t think of a single example when a nationally conscious people took on a different identity. Can you?

    I don’t know about wisdom–Poland’s leaders today strike me as boneheads, even if they generally have the right idea. Kind of like DJT without the razzle dazzle.

    They’ve taken lots of EU money and avoided taking in any Muslims. Trump in contrast has not accomplished much at all. He slowed the flow of illegals a little.

    Plus they all quietly accept German economic domination anyway,

    Polish government is reversing this, which is why there are all those Western squeals about Polish “anti-democratic” reforms.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    More like an 18th century invention. It’s not just a leftist idea, the reactionary Lukacs had the same conclusion.
     
    I also like Lukacs, and read many of his books, but his peculiar ideas might have something to do with him being half-Jewish. Usually a rule of thumb is that the more rootless a person is, the more likely to subscribe to the "nationalism is a Romantic/Enlightenment/[whatever recent] invention" theory.

    The origins of nationalism are a bit more complex than that. Most people recognized, for example, if their dialects were closer to one neighbor than another. Often there was some sort of (usually ill-defined) ethnic identity, which in some cases (ancient Greeks, at least some ancient Jews, etc.) was somewhat similar to modern nationalistic feelings (the ideal of unity, at least in the face of outside danger, self-sacrifice against foreigners, a sense of superiority over others, especially neighbors, etc.)

    Now such pre-nationalist ethnic solidarity was still relatively malleable, in no small part because people often were unaware of the size of the wider world. It was possible for people to be extremely parochial and petty tribal against other tribes of their own ethnicity, but the appearance of foreign conquerors often changed the sentiments. I have read a few writings of Hungarian aristocrats from the time of the Ottoman occupation (roughly 1526-1686), and they pretty much had a sense of some kind of Hungarian national feeling. Not just "Christians," because they were often opposed to "German" (i.e. Habsburg) policies. After liberation, there was an insurgency against Habsburg rule in Hungary, and (surprise, surprise) it had most support in ethnically Hungarian areas. It was led by an aristocrat, many aristocrats (it's unclear if it was most of them; many remained Habsburg loyalists) and the majority of the nobility joined it, and so did apparently the peasantry (which provided the mass of its soldiers). It was only successful in ethnically Hungarian areas, with the most strongly opposed being ethnically German areas. (No surprise, in a freedom fight against "German" rule...) Although it's difficult to prove, it might have reinforced the idea of repopulating the country after the devastation of the Ottoman wars (and the unsuccessful rebellion against the Habsburgs...) by inviting ethnically German settlers.

    The book I read on the topic is Azar Gat's Nations. He claims that it was only the modern form of nationalism which was invented after or during the enlightenment, but some kind of raw pre-nationalism did often exist, and some kind of vague ethnic solidarity always existed against outsiders. Basically, nationalists only had to reinforce the sense of ethnic solidarity (which was easy, unlike internationalist solidarity, which usually fell on deaf ears), and sometimes had to convince two or three ethnic groups that they really belonged to the same nation (like the French with regards to Occitanie, or Russians - unsuccessfully, in that case - with regards the Ukraine).

    I know you give the Galician Slaughter as a counterexample, but I think there are many examples of people feeling ethnic solidarity and putting their lives on the line in support of it, so I'd think the Galician Slaughter was an exception that proves the rule.
    , @iffen
    I can’t think of a single example when a nationally conscious people took on a different identity. Can you?

    They try.
    , @Randal

    I can’t think of a single example when a nationally conscious people took on a different identity. Can you?
     
    There is a "no true Scotsman" problem inherent to such a question - any example given to you would likely be dismissed as merely being a people who had not been sufficiently nationally conscious, or nationally conscious in the right ways, or one that didn't really "take on a different identity" sufficiently, to count. Clearly the example of Britain suggests that even quite well established national identities can still be shifted up to a point. British national identity was essentially created to replace the English, Scottish, and Welsh identities and align them with the governmental structure, with considerable success for a reasonable time, albeit declining again in the C20th.

    The kind of national consciousness that arose in the C18th/19th was mostly just a way of thinking that said a nation should have a state. Nationality as a wider concept is much older and more fundamental, but also inherently fluid.

    An interesting case seems to me to be the shifting loyalties in the American crown colonies in the C17th and early-mid C18th, where originally most simply considered themselves British, or at any rate British subjects if they were of non-British origin, but there was a gradual rise of a separate identity. Scholars differ about to what extent this was a nascent American identity or a patchwork of more locally-focussed identities, and the truth is that both probably coexisted to varying degrees across the populations of the colonies. Most likely if the American elites had not decided they could do better for themselves without external rule and precipitated the American secession, there would have been a less clear cut American nationality, and loyalty to states would have competed with American and British identity on a much more even footing for much longer, rather than getting so easily crushed a few decades later in the ACW.
    , @Thorfinnsson
    The big problem with this logic is that "strongly held" is not a scientific definition. How do you define it? Even if there is a strong national identity, that identity can of course weaken.

    We do have lots of examples of identities changing.

    In the modern world it happens all the time owing to immigration for instance. My grandparents had strong Swedish identities, whereas mine is mostly sentimental. In a few generations no one in my family will even speak Swedish, and we'll be as Swedish as American Plastic Paddies are Irish.

    Do we have any proof that the inhabitants of Provence didn't have their own identity and resented a French identity being imposed on them? After all what was even written in their language? Did it even have a standard orthography?

    But I can think of a number of real examples.

    The creation of a Roman identity almost everywhere the Romans ruled for long periods of time, for instance. The Roman identity was initially confined to the City of Rome itself, and first spread to the Sabine women (by kidnapping and raping them). From there it spread first through Latium, then throughout the Italian Peninsula, and finally across the entire Empire.

    By the 3rd century all free inhabitants of the Empire were citizens (Edict of Caracalla) and saw themselves as Roman. Septimus Severus established the Severan Dynasty in 198--the first dynasty from the provinces. In fact Septimus Severus was of Carthaginian descent. This would be like if the Russian Empire had conquered Germany and four centuries later an East Elbian Junker became the Tsar.

    In more recent times I can think of Scania in Sweden. Scanians originally had a strong Danish identity (Scandinavian national identities are quite old), now they have a Swedish identity. This is quite relevant for the East Slavs imo, as Scandinavians are another cluster of extremely similar nationalities.

    We do know that the inhabitants of the Mezzogiorno had strong identities and resisted Italianization. After the Piedmontese conquest of Two Sicilies the conquered "Italians" launched a guerrilla war. Today the inhabitants of the Mezzogiorno speak Italian and identify as Italian, though now ironically there are often not readily recognized as Italian by Northern Italy. :)

    In general I suspect you will find that many nations have absorbed people with other identities, and those identities were often strongly held. Since a good number of nations are very old we lack records of this.

    Frisians are today German or Dutch, but what did they think of themselves?

    How did the Romano-British think of themselves, and how about their Saxon conquerors who successfully imposed their language on a Latin (and perhaps Celtic) speaking population? Did the inhabitants of the rival Heptarchies think of themselves differently? The truth is we have no idea.

    We also have examples of conquerors being assimilated by the people they conquered. Chinese history is littered with this, but it also applies to the Normans almost everywhere they went.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @Mr. Hack
    I admire Alex Trebek too. He's another one of those Ukies that can bee seen eating his share of pierogies at Ukrainian festivals in North America. We can be found everywhere, and we're proud of our ethnicity!

    https://youtu.be/CtUO_UkvSHw

    “Pierogies” are Polish, not Ukrainian.

    American second- and third-generation immigrants should be banned from ever posting about the Old Country, the results are usually too stupid for words. Just stop.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @AP

    Lots of pinko faggot “intellectuals” claim nationalism is a 19th century invention, which is complete bullshit.
     
    More like an 18th century invention. It's not just a leftist idea, the reactionary Lukacs had the same conclusion.

    But national consciousness develops at different times in different places so you may be completely correct.
     
    Correct, in some places it arrived in the 18th century, in others in the 19th century. Tribalism is related but not the same thing - it would be odd to consider Sitting Bull to be a "Sioux nationalist."

    The key time to assimilate peoples is before there was such a thing as national consciousness. That's when the Provencals were assimilated into the French, it's how tribals get assimilated. Once a national consciousness develops and is widely adopted, it's game over. I can't think of a single example when a nationally conscious people took on a different identity. Can you?

    I don’t know about wisdom–Poland’s leaders today strike me as boneheads, even if they generally have the right idea. Kind of like DJT without the razzle dazzle.
     
    They've taken lots of EU money and avoided taking in any Muslims. Trump in contrast has not accomplished much at all. He slowed the flow of illegals a little.

    Plus they all quietly accept German economic domination anyway,
     
    Polish government is reversing this, which is why there are all those Western squeals about Polish "anti-democratic" reforms.

    More like an 18th century invention. It’s not just a leftist idea, the reactionary Lukacs had the same conclusion.

    I also like Lukacs, and read many of his books, but his peculiar ideas might have something to do with him being half-Jewish. Usually a rule of thumb is that the more rootless a person is, the more likely to subscribe to the “nationalism is a Romantic/Enlightenment/[whatever recent] invention” theory.

    The origins of nationalism are a bit more complex than that. Most people recognized, for example, if their dialects were closer to one neighbor than another. Often there was some sort of (usually ill-defined) ethnic identity, which in some cases (ancient Greeks, at least some ancient Jews, etc.) was somewhat similar to modern nationalistic feelings (the ideal of unity, at least in the face of outside danger, self-sacrifice against foreigners, a sense of superiority over others, especially neighbors, etc.)

    Now such pre-nationalist ethnic solidarity was still relatively malleable, in no small part because people often were unaware of the size of the wider world. It was possible for people to be extremely parochial and petty tribal against other tribes of their own ethnicity, but the appearance of foreign conquerors often changed the sentiments. I have read a few writings of Hungarian aristocrats from the time of the Ottoman occupation (roughly 1526-1686), and they pretty much had a sense of some kind of Hungarian national feeling. Not just “Christians,” because they were often opposed to “German” (i.e. Habsburg) policies. After liberation, there was an insurgency against Habsburg rule in Hungary, and (surprise, surprise) it had most support in ethnically Hungarian areas. It was led by an aristocrat, many aristocrats (it’s unclear if it was most of them; many remained Habsburg loyalists) and the majority of the nobility joined it, and so did apparently the peasantry (which provided the mass of its soldiers). It was only successful in ethnically Hungarian areas, with the most strongly opposed being ethnically German areas. (No surprise, in a freedom fight against “German” rule…) Although it’s difficult to prove, it might have reinforced the idea of repopulating the country after the devastation of the Ottoman wars (and the unsuccessful rebellion against the Habsburgs…) by inviting ethnically German settlers.

    The book I read on the topic is Azar Gat’s Nations. He claims that it was only the modern form of nationalism which was invented after or during the enlightenment, but some kind of raw pre-nationalism did often exist, and some kind of vague ethnic solidarity always existed against outsiders. Basically, nationalists only had to reinforce the sense of ethnic solidarity (which was easy, unlike internationalist solidarity, which usually fell on deaf ears), and sometimes had to convince two or three ethnic groups that they really belonged to the same nation (like the French with regards to Occitanie, or Russians – unsuccessfully, in that case – with regards the Ukraine).

    I know you give the Galician Slaughter as a counterexample, but I think there are many examples of people feeling ethnic solidarity and putting their lives on the line in support of it, so I’d think the Galician Slaughter was an exception that proves the rule.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    Basically, nationalists only had to reinforce the sense of ethnic solidarity (which was easy, unlike internationalist solidarity, which usually fell on deaf ears), and sometimes had to convince two or three ethnic groups that they really belonged to the same nation (like the French with regards to Occitanie, or Russians – unsuccessfully, in that case – with regards the Ukraine).
     
    I'm surprised (baffled) why Karlin doesn't seem to share your point of view when it comes to Russia and Ukraine? It is after all a totally accepted axiom , that Ukraine and Russia are two separate countries that host two separate nationalities. Instead, he tries to cling to some outdated ideas of 'triunism', which even he is loathe to discuss more fully within his blog. I think that its really his own way of conceding that the whole thing is a bunch of malarkey, no more than a privately held whimsical belief founded on preferences and not on facts.
    , @AP
    I generally agree with your comment. I think we need to be careful not to apply modern ideas such as nationalism to pre-modern peoples. By modern ideas all Greek-speaking people were Greeks, so an Athenian "nationalist" opposed to a Spartan "nationalist" would be impossible.

    All Europeans recognize that they are more like each other than they are like Africans, or Chinese, and they once felt that they were superior to all of those other peoples. That does not imply that the Europeans are all one nation, just as Greek unity in the face of the alien Persians did not imply a sense of ancient Greek nationalism.

    You are correct that vague ethnic solidarity existed long before modern nationalism, but this was not nationalism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @AP

    Let’s unpack this.

    First–low growth after big GDP loss. Completely true, but point being it seems the worst is over.
     
    Karlin already covered this:

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/ukrotriumph/

    Loss was mostly in the warzone. In 2014-2015 Ukraine's economy shrank 16%. It collapsed 60% in Donbas (!) but declined only 5% in Lviv.

    Lviv is already ahead of where it was in 2013, as are several other regions. Ukraine-outside-Donbas will get there if not by the end of this year than next year. The Sovoks in Donbas, OTOH, are screwed for many years to come.

    In summary, "celebration of Ukrainian economic hardship was mostly celebration of economic hardship in the most pro-Russian areas of the Ukraine."

    Russian nationalists who celebrate Ukraine's supposed hardship and blame the rebellion for it, are really talking about the consequences of rebellion upon the Donbas. The parts of Ukraine that rebelled against Yanukovich are doing relatively fine. The parts that rebelled against Kiev are in squalor.

    Huge population loss is at this time useful for the Ukraine for reasons I mentioned earlier.
     
    Well, Ukraine has very low real unemployment now. This is causing some local wages to rise. If you can't find a job in Ukraine, go to Poland for 6 months and send money back. It is not far - Warsaw is a lot closer to Kiev than Chicago is to New York. You can come home for holidays.

    I don’t know the FDI levels for the Ukraine (I assume they are nonexistent)
     
    Not much, but not zero. $2.3 billion in 2017:

    https://emerging-europe.com/in-brief/perceived-corruption-continues-hold-back-ukraine-fdi/

    The Maidan was an own goal which made things worse
     
    It screwed the Russian-dependent regions in the East but was good for the western regions. Ukraine had been stagnating prior to Maidan.

    I assume the Ukraine was one of the wealthier parts of the USSR based on its agriculture, industry, mines, etc
     
    It was the poorest of the three Slavic republics. It still has that position, although it has fallen further behind the other two.

    I know a Ukrainian woman here (offshore Portugal) from Lviv who’s son fled Ukraine to avoid military service and is now living and working in Poland. Is this a common situation?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    It's common but not majority. Figures vary widely but IIRC it's around 30% avoidance rate, with up to 50% in some specific areas (it's particularly easy to avoid the draft in western or eastern Ukraine where you can just drive an hour to the border and get a job in Poland or Russia). So about 70% of people who are mobilized do join. The government is largely incapable of stopping mobilized people from not showing up or leaving the country if they want.

    Draft dodging seems to have been more common earlier when the war had more casualties and the military was much less competent; at that time, there was a sense that the officers didn't know what they were doing, or worse they were secretly feeding the Russian side information, and sending conscripts into dangerous situations needlessly.

    I only have one cousin, from central Ukraine, who was mobilized and he did his duty. He was indifferent to nationalism before but after serving has become anti-Russian.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. iffen says:
    @AP

    Lots of pinko faggot “intellectuals” claim nationalism is a 19th century invention, which is complete bullshit.
     
    More like an 18th century invention. It's not just a leftist idea, the reactionary Lukacs had the same conclusion.

    But national consciousness develops at different times in different places so you may be completely correct.
     
    Correct, in some places it arrived in the 18th century, in others in the 19th century. Tribalism is related but not the same thing - it would be odd to consider Sitting Bull to be a "Sioux nationalist."

    The key time to assimilate peoples is before there was such a thing as national consciousness. That's when the Provencals were assimilated into the French, it's how tribals get assimilated. Once a national consciousness develops and is widely adopted, it's game over. I can't think of a single example when a nationally conscious people took on a different identity. Can you?

    I don’t know about wisdom–Poland’s leaders today strike me as boneheads, even if they generally have the right idea. Kind of like DJT without the razzle dazzle.
     
    They've taken lots of EU money and avoided taking in any Muslims. Trump in contrast has not accomplished much at all. He slowed the flow of illegals a little.

    Plus they all quietly accept German economic domination anyway,
     
    Polish government is reversing this, which is why there are all those Western squeals about Polish "anti-democratic" reforms.

    I can’t think of a single example when a nationally conscious people took on a different identity. Can you?

    They try.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @Mr. Hack
    The reality is that there are over 40 million people that inhabit the very real country of Ukraine, that want it to exist in the family of world nations, and are willing to give their lives to see that it continues to exist. It has its own language, history, literature and its own governments, universities, mail system, news sources, television and radio stations and armed forces. It really doesn't matter what a few flakes like you or anybody else thinks is real or is not. The insane asylums are full of lunatics that see the world in their own unique way.

    The reality is that there are over 40 million people that inhabit the very real country of Ukraine, that want it to exist in the family of world nations, and are willing to give their lives to see that it continues to exist.

    I assume this number includes population of “people’s republics”, which is rather funny, because for the last 4 years the locals have been giving their lifes fighting Ukrainian occupation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    If you mean the Donbas Battalion, then yes,the vast majority of its fighters are native Ukrainians:

    The Battalion recruits members from different regions of Ukraine, through various media including the Internet, a newspaper and phone line. New recruits are briefly trained in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, and may see combat days after joining.

     

    If, however, you mean the separatist forces, not so much:

    BBC reported that separatist ranks are composed of thousands of Russian citizens, and NATO accused Russia of deploying their regular troops into Ukraine.[14][16] Registered Cossacks of the Russian Federation have been reported to be supporting separatists in the conflict as well. Head of the DPR, Alexander Zakharchenko, claimed in August 2014 that there are around 3,000 to 4,000 Russian volunteers fighting for the militia, which includes current and many retired Russian Army servicemen.[17]
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @AP

    Let’s unpack this.

    First–low growth after big GDP loss. Completely true, but point being it seems the worst is over.
     
    Karlin already covered this:

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/ukrotriumph/

    Loss was mostly in the warzone. In 2014-2015 Ukraine's economy shrank 16%. It collapsed 60% in Donbas (!) but declined only 5% in Lviv.

    Lviv is already ahead of where it was in 2013, as are several other regions. Ukraine-outside-Donbas will get there if not by the end of this year than next year. The Sovoks in Donbas, OTOH, are screwed for many years to come.

    In summary, "celebration of Ukrainian economic hardship was mostly celebration of economic hardship in the most pro-Russian areas of the Ukraine."

    Russian nationalists who celebrate Ukraine's supposed hardship and blame the rebellion for it, are really talking about the consequences of rebellion upon the Donbas. The parts of Ukraine that rebelled against Yanukovich are doing relatively fine. The parts that rebelled against Kiev are in squalor.

    Huge population loss is at this time useful for the Ukraine for reasons I mentioned earlier.
     
    Well, Ukraine has very low real unemployment now. This is causing some local wages to rise. If you can't find a job in Ukraine, go to Poland for 6 months and send money back. It is not far - Warsaw is a lot closer to Kiev than Chicago is to New York. You can come home for holidays.

    I don’t know the FDI levels for the Ukraine (I assume they are nonexistent)
     
    Not much, but not zero. $2.3 billion in 2017:

    https://emerging-europe.com/in-brief/perceived-corruption-continues-hold-back-ukraine-fdi/

    The Maidan was an own goal which made things worse
     
    It screwed the Russian-dependent regions in the East but was good for the western regions. Ukraine had been stagnating prior to Maidan.

    I assume the Ukraine was one of the wealthier parts of the USSR based on its agriculture, industry, mines, etc
     
    It was the poorest of the three Slavic republics. It still has that position, although it has fallen further behind the other two.

    Russian nationalists who celebrate Ukraine’s supposed hardship and blame the rebellion for it, are really talking about the consequences of rebellion upon the Donbas. The parts of Ukraine that rebelled against Yanukovich are doing relatively fine. The parts that rebelled against Kiev are in squalor.

    LMAO, Ukrainians are “doing well” trying to live on $200 average monthly wage. Between 2013 and 2017 the value of US dollar in Ukrainian currency went from 8 to 26. In a country that doesn’t produce anything of what its people need, this caused a lot of hurt. For example, car sales in the Ukraine fell from 200.000 in 2013 to 80.000 in 2017.

    This is the effect of losing Donbass: that region used to be a major moneymaker for the Ukraine. It provided export revenues and paid lots of taxes to the government in Kiev.

    Not much, but not zero. $2.3 billion in 2017:

    https://emerging-europe.com/in-brief/perceived-corruption-continues-hold-back-ukraine-fdi/

    This is Russian and Ukrainian olygarch money from offshore tax havens. It is only “FDI” in the most technical sense. In reality this investment isn’t actually foreign.

    If you can’t find a job in Ukraine, go to Poland for 6 months and send money back. It is not far – Warsaw is a lot closer to Kiev than Chicago is to New York. You can come home for holidays.

    And you could do this before Yanukovich was overthrown. That’s the funniest part for me!

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Remember your stupid claim about Ukrainians in America?

    Why did you run away from that conversation, Felix?

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/no-solzhenitsyn-did-not-ask-the-us-to-nuke-the-ussr/#comment-2306969

    Ukrainian diaspora are a lot wealthier than most other white people, in some of the richest countries on the planet. They have avoided assimilation to a greater degree than have others, retaining their identity after generations. Some have achieved positions of considerable influence (i.e, Foreign Minister of Canada). And Ukraine is becoming more like what they want it to be.

    So rather than lie like you did last time Felix, why don’t do try to honestly answer the question -

    How are they “not at all successful”, as you claimed?

    :::::::::::::

    As for your latest nonsense:

    LMAO, Ukrainians are “doing well” trying to live on $200 average monthly wage
     
    Outside Kiev, depending on region, average salaries are $250-$300 per month, depending on region. So you are off by a quarter to a third - wrong as usual.

    $300 in Lviv oblast is probably at least like $1000 in Moscow.

    Between 2013 and 2017 the value of US dollar in Ukrainian currency went from 8 to 26. In a country that doesn’t produce anything of what its people need
     
    Ukraine has around 40 million people and produces its own food, clothing, construction materials, medicines, etc. I-phones and cars have become a lot more expensive but these are not essentials.

    Also salaries have adjusted somewhat. About a year ago Lviv oblast's average salary was $250 (it's probably around $300 now).

    In summer 2013 it was $364.

    In December 2009 it was $243.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. The commenter Mitleser shared this interesting link: https://www.ft.com/content/c1721646-4d51-11e8-8a8e-22951a2d8493 (To circumvent the paywall, you need to search for the title: “Putin looks at mending fences with west to revive Russia’s economy”, then open it from Google.)

    US-led western forces embarrassed Mr Putin when they carried out missile strikes on Syrian army targets despite stern Russian warnings of retaliation.

    Meanwhile, tough new US sanctions have caused turmoil in Russian financial markets, put tens of thousands of jobs at risk and forced Oleg Deripaska, one of the country’s richest men, to offer to cede control of aluminium company Rusal, a key strategic asset.

    Apart from angry rhetoric from the foreign ministry and lawmakers, Moscow’s reaction has been restrained. People close to the government suggested Mr Putin was searching for opportunities for a deal with the west to ease the pressure.

    I guess we’ll know more next week, but it seems that Putin’s unwillingness to fight the West is now read in some Western circles as a sign of weakness and they now see the possibility of a capitulation. (I’m still struggling to see how the capitulation would work in practice. OK, appoint Kudrin. What then?)

    Here’s a more confrontational scenario:

    http://www.atimes.com/article/popular-putin-prepares-for-cold-war-2-0/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    I think there are pro-Western (Jewish) elements within the Russian elite, who sincerely want a reset to happen. They are the one's talking to the Western press and spreading these rumours. They would happily give away Crimea and drop support for Assad, but the problem for them is that they are in no real position to shape Kremlin's policies.

    The article in Financial Times is quoting some guy named Gontmacher. I don't know who he is, but 'Gontmacher' is sure as hell not a Russian name, if you get what I mean.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @reiner Tor
    The commenter Mitleser shared this interesting link: https://www.ft.com/content/c1721646-4d51-11e8-8a8e-22951a2d8493 (To circumvent the paywall, you need to search for the title: "Putin looks at mending fences with west to revive Russia’s economy", then open it from Google.)

    US-led western forces embarrassed Mr Putin when they carried out missile strikes on Syrian army targets despite stern Russian warnings of retaliation.

    Meanwhile, tough new US sanctions have caused turmoil in Russian financial markets, put tens of thousands of jobs at risk and forced Oleg Deripaska, one of the country’s richest men, to offer to cede control of aluminium company Rusal, a key strategic asset.

    Apart from angry rhetoric from the foreign ministry and lawmakers, Moscow’s reaction has been restrained. People close to the government suggested Mr Putin was searching for opportunities for a deal with the west to ease the pressure.
     
    I guess we'll know more next week, but it seems that Putin's unwillingness to fight the West is now read in some Western circles as a sign of weakness and they now see the possibility of a capitulation. (I'm still struggling to see how the capitulation would work in practice. OK, appoint Kudrin. What then?)

    Here's a more confrontational scenario:

    http://www.atimes.com/article/popular-putin-prepares-for-cold-war-2-0/

    I think there are pro-Western (Jewish) elements within the Russian elite, who sincerely want a reset to happen. They are the one’s talking to the Western press and spreading these rumours. They would happily give away Crimea and drop support for Assad, but the problem for them is that they are in no real position to shape Kremlin’s policies.

    The article in Financial Times is quoting some guy named Gontmacher. I don’t know who he is, but ‘Gontmacher’ is sure as hell not a Russian name, if you get what I mean.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Mr. Hack says:
    @Felix Keverich

    The reality is that there are over 40 million people that inhabit the very real country of Ukraine, that want it to exist in the family of world nations, and are willing to give their lives to see that it continues to exist.
     
    I assume this number includes population of "people's republics", which is rather funny, because for the last 4 years the locals have been giving their lifes fighting Ukrainian occupation.

    If you mean the Donbas Battalion, then yes,the vast majority of its fighters are native Ukrainians:

    The Battalion recruits members from different regions of Ukraine, through various media including the Internet, a newspaper and phone line. New recruits are briefly trained in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, and may see combat days after joining.

    If, however, you mean the separatist forces, not so much:

    BBC reported that separatist ranks are composed of thousands of Russian citizens, and NATO accused Russia of deploying their regular troops into Ukraine.[14][16] Registered Cossacks of the Russian Federation have been reported to be supporting separatists in the conflict as well. Head of the DPR, Alexander Zakharchenko, claimed in August 2014 that there are around 3,000 to 4,000 Russian volunteers fighting for the militia, which includes current and many retired Russian Army servicemen.[17]

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    Ukrainian Neo-Nazi paramilitaries such as the so-called Donbass and Azov "batallions" are indeed Ukrainian, but they are not native to Donbass. They originate from Western parts of the Ukraine. You know, the same way Panzer Army Afrika was not actually African. lol

    In any event the size of these Ukrainian Neo-Nazi formations is dwarfed by the size of LDNR army.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Mr. Hack says:
    @Gerard2

    unemployed
     
    .....already 10% of the Ukrainian population, that's without factoring in the toilet cleaners and prostitutes from Ivano-Frankovsk.

    but not among the younger (25-45) year olds that I’m acquainted with in the states. Most are pulling 6 figures or more as systems operators, two gals are making almost as much in the banking sector (strong math backgrounds).

     

    ....it's the over 45-50's who are cleaning toilets and into prostitution? What is wrong with you. And I wouldn't tolerate an alcoholic toilet cleaner...it requires sobriety....but evidently alcoholism is a "virtue" for illegal Presidents in Ukraine.

    Even if we take your ( clearly BS ) claims at face value...then it's most likely Soviet people definitely not identifying as "Ukrainians" and/or their first generation kids (incidentally "Ukrainian" immigrants in US are on the lowest pay-level historically compared to the other many ,many migrant groups from Europe) ....what we are not talking about here is Ukrops who have suddenly gone to North America after February 2014 and are now suddenly making these fictitious amounts of money

    [MORE]

    The only thing that is not ‘fictitious’ in your reply is your hatred of all things Ukrainian. Imagine, another Ukrainaphobe at Karlin’s blog venting his impassioned hatred for all things Ukrainian, how unique. Get a life you looser! :-(

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @Mr. Hack
    If you mean the Donbas Battalion, then yes,the vast majority of its fighters are native Ukrainians:

    The Battalion recruits members from different regions of Ukraine, through various media including the Internet, a newspaper and phone line. New recruits are briefly trained in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, and may see combat days after joining.

     

    If, however, you mean the separatist forces, not so much:

    BBC reported that separatist ranks are composed of thousands of Russian citizens, and NATO accused Russia of deploying their regular troops into Ukraine.[14][16] Registered Cossacks of the Russian Federation have been reported to be supporting separatists in the conflict as well. Head of the DPR, Alexander Zakharchenko, claimed in August 2014 that there are around 3,000 to 4,000 Russian volunteers fighting for the militia, which includes current and many retired Russian Army servicemen.[17]
     

    Ukrainian Neo-Nazi paramilitaries such as the so-called Donbass and Azov “batallions” are indeed Ukrainian, but they are not native to Donbass. They originate from Western parts of the Ukraine. You know, the same way Panzer Army Afrika was not actually African. lol

    In any event the size of these Ukrainian Neo-Nazi formations is dwarfed by the size of LDNR army.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Your record of being wrong continues.

    Ukrainian Neo-Nazi paramilitaries such as the so-called Donbass and Azov “batallions” are indeed Ukrainian, but they are not native to Donbass. They originate from Western parts of the Ukraine.
     
    Azov battalion is not native to Donbas but it is not from western Ukraine either: it is a Kharkiv project.

    The Azov Battalion has its roots in a group of Ultras of FC Metalist Kharkiv named "Sect 82" (1982 is the year of the founding of the group).[18] "Sect 82" was (at least until September 2013) allied with FC Spartak Moscow Ultras.[18] Late February 2014, during the 2014 Ukrainian crisis when a separatist movement was active in Kharkiv, "Sect 82" occupied the Kharkiv Oblast regional administration building in Kharkiv and served as a local "self-defense"-force.[18] Soon, on the basis of "Sect 82" there was formed a volunteer militia called "Eastern Corps"

    It's leader is a native of Kharkiv, born and grew up there:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andriy_Biletsky_(politician)

    Born in 1979 in Kharkiv, Soviet Union, Biletsky's father Yevhen Mykhailovych Biletsky hailed from an old Cossack family that founded the village of Krasnopavlivka (Lozova Raion), while Biletsky's mother Olena Anatolivna Biletsky (née Lukashevych) descended from a noble family from Zhytomyr region, to which belong the Decembrist Vasiliy Lukashevich (Vasyl Lukashevych) who founded the "Little-Russian Secret Society".

    It's deputy commander, now in charge of Kiev oblast's police, is another Kharkiv native:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vadym_Troyan

    Troyan was born on 12 September 1979 in a village Orylka, Loziv district, Kharkiv region. In 2000 he graduated in Law from Kharkiv National University. Until 2003 he served as an investigator at the Loziv district police station in Kharkiv region.[1]

    Its patron Avakov is a Kharkiv politician (born in Baku to Armenian parents, came to Kharkiv at age two).

    ::::::::::::::

    Your track record of screwing everything up is impressive, Felix :-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. A.A. says:
    @Sean
    Putin's Power of Siberia pipline, biggest project in 25 years. Biggest mistake since Stalin sent oil to Hitler

    https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/ft-ig-content-prod/v2/ft-interactive/gas-pipelines/video/drone-footage.mp4


    There are already said to be several million Chinese who have moved to Siberia.

    There are already said to be several million Chinese who have moved to Siberia.

    No, millions of Chinese in Siberia is just wishful thinking. I’ve noticed that some westerners absolutely love jerking off to the idea that Chinese are moving to Siberia en masse, even if this does not correlate with reality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    True. Those parts of China that border Russia are probably better off by now in terms jobs and living stardards. They also have very, very low birthrates, so there is no demographic pressure. This isn't US-Mexico situation.
    , @Sean

    https://www.unz.com/efingleton/north-korea-why-trump-should-kims-feet-to-the-fire/

    As the East Asians have gleefully realized for generations, the Pentagon is a remarkably soft touch on trade, and in return for the merest hortatory support for its military objectives will pull the rug from under the most carefully conceived plans drawn up elsewhere in Washington to get East Asia to open up. [...] It is fair to say that all the more important East Asian nations have a vested interest in exaggerating the North Korean threat. The more terrifying North Korea is made to appear, the more desperately Washington will seek out advice and help from China, Japan, and South Korea. That tends to ensure that trade talks with these mercantilist nations are consigned to the backburner.
     

    South Korea and China are in it together. China will become a megapower, because Trump is going to make huge concessions to them on the trade takes (that are happening almost concurrently with the takes over the North Korean mini mouse "threat" that the East Asians mercantilism are using to fuck the West. Russia is sending them the oil to make cheap goods that will hollow out the West. The people negotiating these treaties will no be their to face Decepticon Mega-China in a generation when it will dominate the wold with military force. Putin and Trump:-

    For when thou gavest them the rod, and put'st down thine own breeches,. Then they for sudden joy did weep. And I for sorrow sung,. That such a king should play bo-peep. And go the fools among.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Escher says:
    @Talha
    Never stopped the Brits from using them before. The problem is; why would any person want to join the British (or US) forces other than out of some misplaced patriotism? They don't defend Britain - they ride shotgun with the US on any imperial adventures it goes cowboy on across the world.

    And it's not easy either, the people fight back, it's not like Grenada or Panama - you want to come back missing a leg to help make sure this guy's guarantee works out?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHmhf_wrcrM

    And then you wrestle with demons for the rest of your life until you take the shotgun-to-the-face exit:
    "Roughly 20 veterans a day commit suicide nationwide, according to new data from the Department of Veterans Affairs — a figure that dispels the often quoted, but problematic, '22 a day' estimate yet solidifies the disturbing mental health crisis the number implied."
    https://www.militarytimes.com/veterans/2016/07/07/new-va-study-finds-20-veterans-commit-suicide-each-day/

    Peace.

    And it’s not easy either, the people fight back, it’s not like Grenada or Panama – you want to come back missing a leg to help make sure this guy’s guarantee works out?

    Well said.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @Anatoly Karlin
    I assume Russians practice more for it since it's their event.

    Consistently strong performance of China is impressive, and suggests its soldiers are plain better than India's, apart from also being much better equipped these days (though we already knew that based on low Indian IQ and indeed the consistently poor Indian military performance against China). I have noticed that both Western and Russian (no, not just Admiral Martyanov) military experts have a persistent habit of belittling Chinese military capabilities. I suspect they may be in for a surprise.

    Just Googled, spec forces competition may be this one.

    2009 – Jordan: General Intelligence Directorate
    2010 – United States: United States Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance
    2011 – Austria: EKO Cobra
    2012 – Germany: GSG9
    2013 – China: Snow Leopard Commando Unit
    2014 – China: Snow Leopard Commando Unit
    2015 – Russia: SOBR
    2016 – Lebanon: Black Panthers
    2017 – China: Sky Sword Unit of the PAP

    China seems to absolutely dominate this: https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/eastern-arsenal/chinese-special-forces-take-1st-2nd-and-4th-place-%E2%80%9Colympics%E2%80%9D-elite

    Actually rather surprised about this, my Sinotriumphalism regardless. Driving a tank and firing rounds from it accurately would appear to cater to Mongoloid strengths (visuo-spatial acuity), while spec forces performance would seem to be more of an Indo-European thing (the grit, brawn, teamwork, and spirit of a band of battle brothers). But perhaps they just don't send their best.

    Western commentary on China has been persistently abysmal as far back as I can remember. The following things have been boldly proclaimed:

    • You can’t censor the internet (the same people now censor the internet)
    • China will not surpass America economically b/c Japan and West Germany didn’t (nice math skills)
    • China will not surpass America economically because China will collapse (Real Soon Now)
    • China just copies and can’t innovate (genetic engineering, supercomputing, quantum computing, etc.)
    • As China gets wealthier it will inevitably become a liberal democracy (on this basis we gave away the farm)

    Perhaps the worst I’ve seen is Stratfor. Because of China’s “geopolitics” and the fact that it apparently takes centuries to build a “naval tradition”, China will never pose a threat to America. So in other words an allegedly premier analyst has never heard of the Kaiserliche Marine, which despite no naval tradition at all developed technically superior ships and had mostly better tactical performance than the Royal Navy in WW1. I bet if you pressed Friedman on this he’d rationalize it with some bullshit about the Hanseatic League.

    The reality is that these people just want America to remain #1, which is of course entirely understandable, but then just make up nonsense to support their emotions. And this is taken seriously in policy circles.

    I don’t get the sense that the Victorians and Edwardians were this childish in analyzing rising powers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird
    There's a lot of reality dysfunction when it comes to China prognostications. First and foremost, what no leaders in the West seem close to grasping is that the West is in decline, and it is difficult to acknowledge this fact in a "democratic" system.

    Against this, China might be said to have several weaknesses:
    1.) CCP retains control of large chunks of the economy and will never give it up
    2.) low fertility rate (better than importing hordes of hostile savages)
    3.) perhaps, an Asian mindset? (communal => socialistic)

    #3 is really a question. The question is, why does Japan have the highest debt to GDP in the world? South Korea and Taiwan don't, but they face the constant threat of invasion, so have different incentives.

    My thoughts: China is clearly in a better current position. It is unclear if they will ever achieve higher per capita than the current US figure, but they don't need to do so in order to supplant the US. They are on track, and I can't think of a realistic scenario where this will change. Of course, the elites seem to be planning to try and turn the US into India (high pop density), but, IMO, that will just make it weaker, as for India itself as a counterweight, I've never drunken the India will be a superpower Kool-aid.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Excellent points - agree 100%. I ridiculed this emphasis on "naval tradition" (even including the Kaiserliche Marine comparison) in my old review of George Friedman's book:

    I find the emphasis on physical land barriers to be quaint in an era of railways, air transport and massive merchant marines. China already has the industrial capacity and (through economic acquisitions and espionage) the technological capability to rapidly create a powerful blue-water fleet. Although the German Empire had no naval tradition to speak of, the Kaiserliche Marine went from being a small coastal defense to the world’s second largest fleet with better ships and better training than the Royal Navy, all just in the twenty years prior to the First World War.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. Mr. Hack says:
    @Gerard2

    If Ukraine were an organic or natural part of Russia its people would behave like people from Oryol or Volgograd or Pskov. Instead they act like Balts or Poles, rebelling or joining any western invader when given the chance. Deluded Russian nationalists who really believe that Ukraine is Russia think this is “betrayal.”
     
    ....again...more attention-whore lies from a sociopathic retarded scumbag who would commit suicide due to shame if anonymity as a POS was lost.

    In terms of "differences" promoted by fucktard,spambot propagnda algorithm accounts....here are the actual facts :-

    reading habits, music habits, education habits, criminality habits, eating habits, temperamental habits, television-viewing habits, social-media habits (well until their authority retards decided to ban Russian popular sites).inter-marrying habits, the style,temperament and wisdom of a babushka in a "Ukrainian" village is identical to that of a Russian one, the occasional bad-driving habits, comedy habits, historical idols, architectural habits and..of course...language .... and zillion more things are identical for Ukraine and Russia like they are for no two other states, because they are the same people you fucked in the head time-wasting spambot troll cunt

    [MORE]

    Hey, did you take off your shoe and slam it on the table in front of you when you completed your moronic rant, Krushchev style (for emphasis)! Bliad, what an impressive rant! :-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    You realise Krushchev was an ethnic Ukrainian? His colourful style is really a part of Ukrainian "national character". We see it every day among Ukrainian politicians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @A.A.

    There are already said to be several million Chinese who have moved to Siberia.
     
    No, millions of Chinese in Siberia is just wishful thinking. I've noticed that some westerners absolutely love jerking off to the idea that Chinese are moving to Siberia en masse, even if this does not correlate with reality.

    True. Those parts of China that border Russia are probably better off by now in terms jobs and living stardards. They also have very, very low birthrates, so there is no demographic pressure. This isn’t US-Mexico situation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @Mr. Hack


    Hey, did you take off your shoe and slam it on the table in front of you when you completed your moronic rant, Krushchev style (for emphasis)! Bliad, what an impressive rant! :-)

    You realise Krushchev was an ethnic Ukrainian? His colourful style is really a part of Ukrainian “national character”. We see it every day among Ukrainian politicians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    You are wrong as usual. He was from Kursk oblast, Russia, the son of two ethnic Russian peasants. He moved to Donetsk at age fourteen and his third and permanent wife was an ethnic Ukrainian but he himself was not. According to Khrushchev's great-grasnddaughter "He was ethnically Russian, but he really felt great affinity with Ukraine."
    , @Mr. Hack
    The 'Butcher of Ukraine' a Ukrainian? He was born in Russia, his name is Russian sounding, not Ukrainian (in Ukrainian, his name would simply be 'Khrushch'). Having a fondness for borshch and Ukrainian women doesn't make one a Ukrainian!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. Mr. Hack says:
    @reiner Tor

    More like an 18th century invention. It’s not just a leftist idea, the reactionary Lukacs had the same conclusion.
     
    I also like Lukacs, and read many of his books, but his peculiar ideas might have something to do with him being half-Jewish. Usually a rule of thumb is that the more rootless a person is, the more likely to subscribe to the "nationalism is a Romantic/Enlightenment/[whatever recent] invention" theory.

    The origins of nationalism are a bit more complex than that. Most people recognized, for example, if their dialects were closer to one neighbor than another. Often there was some sort of (usually ill-defined) ethnic identity, which in some cases (ancient Greeks, at least some ancient Jews, etc.) was somewhat similar to modern nationalistic feelings (the ideal of unity, at least in the face of outside danger, self-sacrifice against foreigners, a sense of superiority over others, especially neighbors, etc.)

    Now such pre-nationalist ethnic solidarity was still relatively malleable, in no small part because people often were unaware of the size of the wider world. It was possible for people to be extremely parochial and petty tribal against other tribes of their own ethnicity, but the appearance of foreign conquerors often changed the sentiments. I have read a few writings of Hungarian aristocrats from the time of the Ottoman occupation (roughly 1526-1686), and they pretty much had a sense of some kind of Hungarian national feeling. Not just "Christians," because they were often opposed to "German" (i.e. Habsburg) policies. After liberation, there was an insurgency against Habsburg rule in Hungary, and (surprise, surprise) it had most support in ethnically Hungarian areas. It was led by an aristocrat, many aristocrats (it's unclear if it was most of them; many remained Habsburg loyalists) and the majority of the nobility joined it, and so did apparently the peasantry (which provided the mass of its soldiers). It was only successful in ethnically Hungarian areas, with the most strongly opposed being ethnically German areas. (No surprise, in a freedom fight against "German" rule...) Although it's difficult to prove, it might have reinforced the idea of repopulating the country after the devastation of the Ottoman wars (and the unsuccessful rebellion against the Habsburgs...) by inviting ethnically German settlers.

    The book I read on the topic is Azar Gat's Nations. He claims that it was only the modern form of nationalism which was invented after or during the enlightenment, but some kind of raw pre-nationalism did often exist, and some kind of vague ethnic solidarity always existed against outsiders. Basically, nationalists only had to reinforce the sense of ethnic solidarity (which was easy, unlike internationalist solidarity, which usually fell on deaf ears), and sometimes had to convince two or three ethnic groups that they really belonged to the same nation (like the French with regards to Occitanie, or Russians - unsuccessfully, in that case - with regards the Ukraine).

    I know you give the Galician Slaughter as a counterexample, but I think there are many examples of people feeling ethnic solidarity and putting their lives on the line in support of it, so I'd think the Galician Slaughter was an exception that proves the rule.

    Basically, nationalists only had to reinforce the sense of ethnic solidarity (which was easy, unlike internationalist solidarity, which usually fell on deaf ears), and sometimes had to convince two or three ethnic groups that they really belonged to the same nation (like the French with regards to Occitanie, or Russians – unsuccessfully, in that case – with regards the Ukraine).

    I’m surprised (baffled) why Karlin doesn’t seem to share your point of view when it comes to Russia and Ukraine? It is after all a totally accepted axiom , that Ukraine and Russia are two separate countries that host two separate nationalities. Instead, he tries to cling to some outdated ideas of ‘triunism’, which even he is loathe to discuss more fully within his blog. I think that its really his own way of conceding that the whole thing is a bunch of malarkey, no more than a privately held whimsical belief founded on preferences and not on facts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. Escher says:
    @Talha
    I think Pakistan should be kept in mind when thinking about military spending. It has basically achieved fairly reasonable deterrence capability within $10 billion a year - not bad.

    Nobody wants to invade it.

    Now it also helps to keep your nation not worth the price of attacking in the first place.

    "We will stop you at the beaches of Karachi for the land of the chapli kabab shall not falter!"

    Peace.

    Why would anyone want the hassle of running a failing state like Pakistan? They don’t even have any oil.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Exactly!!! Pure genius!

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. AP says:
    @for-the-record
    I know a Ukrainian woman here (offshore Portugal) from Lviv who's son fled Ukraine to avoid military service and is now living and working in Poland. Is this a common situation?

    It’s common but not majority. Figures vary widely but IIRC it’s around 30% avoidance rate, with up to 50% in some specific areas (it’s particularly easy to avoid the draft in western or eastern Ukraine where you can just drive an hour to the border and get a job in Poland or Russia). So about 70% of people who are mobilized do join. The government is largely incapable of stopping mobilized people from not showing up or leaving the country if they want.

    Draft dodging seems to have been more common earlier when the war had more casualties and the military was much less competent; at that time, there was a sense that the officers didn’t know what they were doing, or worse they were secretly feeding the Russian side information, and sending conscripts into dangerous situations needlessly.

    I only have one cousin, from central Ukraine, who was mobilized and he did his duty. He was indifferent to nationalism before but after serving has become anti-Russian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    Thanks. Next time I see her I'll get her view (non-intellectual) on where Ukrainian lies on the Polish-Russian language continuum.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. Randal says:
    @AP

    Lots of pinko faggot “intellectuals” claim nationalism is a 19th century invention, which is complete bullshit.
     
    More like an 18th century invention. It's not just a leftist idea, the reactionary Lukacs had the same conclusion.

    But national consciousness develops at different times in different places so you may be completely correct.
     
    Correct, in some places it arrived in the 18th century, in others in the 19th century. Tribalism is related but not the same thing - it would be odd to consider Sitting Bull to be a "Sioux nationalist."

    The key time to assimilate peoples is before there was such a thing as national consciousness. That's when the Provencals were assimilated into the French, it's how tribals get assimilated. Once a national consciousness develops and is widely adopted, it's game over. I can't think of a single example when a nationally conscious people took on a different identity. Can you?

    I don’t know about wisdom–Poland’s leaders today strike me as boneheads, even if they generally have the right idea. Kind of like DJT without the razzle dazzle.
     
    They've taken lots of EU money and avoided taking in any Muslims. Trump in contrast has not accomplished much at all. He slowed the flow of illegals a little.

    Plus they all quietly accept German economic domination anyway,
     
    Polish government is reversing this, which is why there are all those Western squeals about Polish "anti-democratic" reforms.

    I can’t think of a single example when a nationally conscious people took on a different identity. Can you?

    There is a “no true Scotsman” problem inherent to such a question – any example given to you would likely be dismissed as merely being a people who had not been sufficiently nationally conscious, or nationally conscious in the right ways, or one that didn’t really “take on a different identity” sufficiently, to count. Clearly the example of Britain suggests that even quite well established national identities can still be shifted up to a point. British national identity was essentially created to replace the English, Scottish, and Welsh identities and align them with the governmental structure, with considerable success for a reasonable time, albeit declining again in the C20th.

    The kind of national consciousness that arose in the C18th/19th was mostly just a way of thinking that said a nation should have a state. Nationality as a wider concept is much older and more fundamental, but also inherently fluid.

    An interesting case seems to me to be the shifting loyalties in the American crown colonies in the C17th and early-mid C18th, where originally most simply considered themselves British, or at any rate British subjects if they were of non-British origin, but there was a gradual rise of a separate identity. Scholars differ about to what extent this was a nascent American identity or a patchwork of more locally-focussed identities, and the truth is that both probably coexisted to varying degrees across the populations of the colonies. Most likely if the American elites had not decided they could do better for themselves without external rule and precipitated the American secession, there would have been a less clear cut American nationality, and loyalty to states would have competed with American and British identity on a much more even footing for much longer, rather than getting so easily crushed a few decades later in the ACW.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Clearly the example of Britain suggests that even quite well established national identities can still be shifted up to a point.
     
    "British" is a pan-national identity, like "Soviet" or "Austro-Hungarian."

    Scottish people didn't become English, after all.

    Russian nationalists hope that Ukrainians will become Russians but it has never occurred that a nationally conscious people have switched identities. A pan-national project like the Soviet Union was the way to unity, but even that failed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. AP says:
    @Felix Keverich
    You realise Krushchev was an ethnic Ukrainian? His colourful style is really a part of Ukrainian "national character". We see it every day among Ukrainian politicians.

    You are wrong as usual. He was from Kursk oblast, Russia, the son of two ethnic Russian peasants. He moved to Donetsk at age fourteen and his third and permanent wife was an ethnic Ukrainian but he himself was not. According to Khrushchev’s great-grasnddaughter “He was ethnically Russian, but he really felt great affinity with Ukraine.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich

    he really felt great affinity with Ukraine.
     
    That's all that matters really. Українство is more of a state of mind, than an actual ethnicity anyway.

    Now look at this circus of Ukrainian politics, and tell me these people are nothing like him.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhrLfoEkTVo
    , @Gerard2

    Khrushchev’s great-granddaughter
     
    ...the kreakl bitch currently living in the US and frequent critic of Putin?...about as non-credible as a fucked in the head maggot like yourself.

    Felix is correct as usual...in fact for a retarded swine as youself, you're that pitiful that Felix's annihilation of your lies, still makes him the closest thing to a friend a retarded lowlife like yourself has got

    Thats how only the internet can produce such psychiatric messed-up , sociopath , attention-whore scumbags as yourself. Zero knowledge, whereas everyone here has life experiences, is a professional and so on ...the only tactic for a moronic hellish creature as yourself, is to write these lies and nonsense en masse and bore people into submission with the shee stupidity and insidiousnouss of your idioticness, basically copy and paste state Department directives from the Motyl section of Wikipedia ( literally)

    I've not been on here for 4 hours, and in that time you've done thousands of words, dozens of posts ( that I know of)...all lies, spammed garbage...a sick freak in every sense of the word...and that's not including the hours before I posted on here...and the millions of hours worth of garbage troll excrement as you has done on here in the weeks and years preceding this


    As for Khrushchev , he was 100% Ukrainian you moron...as with numerous heads of the Soviet Union and security services.......but it must also be noted again that the twin fathers of "Ukraine" are Lenin and Stalin.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. AP says:
    @Randal

    I can’t think of a single example when a nationally conscious people took on a different identity. Can you?
     
    There is a "no true Scotsman" problem inherent to such a question - any example given to you would likely be dismissed as merely being a people who had not been sufficiently nationally conscious, or nationally conscious in the right ways, or one that didn't really "take on a different identity" sufficiently, to count. Clearly the example of Britain suggests that even quite well established national identities can still be shifted up to a point. British national identity was essentially created to replace the English, Scottish, and Welsh identities and align them with the governmental structure, with considerable success for a reasonable time, albeit declining again in the C20th.

    The kind of national consciousness that arose in the C18th/19th was mostly just a way of thinking that said a nation should have a state. Nationality as a wider concept is much older and more fundamental, but also inherently fluid.

    An interesting case seems to me to be the shifting loyalties in the American crown colonies in the C17th and early-mid C18th, where originally most simply considered themselves British, or at any rate British subjects if they were of non-British origin, but there was a gradual rise of a separate identity. Scholars differ about to what extent this was a nascent American identity or a patchwork of more locally-focussed identities, and the truth is that both probably coexisted to varying degrees across the populations of the colonies. Most likely if the American elites had not decided they could do better for themselves without external rule and precipitated the American secession, there would have been a less clear cut American nationality, and loyalty to states would have competed with American and British identity on a much more even footing for much longer, rather than getting so easily crushed a few decades later in the ACW.

    Clearly the example of Britain suggests that even quite well established national identities can still be shifted up to a point.

    “British” is a pan-national identity, like “Soviet” or “Austro-Hungarian.”

    Scottish people didn’t become English, after all.

    Russian nationalists hope that Ukrainians will become Russians but it has never occurred that a nationally conscious people have switched identities. A pan-national project like the Soviet Union was the way to unity, but even that failed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    British” is a pan-national identity, like “Soviet” or “Austro-Hungarian.”

    Scottish people didn’t become English, after all.
     
    British is a national identity all of its own, pan-national or not, and many (perhaps most) English and Scottish people became British before its decline in the C20th. Even today, few English and by no means all Scots would identify as English or Scottish ahead of British, if asked without some kind of pre-shaping of their response. My impression is that neither Soviet nor Austro-Hungarian achieved any such level of general acceptance, perhaps because neither was around as long.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. Mr. Hack says:
    @Felix Keverich
    You realise Krushchev was an ethnic Ukrainian? His colourful style is really a part of Ukrainian "national character". We see it every day among Ukrainian politicians.

    The ‘Butcher of Ukraine’ a Ukrainian? He was born in Russia, his name is Russian sounding, not Ukrainian (in Ukrainian, his name would simply be ‘Khrushch’). Having a fondness for borshch and Ukrainian women doesn’t make one a Ukrainian!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Gerad here.This is really dumb. If we go on this idiotic logic then Russia has had Ukrainians in charge of Saint Petersburg, numerous other governors in different regions,mayors,security services,PM.....and I don't know where to start if we do russian names in positions of power in the fictitious country of ukraine, because the list is so vast.

    The level of intermarriage is that high it makes your argument particularly dumb and all but confirms there is no separate ethnicity

    And khrushchev was obviously ukropian you clown
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. AP says:
    @Felix Keverich
    Ukrainian Neo-Nazi paramilitaries such as the so-called Donbass and Azov "batallions" are indeed Ukrainian, but they are not native to Donbass. They originate from Western parts of the Ukraine. You know, the same way Panzer Army Afrika was not actually African. lol

    In any event the size of these Ukrainian Neo-Nazi formations is dwarfed by the size of LDNR army.

    Your record of being wrong continues.

    Ukrainian Neo-Nazi paramilitaries such as the so-called Donbass and Azov “batallions” are indeed Ukrainian, but they are not native to Donbass. They originate from Western parts of the Ukraine.

    Azov battalion is not native to Donbas but it is not from western Ukraine either: it is a Kharkiv project.

    The Azov Battalion has its roots in a group of Ultras of FC Metalist Kharkiv named “Sect 82″ (1982 is the year of the founding of the group).[18] “Sect 82″ was (at least until September 2013) allied with FC Spartak Moscow Ultras.[18] Late February 2014, during the 2014 Ukrainian crisis when a separatist movement was active in Kharkiv, “Sect 82″ occupied the Kharkiv Oblast regional administration building in Kharkiv and served as a local “self-defense”-force.[18] Soon, on the basis of “Sect 82″ there was formed a volunteer militia called “Eastern Corps”

    It’s leader is a native of Kharkiv, born and grew up there:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andriy_Biletsky_(politician)

    Born in 1979 in Kharkiv, Soviet Union, Biletsky’s father Yevhen Mykhailovych Biletsky hailed from an old Cossack family that founded the village of Krasnopavlivka (Lozova Raion), while Biletsky’s mother Olena Anatolivna Biletsky (née Lukashevych) descended from a noble family from Zhytomyr region, to which belong the Decembrist Vasiliy Lukashevich (Vasyl Lukashevych) who founded the “Little-Russian Secret Society”.

    It’s deputy commander, now in charge of Kiev oblast’s police, is another Kharkiv native:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vadym_Troyan

    Troyan was born on 12 September 1979 in a village Orylka, Loziv district, Kharkiv region. In 2000 he graduated in Law from Kharkiv National University. Until 2003 he served as an investigator at the Loziv district police station in Kharkiv region.[1]

    Its patron Avakov is a Kharkiv politician (born in Baku to Armenian parents, came to Kharkiv at age two).

    ::::::::::::::

    Your track record of screwing everything up is impressive, Felix :-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. Talha says:
    @Escher
    Why would anyone want the hassle of running a failing state like Pakistan? They don’t even have any oil.

    Exactly!!! Pure genius!

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    OT, but I noticed this on another thread.

    There are a lot of Poles in Chicago, right? This ring true to you: http://www.unz.com/isteve/sailer-on-semitism-by-jonathan-weisman/#comment-2317470 ?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. AP says:
    @Felix Keverich

    Russian nationalists who celebrate Ukraine’s supposed hardship and blame the rebellion for it, are really talking about the consequences of rebellion upon the Donbas. The parts of Ukraine that rebelled against Yanukovich are doing relatively fine. The parts that rebelled against Kiev are in squalor.
     
    LMAO, Ukrainians are "doing well" trying to live on $200 average monthly wage. Between 2013 and 2017 the value of US dollar in Ukrainian currency went from 8 to 26. In a country that doesn't produce anything of what its people need, this caused a lot of hurt. For example, car sales in the Ukraine fell from 200.000 in 2013 to 80.000 in 2017.

    This is the effect of losing Donbass: that region used to be a major moneymaker for the Ukraine. It provided export revenues and paid lots of taxes to the government in Kiev.


    Not much, but not zero. $2.3 billion in 2017:

    https://emerging-europe.com/in-brief/perceived-corruption-continues-hold-back-ukraine-fdi/
     

    This is Russian and Ukrainian olygarch money from offshore tax havens. It is only "FDI" in the most technical sense. In reality this investment isn't actually foreign.

    If you can’t find a job in Ukraine, go to Poland for 6 months and send money back. It is not far – Warsaw is a lot closer to Kiev than Chicago is to New York. You can come home for holidays.
     
    And you could do this before Yanukovich was overthrown. That's the funniest part for me!

    Remember your stupid claim about Ukrainians in America?

    Why did you run away from that conversation, Felix?

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/no-solzhenitsyn-did-not-ask-the-us-to-nuke-the-ussr/#comment-2306969

    Ukrainian diaspora are a lot wealthier than most other white people, in some of the richest countries on the planet. They have avoided assimilation to a greater degree than have others, retaining their identity after generations. Some have achieved positions of considerable influence (i.e, Foreign Minister of Canada). And Ukraine is becoming more like what they want it to be.

    So rather than lie like you did last time Felix, why don’t do try to honestly answer the question -

    How are they “not at all successful”, as you claimed?

    :::::::::::::

    As for your latest nonsense:

    LMAO, Ukrainians are “doing well” trying to live on $200 average monthly wage

    Outside Kiev, depending on region, average salaries are $250-$300 per month, depending on region. So you are off by a quarter to a third – wrong as usual.

    $300 in Lviv oblast is probably at least like $1000 in Moscow.

    Between 2013 and 2017 the value of US dollar in Ukrainian currency went from 8 to 26. In a country that doesn’t produce anything of what its people need

    Ukraine has around 40 million people and produces its own food, clothing, construction materials, medicines, etc. I-phones and cars have become a lot more expensive but these are not essentials.

    Also salaries have adjusted somewhat. About a year ago Lviv oblast’s average salary was $250 (it’s probably around $300 now).

    In summer 2013 it was $364.

    In December 2009 it was $243.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    I did a googlesearch, and it's $283 as of March 2018. Once again, I sincerely hope that you'll get to experience this lifestyle:

    *$283 wage

    *wearing Ukrainian clothing, using Ukrainian medicine

    *no car, cause it's not essential anyway.

    *and don't forget the new utility tariffs, which are rising much faster, than wages in the Ukraine. It takes a toll on disposable income!

    So I want to you experience all that, smile, and say that you're "doing well". I mean, wouldn't that be fun? :)
    , @Gerard2

    $300 in Lviv oblast is probably at least like $1000 in Moscow.
     
    another bizarre and straightforward lie. All adjustments made, the average Muscovite makes 3, 3-4 times more money than the average person in Kiev, in shithole Lvov that figure goes to 4 or between 4 and 5 times....and this is not including the cheaper and more plentiful consumption of oil and gas, extra subsidies on more extensive public transport network, Mat-kapital that Russia offers and Ukrop having double the unemployment rate of Russa and so on.



    Your idiocy is further exacerbated when we factor in that Lvov is not even top 9 in wages in Ukraine....add is only supplemted to a still shit level because of people in different regions of the very poor western Ukraine moving to Lvov, as most of the least populated and/or lowest wage areas are in the non Novorossiya part

    Remember your stupid claim about Ukrainians in America?
     
    Ukrainians learn less then every ethnic group in America.....that's a fact , you insecure imbecile.


    LMAO, Ukrainians are “doing well” trying to live on $200 average monthly wage
     
    ..Felix was ..again..bang on target with this
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @AP
    You are wrong as usual. He was from Kursk oblast, Russia, the son of two ethnic Russian peasants. He moved to Donetsk at age fourteen and his third and permanent wife was an ethnic Ukrainian but he himself was not. According to Khrushchev's great-grasnddaughter "He was ethnically Russian, but he really felt great affinity with Ukraine."

    he really felt great affinity with Ukraine.

    That’s all that matters really. Українство is more of a state of mind, than an actual ethnicity anyway.

    Now look at this circus of Ukrainian politics, and tell me these people are nothing like him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @AP

    Lots of pinko faggot “intellectuals” claim nationalism is a 19th century invention, which is complete bullshit.
     
    More like an 18th century invention. It's not just a leftist idea, the reactionary Lukacs had the same conclusion.

    But national consciousness develops at different times in different places so you may be completely correct.
     
    Correct, in some places it arrived in the 18th century, in others in the 19th century. Tribalism is related but not the same thing - it would be odd to consider Sitting Bull to be a "Sioux nationalist."

    The key time to assimilate peoples is before there was such a thing as national consciousness. That's when the Provencals were assimilated into the French, it's how tribals get assimilated. Once a national consciousness develops and is widely adopted, it's game over. I can't think of a single example when a nationally conscious people took on a different identity. Can you?

    I don’t know about wisdom–Poland’s leaders today strike me as boneheads, even if they generally have the right idea. Kind of like DJT without the razzle dazzle.
     
    They've taken lots of EU money and avoided taking in any Muslims. Trump in contrast has not accomplished much at all. He slowed the flow of illegals a little.

    Plus they all quietly accept German economic domination anyway,
     
    Polish government is reversing this, which is why there are all those Western squeals about Polish "anti-democratic" reforms.

    The big problem with this logic is that “strongly held” is not a scientific definition. How do you define it? Even if there is a strong national identity, that identity can of course weaken.

    We do have lots of examples of identities changing.

    In the modern world it happens all the time owing to immigration for instance. My grandparents had strong Swedish identities, whereas mine is mostly sentimental. In a few generations no one in my family will even speak Swedish, and we’ll be as Swedish as American Plastic Paddies are Irish.

    Do we have any proof that the inhabitants of Provence didn’t have their own identity and resented a French identity being imposed on them? After all what was even written in their language? Did it even have a standard orthography?

    But I can think of a number of real examples.

    The creation of a Roman identity almost everywhere the Romans ruled for long periods of time, for instance. The Roman identity was initially confined to the City of Rome itself, and first spread to the Sabine women (by kidnapping and raping them). From there it spread first through Latium, then throughout the Italian Peninsula, and finally across the entire Empire.

    By the 3rd century all free inhabitants of the Empire were citizens (Edict of Caracalla) and saw themselves as Roman. Septimus Severus established the Severan Dynasty in 198–the first dynasty from the provinces. In fact Septimus Severus was of Carthaginian descent. This would be like if the Russian Empire had conquered Germany and four centuries later an East Elbian Junker became the Tsar.

    In more recent times I can think of Scania in Sweden. Scanians originally had a strong Danish identity (Scandinavian national identities are quite old), now they have a Swedish identity. This is quite relevant for the East Slavs imo, as Scandinavians are another cluster of extremely similar nationalities.

    We do know that the inhabitants of the Mezzogiorno had strong identities and resisted Italianization. After the Piedmontese conquest of Two Sicilies the conquered “Italians” launched a guerrilla war. Today the inhabitants of the Mezzogiorno speak Italian and identify as Italian, though now ironically there are often not readily recognized as Italian by Northern Italy. :)

    In general I suspect you will find that many nations have absorbed people with other identities, and those identities were often strongly held. Since a good number of nations are very old we lack records of this.

    Frisians are today German or Dutch, but what did they think of themselves?

    How did the Romano-British think of themselves, and how about their Saxon conquerors who successfully imposed their language on a Latin (and perhaps Celtic) speaking population? Did the inhabitants of the rival Heptarchies think of themselves differently? The truth is we have no idea.

    We also have examples of conquerors being assimilated by the people they conquered. Chinese history is littered with this, but it also applies to the Normans almost everywhere they went.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    I meant national identity, not ethnic or tribal identity. A national identity is achieved when the majority of the population become literate in their national language and through universal schools adopt and take for granted a national identity and story. All of the modern European nations have such national identities.

    It's not the same thing as "we are locals who speak different from those other guys." That situation involves much more malleability. And it is not the same thing as when local elites (but not illiterate peasants, the masses) have achieved this - the elites can be arrested, killed or exiled.

    Despite attempts at Russification Poles, Balts and Ukrainian never became Russians because these peoples achieved mass literacy as Poles, Balts and Ukrainians. Russia could have assimilated all of these peoples had it engaged in aggressive Russification in, say, the early 1700s. But the Russian state itself was not nationalist at that time so this is an impossible scenario. And even by 1910 it was too late. Galicia was 100% literate among young people, with Ukrainian orientation (it's why Polish attempts to assimilate Galicians just resulted in a violent murderous backlash), and the Ukrainian countryside in the Russian Empire was full of activists spreading the Ukrainian nationalist gospel, setting up reading rooms, etc. In the 1917 elections 70% of people in ethnic Ukrainian regions were voting for Ukrainian nationalist parties.

    I was not aware of Scania's situation. It may indeed be a counterexample. Scania had been part of Denmark but were the masses (not just local elites) conscious of themselves as Scanians or Danes, literate in the Danish language (not just speaking it), believers in a Scanian or Danish national history? In other words, was it a population with a strong Danish national idea? Or were they just villagers who happened to speak a Danish dialect and who had a crude sense of being different from the Swedish outsiders.

    I don' think the Roman Empire was some sort of proto-Italian nationalist state.

    Wiki says most Sicilians still speak the local dialect amongst themselves, not Italian which they learn in school. Sicily had its own old pre-nationalist kingdom but it didn't seem to have a "Sicilian national identity" of its own prior to integration with Italy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. AP says:
    @reiner Tor

    More like an 18th century invention. It’s not just a leftist idea, the reactionary Lukacs had the same conclusion.
     
    I also like Lukacs, and read many of his books, but his peculiar ideas might have something to do with him being half-Jewish. Usually a rule of thumb is that the more rootless a person is, the more likely to subscribe to the "nationalism is a Romantic/Enlightenment/[whatever recent] invention" theory.

    The origins of nationalism are a bit more complex than that. Most people recognized, for example, if their dialects were closer to one neighbor than another. Often there was some sort of (usually ill-defined) ethnic identity, which in some cases (ancient Greeks, at least some ancient Jews, etc.) was somewhat similar to modern nationalistic feelings (the ideal of unity, at least in the face of outside danger, self-sacrifice against foreigners, a sense of superiority over others, especially neighbors, etc.)

    Now such pre-nationalist ethnic solidarity was still relatively malleable, in no small part because people often were unaware of the size of the wider world. It was possible for people to be extremely parochial and petty tribal against other tribes of their own ethnicity, but the appearance of foreign conquerors often changed the sentiments. I have read a few writings of Hungarian aristocrats from the time of the Ottoman occupation (roughly 1526-1686), and they pretty much had a sense of some kind of Hungarian national feeling. Not just "Christians," because they were often opposed to "German" (i.e. Habsburg) policies. After liberation, there was an insurgency against Habsburg rule in Hungary, and (surprise, surprise) it had most support in ethnically Hungarian areas. It was led by an aristocrat, many aristocrats (it's unclear if it was most of them; many remained Habsburg loyalists) and the majority of the nobility joined it, and so did apparently the peasantry (which provided the mass of its soldiers). It was only successful in ethnically Hungarian areas, with the most strongly opposed being ethnically German areas. (No surprise, in a freedom fight against "German" rule...) Although it's difficult to prove, it might have reinforced the idea of repopulating the country after the devastation of the Ottoman wars (and the unsuccessful rebellion against the Habsburgs...) by inviting ethnically German settlers.

    The book I read on the topic is Azar Gat's Nations. He claims that it was only the modern form of nationalism which was invented after or during the enlightenment, but some kind of raw pre-nationalism did often exist, and some kind of vague ethnic solidarity always existed against outsiders. Basically, nationalists only had to reinforce the sense of ethnic solidarity (which was easy, unlike internationalist solidarity, which usually fell on deaf ears), and sometimes had to convince two or three ethnic groups that they really belonged to the same nation (like the French with regards to Occitanie, or Russians - unsuccessfully, in that case - with regards the Ukraine).

    I know you give the Galician Slaughter as a counterexample, but I think there are many examples of people feeling ethnic solidarity and putting their lives on the line in support of it, so I'd think the Galician Slaughter was an exception that proves the rule.

    I generally agree with your comment. I think we need to be careful not to apply modern ideas such as nationalism to pre-modern peoples. By modern ideas all Greek-speaking people were Greeks, so an Athenian “nationalist” opposed to a Spartan “nationalist” would be impossible.

    All Europeans recognize that they are more like each other than they are like Africans, or Chinese, and they once felt that they were superior to all of those other peoples. That does not imply that the Europeans are all one nation, just as Greek unity in the face of the alien Persians did not imply a sense of ancient Greek nationalism.

    You are correct that vague ethnic solidarity existed long before modern nationalism, but this was not nationalism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    By modern ideas all Greek-speaking people were Greeks, so an Athenian “nationalist” opposed to a Spartan “nationalist” would be impossible.
     
    By Greek ideas at the time all Greek speaking people were Greeks, as well, and the rest were barbarians. The fact that Athenians fought with Thebans or Spartans didn't make either not Greek.

    You are correct that vague ethnic solidarity existed long before modern nationalism, but this was not nationalism.
     
    On the contrary this is precisely nationalism, just not modern nation-state nationalism. The latter is built upon the former, not a new creation out of nothing. We are arguing over terminology mostly, but the terminology is important to ensure recognition of that continuity and underlying reality.

    All Europeans recognize that they are more like each other than they are like Africans, or Chinese, and they once felt that they were superior to all of those other peoples. That does not imply that the Europeans are all one nation, just as Greek unity in the face of the alien Persians did not imply a sense of ancient Greek nationalism.
     
    Those who emphasised a sense of European unity and superiority over non-European peoples, and who in some cases even identify as "European", were and are voicing a nascent Euro-nationalism, much as those who voiced early ideas of American identity in the C18th were the first builders of the future American nationalism which came to dominate.
    , @Thorfinnsson
    The ancient Greeks themselves agreed with modern ideas, which is why they called non-Greeks barbarians and had pan-Hellenic events like the Olympic Games.

    That's also why the Greeks successfully united to defeat the Persian invasions, and then happily joined the barely-Greek Macedonians to launch a pan-Hellenic invasion of the Persian Empire.

    This didn't preclude them from being patriots to their polis and constantly warring with eachother. Besides, everyone knows Greeks love arguing.
    , @reiner Tor
    Well, nationalism never was truly universal. There were always people who didn't agree with nationalism, however much they could read and write. Do you seriously think that there was a time in history where the majority (let alone all) of people were nationalists? Perhaps Nazi Germany, though Richard J. Evans has a good point when writes that almost half of the Germans had voted for decidedly anti-nationalist (and anti-antisemitic) parties (Communists and Social Democrats) before Hitler, and they reverted to those voting habits surprisingly quickly after 1945. The implication being that they never ceased to be communist and social democratic supporters under Hitler, they were just oppressed in a dictatorship. Considering how many people supported the Nazis for non-nationalistic reasons, it's likely that nationalists never constituted a majority in Nazi Germany. Arguably the most extremely nationalistic regime of all times.

    Also, ethnic solidarity always takes the back seat when fundamental beliefs are involved:

    - religion (when taken seriously, not the milquetoast late modern or postmodern versions)

    - communism (in Hungary Horthy's nationalists sided against the communists when they were fighting foreign invaders)

    - national socialism (Hans Oster was a nationalist who initially welcomed Hitler in 1933)

    - probably in premodern societies social class was also more important, because people in a Malthusian society were often not very far from starving to death

    Anyway, so the examples you give only prove that ethnic solidarity wasn't the most important thing on people's minds all the time. That was even true of the Age of Nationalism.

    The Age of Nationalism was unique not because people's beliefs about ethnic solidarity or ethnic government were unique to that age, but because it was a useful idea in the age of universal conscription, so nationalistic states beat non-nationalistic ones, until eventually all of them more or less adopted nationalistic official ideologies. (Even unofficially the USSR.) We're now back to premodern structures where ideology (then religion, now liberalism) trumps national feelings.

    It doesn't mean those ideas of being governed by your co-ethnics and not by aliens in a unified ethnic state on an as large as possible territory wasn't present long before people could read and write. The reason this idea can be so powerful is that it's part of the human condition.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Gerard2 says:
    @AP
    You are wrong as usual. He was from Kursk oblast, Russia, the son of two ethnic Russian peasants. He moved to Donetsk at age fourteen and his third and permanent wife was an ethnic Ukrainian but he himself was not. According to Khrushchev's great-grasnddaughter "He was ethnically Russian, but he really felt great affinity with Ukraine."

    [MORE]

    Khrushchev’s great-granddaughter

    …the kreakl bitch currently living in the US and frequent critic of Putin?…about as non-credible as a fucked in the head maggot like yourself.

    Felix is correct as usual…in fact for a retarded swine as youself, you’re that pitiful that Felix’s annihilation of your lies, still makes him the closest thing to a friend a retarded lowlife like yourself has got

    Thats how only the internet can produce such psychiatric messed-up , sociopath , attention-whore scumbags as yourself. Zero knowledge, whereas everyone here has life experiences, is a professional and so on …the only tactic for a moronic hellish creature as yourself, is to write these lies and nonsense en masse and bore people into submission with the shee stupidity and insidiousnouss of your idioticness, basically copy and paste state Department directives from the Motyl section of Wikipedia ( literally)

    I’ve not been on here for 4 hours, and in that time you’ve done thousands of words, dozens of posts ( that I know of)…all lies, spammed garbage…a sick freak in every sense of the word…and that’s not including the hours before I posted on here…and the millions of hours worth of garbage troll excrement as you has done on here in the weeks and years preceding this

    As for Khrushchev , he was 100% Ukrainian you moron…as with numerous heads of the Soviet Union and security services…….but it must also be noted again that the twin fathers of “Ukraine” are Lenin and Stalin.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. Randal says:
    @AP

    Clearly the example of Britain suggests that even quite well established national identities can still be shifted up to a point.
     
    "British" is a pan-national identity, like "Soviet" or "Austro-Hungarian."

    Scottish people didn't become English, after all.

    Russian nationalists hope that Ukrainians will become Russians but it has never occurred that a nationally conscious people have switched identities. A pan-national project like the Soviet Union was the way to unity, but even that failed.

    British” is a pan-national identity, like “Soviet” or “Austro-Hungarian.”

    Scottish people didn’t become English, after all.

    British is a national identity all of its own, pan-national or not, and many (perhaps most) English and Scottish people became British before its decline in the C20th. Even today, few English and by no means all Scots would identify as English or Scottish ahead of British, if asked without some kind of pre-shaping of their response. My impression is that neither Soviet nor Austro-Hungarian achieved any such level of general acceptance, perhaps because neither was around as long.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. songbird says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    Western commentary on China has been persistently abysmal as far back as I can remember. The following things have been boldly proclaimed:

    • You can't censor the internet (the same people now censor the internet)
    • China will not surpass America economically b/c Japan and West Germany didn't (nice math skills)
    • China will not surpass America economically because China will collapse (Real Soon Now)
    • China just copies and can't innovate (genetic engineering, supercomputing, quantum computing, etc.)
    • As China gets wealthier it will inevitably become a liberal democracy (on this basis we gave away the farm)

    Perhaps the worst I've seen is Stratfor. Because of China's "geopolitics" and the fact that it apparently takes centuries to build a "naval tradition", China will never pose a threat to America. So in other words an allegedly premier analyst has never heard of the Kaiserliche Marine, which despite no naval tradition at all developed technically superior ships and had mostly better tactical performance than the Royal Navy in WW1. I bet if you pressed Friedman on this he'd rationalize it with some bullshit about the Hanseatic League.

    The reality is that these people just want America to remain #1, which is of course entirely understandable, but then just make up nonsense to support their emotions. And this is taken seriously in policy circles.

    I don't get the sense that the Victorians and Edwardians were this childish in analyzing rising powers.

    There’s a lot of reality dysfunction when it comes to China prognostications. First and foremost, what no leaders in the West seem close to grasping is that the West is in decline, and it is difficult to acknowledge this fact in a “democratic” system.

    Against this, China might be said to have several weaknesses:
    1.) CCP retains control of large chunks of the economy and will never give it up
    2.) low fertility rate (better than importing hordes of hostile savages)
    3.) perhaps, an Asian mindset? (communal => socialistic)

    #3 is really a question. The question is, why does Japan have the highest debt to GDP in the world? South Korea and Taiwan don’t, but they face the constant threat of invasion, so have different incentives.

    My thoughts: China is clearly in a better current position. It is unclear if they will ever achieve higher per capita than the current US figure, but they don’t need to do so in order to supplant the US. They are on track, and I can’t think of a realistic scenario where this will change. Of course, the elites seem to be planning to try and turn the US into India (high pop density), but, IMO, that will just make it weaker, as for India itself as a counterweight, I’ve never drunken the India will be a superpower Kool-aid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson


    1.) CCP retains control of large chunks of the economy and will never give it up
     
    This is double-edged. The cons are well known (SOEs tend to be less productive), but there are pros as well. SOEs can be used for politically important but uneconomic (or too grand/risky) projects--OBOR for instance. And it prevents the bourgeoisie from controlling the state, which is probably a good thing in the era of cheap travel (and thus immigration).


    2.) low fertility rate (better than importing hordes of hostile savages)
     
    Not optimal but a problem faced by all industrial peoples, and China will still have a workforce of ~750 million people by mid-century anyway.


    3.) perhaps, an Asian mindset? (communal => socialistic)
     
    Double-edged once again.


    #3 is really a question. The question is, why does Japan have the highest debt to GDP in the world? South Korea and Taiwan don’t, but they face the constant threat of invasion, so have different incentives.
     
    The basic reason is a failed policy response to the collapse of the famous 1980s bubble. If Japan had done what the Swedes did it would have a "normal" (state) debt to GDP ratio.

    Anyhow this is not really a problem as evidenced by Japan's ultra-low interest rates. The debt is also completely Yen-denominated, half-owned by gov't agencies, and Japan is the world's largest creditor nation.

    People just get worked up into knots about government debt (and, frankly, debt period) because they don't understand money.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. @AP
    Remember your stupid claim about Ukrainians in America?

    Why did you run away from that conversation, Felix?

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/no-solzhenitsyn-did-not-ask-the-us-to-nuke-the-ussr/#comment-2306969

    Ukrainian diaspora are a lot wealthier than most other white people, in some of the richest countries on the planet. They have avoided assimilation to a greater degree than have others, retaining their identity after generations. Some have achieved positions of considerable influence (i.e, Foreign Minister of Canada). And Ukraine is becoming more like what they want it to be.

    So rather than lie like you did last time Felix, why don’t do try to honestly answer the question -

    How are they “not at all successful”, as you claimed?

    :::::::::::::

    As for your latest nonsense:

    LMAO, Ukrainians are “doing well” trying to live on $200 average monthly wage
     
    Outside Kiev, depending on region, average salaries are $250-$300 per month, depending on region. So you are off by a quarter to a third - wrong as usual.

    $300 in Lviv oblast is probably at least like $1000 in Moscow.

    Between 2013 and 2017 the value of US dollar in Ukrainian currency went from 8 to 26. In a country that doesn’t produce anything of what its people need
     
    Ukraine has around 40 million people and produces its own food, clothing, construction materials, medicines, etc. I-phones and cars have become a lot more expensive but these are not essentials.

    Also salaries have adjusted somewhat. About a year ago Lviv oblast's average salary was $250 (it's probably around $300 now).

    In summer 2013 it was $364.

    In December 2009 it was $243.

    I did a googlesearch, and it’s $283 as of March 2018. Once again, I sincerely hope that you’ll get to experience this lifestyle:

    *$283 wage

    *wearing Ukrainian clothing, using Ukrainian medicine

    *no car, cause it’s not essential anyway.

    *and don’t forget the new utility tariffs, which are rising much faster, than wages in the Ukraine. It takes a toll on disposable income!

    So I want to you experience all that, smile, and say that you’re “doing well”. I mean, wouldn’t that be fun? :)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @AP
    It's common but not majority. Figures vary widely but IIRC it's around 30% avoidance rate, with up to 50% in some specific areas (it's particularly easy to avoid the draft in western or eastern Ukraine where you can just drive an hour to the border and get a job in Poland or Russia). So about 70% of people who are mobilized do join. The government is largely incapable of stopping mobilized people from not showing up or leaving the country if they want.

    Draft dodging seems to have been more common earlier when the war had more casualties and the military was much less competent; at that time, there was a sense that the officers didn't know what they were doing, or worse they were secretly feeding the Russian side information, and sending conscripts into dangerous situations needlessly.

    I only have one cousin, from central Ukraine, who was mobilized and he did his duty. He was indifferent to nationalism before but after serving has become anti-Russian.

    Thanks. Next time I see her I’ll get her view (non-intellectual) on where Ukrainian lies on the Polish-Russian language continuum.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. Randal says:
    @AP
    I generally agree with your comment. I think we need to be careful not to apply modern ideas such as nationalism to pre-modern peoples. By modern ideas all Greek-speaking people were Greeks, so an Athenian "nationalist" opposed to a Spartan "nationalist" would be impossible.

    All Europeans recognize that they are more like each other than they are like Africans, or Chinese, and they once felt that they were superior to all of those other peoples. That does not imply that the Europeans are all one nation, just as Greek unity in the face of the alien Persians did not imply a sense of ancient Greek nationalism.

    You are correct that vague ethnic solidarity existed long before modern nationalism, but this was not nationalism.

    By modern ideas all Greek-speaking people were Greeks, so an Athenian “nationalist” opposed to a Spartan “nationalist” would be impossible.

    By Greek ideas at the time all Greek speaking people were Greeks, as well, and the rest were barbarians. The fact that Athenians fought with Thebans or Spartans didn’t make either not Greek.

    You are correct that vague ethnic solidarity existed long before modern nationalism, but this was not nationalism.

    On the contrary this is precisely nationalism, just not modern nation-state nationalism. The latter is built upon the former, not a new creation out of nothing. We are arguing over terminology mostly, but the terminology is important to ensure recognition of that continuity and underlying reality.

    All Europeans recognize that they are more like each other than they are like Africans, or Chinese, and they once felt that they were superior to all of those other peoples. That does not imply that the Europeans are all one nation, just as Greek unity in the face of the alien Persians did not imply a sense of ancient Greek nationalism.

    Those who emphasised a sense of European unity and superiority over non-European peoples, and who in some cases even identify as “European”, were and are voicing a nascent Euro-nationalism, much as those who voiced early ideas of American identity in the C18th were the first builders of the future American nationalism which came to dominate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    By Greek ideas at the time all Greek speaking people were Greeks, as well, and the rest were barbarians. The fact that Athenians fought with Thebans or Spartans didn’t make either not Greek.
     
    Correct, just as up to the mid 20th century Europeans all saw themselves as Europeans and most others as barbarians or savages. This does not imply the existence of Greek or European "nationalism."

    You are correct that vague ethnic solidarity existed long before modern nationalism, but this was not nationalism.

    "On the contrary this is precisely nationalism, just not modern nation-state nationalism."
     
    Nationalism is by definition nation-state nationalism. The term nationalism was first used in the 1830s and coincided with the rise of nation-states.

    It grew out of and overlaps older ideas such as patriotism or tribalism but is not the same as those things. The fact that modern nationalists look to pre-nationalist figures as heroes and incorporate them into their mythologies does not mean that those people were nationalists. Frederick the Great was certainly a devoted patriot of Prussia but he was no German nationalist, though German nationalists used him.

    To quote Lukacs:

    Patriotism is the love of a particular land, with its particular traditions; nationalism is the love of something less tangible, of the myth of a “people”, justifying many things, a political and ideological substitute for religion. Patriotism is old-fashioned (and, at time and in some places, aristocratic); nationalism is modern and populist. In one sense patriotic and national consciousness may be similar; but in anther sense, more and more apparent after 1870, national consciousness began to affect more and more people who, generally, had been immune to that before—as, for example, many people within the multinational empire of Austria-Hungary. It went deeper than class consciousness. Here and there it superseded religious affiliations, too.

    :::::::::::

    In pre-nationalist Ukraine, Orthodox Ukrainians slaughtered Uniate Ukrainians. Ukrainian magnates (Orthodox as well as Catholic) fought Ukrainian peasants and lesser nobles. But the era of nationalism, Ukrainian Orthodox and Uniates of all social groups have been united against Russians (and before that, Poles).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. @songbird
    There's a lot of reality dysfunction when it comes to China prognostications. First and foremost, what no leaders in the West seem close to grasping is that the West is in decline, and it is difficult to acknowledge this fact in a "democratic" system.

    Against this, China might be said to have several weaknesses:
    1.) CCP retains control of large chunks of the economy and will never give it up
    2.) low fertility rate (better than importing hordes of hostile savages)
    3.) perhaps, an Asian mindset? (communal => socialistic)

    #3 is really a question. The question is, why does Japan have the highest debt to GDP in the world? South Korea and Taiwan don't, but they face the constant threat of invasion, so have different incentives.

    My thoughts: China is clearly in a better current position. It is unclear if they will ever achieve higher per capita than the current US figure, but they don't need to do so in order to supplant the US. They are on track, and I can't think of a realistic scenario where this will change. Of course, the elites seem to be planning to try and turn the US into India (high pop density), but, IMO, that will just make it weaker, as for India itself as a counterweight, I've never drunken the India will be a superpower Kool-aid.

    1.) CCP retains control of large chunks of the economy and will never give it up

    This is double-edged. The cons are well known (SOEs tend to be less productive), but there are pros as well. SOEs can be used for politically important but uneconomic (or too grand/risky) projects–OBOR for instance. And it prevents the bourgeoisie from controlling the state, which is probably a good thing in the era of cheap travel (and thus immigration).

    2.) low fertility rate (better than importing hordes of hostile savages)

    Not optimal but a problem faced by all industrial peoples, and China will still have a workforce of ~750 million people by mid-century anyway.

    3.) perhaps, an Asian mindset? (communal => socialistic)

    Double-edged once again.

    #3 is really a question. The question is, why does Japan have the highest debt to GDP in the world? South Korea and Taiwan don’t, but they face the constant threat of invasion, so have different incentives.

    The basic reason is a failed policy response to the collapse of the famous 1980s bubble. If Japan had done what the Swedes did it would have a “normal” (state) debt to GDP ratio.

    Anyhow this is not really a problem as evidenced by Japan’s ultra-low interest rates. The debt is also completely Yen-denominated, half-owned by gov’t agencies, and Japan is the world’s largest creditor nation.

    People just get worked up into knots about government debt (and, frankly, debt period) because they don’t understand money.

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird

    People just get worked up into knots about government debt
     
    Debt is an important indicator in general. Modern examples: Venezuela, Greece, Zimbabwe. The US has its own public liabilities (like pension shortfalls) that will have enormous future political consequences.

    Japanese debt obviously is not equivalent, for various reasons, but regardless of how one views it, I think it really serves as an important reminder of the incredible bubble that was created. Japan seemed set on a stratospheric rise. If I recall, with incredible absurdity, Tokyo real estate was valued more than the whole of California. How could such a thing even be possible? I don't mean mathematically; I mean psychologically. The distortion was obviously bigger than the Japanese political leadership.

    If there is any chance this is a special Asian susceptibility, then China has similar factors to 1980s Japan, with some (from Communism) obviously much worse.
    , @S3

    If Japan had done what the Swedes did it would have a “normal” (state) debt to GDP ratio.
     
    Could you provide some details on this?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. AP says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    The big problem with this logic is that "strongly held" is not a scientific definition. How do you define it? Even if there is a strong national identity, that identity can of course weaken.

    We do have lots of examples of identities changing.

    In the modern world it happens all the time owing to immigration for instance. My grandparents had strong Swedish identities, whereas mine is mostly sentimental. In a few generations no one in my family will even speak Swedish, and we'll be as Swedish as American Plastic Paddies are Irish.

    Do we have any proof that the inhabitants of Provence didn't have their own identity and resented a French identity being imposed on them? After all what was even written in their language? Did it even have a standard orthography?

    But I can think of a number of real examples.

    The creation of a Roman identity almost everywhere the Romans ruled for long periods of time, for instance. The Roman identity was initially confined to the City of Rome itself, and first spread to the Sabine women (by kidnapping and raping them). From there it spread first through Latium, then throughout the Italian Peninsula, and finally across the entire Empire.

    By the 3rd century all free inhabitants of the Empire were citizens (Edict of Caracalla) and saw themselves as Roman. Septimus Severus established the Severan Dynasty in 198--the first dynasty from the provinces. In fact Septimus Severus was of Carthaginian descent. This would be like if the Russian Empire had conquered Germany and four centuries later an East Elbian Junker became the Tsar.

    In more recent times I can think of Scania in Sweden. Scanians originally had a strong Danish identity (Scandinavian national identities are quite old), now they have a Swedish identity. This is quite relevant for the East Slavs imo, as Scandinavians are another cluster of extremely similar nationalities.

    We do know that the inhabitants of the Mezzogiorno had strong identities and resisted Italianization. After the Piedmontese conquest of Two Sicilies the conquered "Italians" launched a guerrilla war. Today the inhabitants of the Mezzogiorno speak Italian and identify as Italian, though now ironically there are often not readily recognized as Italian by Northern Italy. :)

    In general I suspect you will find that many nations have absorbed people with other identities, and those identities were often strongly held. Since a good number of nations are very old we lack records of this.

    Frisians are today German or Dutch, but what did they think of themselves?

    How did the Romano-British think of themselves, and how about their Saxon conquerors who successfully imposed their language on a Latin (and perhaps Celtic) speaking population? Did the inhabitants of the rival Heptarchies think of themselves differently? The truth is we have no idea.

    We also have examples of conquerors being assimilated by the people they conquered. Chinese history is littered with this, but it also applies to the Normans almost everywhere they went.

    I meant national identity, not ethnic or tribal identity. A national identity is achieved when the majority of the population become literate in their national language and through universal schools adopt and take for granted a national identity and story. All of the modern European nations have such national identities.

    It’s not the same thing as “we are locals who speak different from those other guys.” That situation involves much more malleability. And it is not the same thing as when local elites (but not illiterate peasants, the masses) have achieved this – the elites can be arrested, killed or exiled.

    Despite attempts at Russification Poles, Balts and Ukrainian never became Russians because these peoples achieved mass literacy as Poles, Balts and Ukrainians. Russia could have assimilated all of these peoples had it engaged in aggressive Russification in, say, the early 1700s. But the Russian state itself was not nationalist at that time so this is an impossible scenario. And even by 1910 it was too late. Galicia was 100% literate among young people, with Ukrainian orientation (it’s why Polish attempts to assimilate Galicians just resulted in a violent murderous backlash), and the Ukrainian countryside in the Russian Empire was full of activists spreading the Ukrainian nationalist gospel, setting up reading rooms, etc. In the 1917 elections 70% of people in ethnic Ukrainian regions were voting for Ukrainian nationalist parties.

    I was not aware of Scania’s situation. It may indeed be a counterexample. Scania had been part of Denmark but were the masses (not just local elites) conscious of themselves as Scanians or Danes, literate in the Danish language (not just speaking it), believers in a Scanian or Danish national history? In other words, was it a population with a strong Danish national idea? Or were they just villagers who happened to speak a Danish dialect and who had a crude sense of being different from the Swedish outsiders.

    I don’ think the Roman Empire was some sort of proto-Italian nationalist state.

    Wiki says most Sicilians still speak the local dialect amongst themselves, not Italian which they learn in school. Sicily had its own old pre-nationalist kingdom but it didn’t seem to have a “Sicilian national identity” of its own prior to integration with Italy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    You're describing literacy rather than nationality. And yes, I realize that schooling was used (and is still in some countries) to build nationality.

    Do you think Joan of Arc, who was almost certainly illiterate, lacked a French national identity?

    Russification efforts started very late compared to earlier efforts in other countries and did not last very long, so the failure is not surprising.

    Wiki says most Sicilians still speak the local dialect amongst themselves, not Italian which they learn in school. Sicily had its own old pre-nationalist kingdom but it didn’t seem to have a “Sicilian national identity” of its own prior to integration with Italy.
     

    Sicilians themselves resented being incorporated into Two Sicilies and revolted. And the Sicilian dialect continues its decline.

    The Ukraine today would be a lot more like Sicily had the tragedy of 1917 not occurred.

    , @songbird
    Sicily probably isn't a good example because they practised a lot of first cousin marriage.

    I wouldn't put Italy fourth as having old national roots either. It is a very strange nation with a large north-south axis and deeply varying people - it was cobbled together recently. There are large differences in local culture as well as stature, skin coloration, and probably at least small differences in IQ. In WWI, when the Italian army retook a rural area of North Italy, they were attacked by elderly men with pitchforks.
    , @Thorfinnsson
    I realize I missed some things here, though I kind of covered this in another reply.

    I was not aware of Scania’s situation. It may indeed be a counterexample. Scania had been part of Denmark but were the masses (not just local elites) conscious of themselves as Scanians or Danes, literate in the Danish language (not just speaking it), believers in a Scanian or Danish national history? In other words, was it a population with a strong Danish national idea? Or were they just villagers who happened to speak a Danish dialect and who had a crude sense of being different from the Swedish outsiders.
     

    National identity is much older in Scandinavia than it is in Eastern Europe. The Danish flag is seven or eight hundred years old for instance. Scandinavians even attempted Karlin's "triune nation" in the medieval and early modern period, which fell apart owing to Swedish rebellion (Norwegians and Danes are much more fraternal and continued to happily share a state for several more centuries). Literacy was relatively high already in the 17th century owing to the Protestant Reformation. Scanians initially resisted Swedish rule and Swedification, but Swedish persistence and power overcame them in time. Scanian elites shifted their allegiances quickly (unsurprisingly), whereas the lower orders resisted longer.

    Russian nationalists interested in the triune nation concept should look at this history as a model, frankly.

    It is worth nothing that there remain cultural and linguistic differences between Swedes and Scanians. Scanians are more likely to vote for anti-immigrant parties (just like Danes), and their Swedish dialect sounds more different from rikssvenksa than any other Swedish dialect.

    So if Russian nationalists/imperialists managed to Scanianize the Ukraine, some differences would remain. Not those those differences are bad--regional variation is fun.

    I don’ think the Roman Empire was some sort of proto-Italian nationalist state.
     

    It wasn't Italian. It was Roman. That a Carthaginian with a Latin name became Caesar is frankly amazing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. @AP
    I generally agree with your comment. I think we need to be careful not to apply modern ideas such as nationalism to pre-modern peoples. By modern ideas all Greek-speaking people were Greeks, so an Athenian "nationalist" opposed to a Spartan "nationalist" would be impossible.

    All Europeans recognize that they are more like each other than they are like Africans, or Chinese, and they once felt that they were superior to all of those other peoples. That does not imply that the Europeans are all one nation, just as Greek unity in the face of the alien Persians did not imply a sense of ancient Greek nationalism.

    You are correct that vague ethnic solidarity existed long before modern nationalism, but this was not nationalism.

    The ancient Greeks themselves agreed with modern ideas, which is why they called non-Greeks barbarians and had pan-Hellenic events like the Olympic Games.

    That’s also why the Greeks successfully united to defeat the Persian invasions, and then happily joined the barely-Greek Macedonians to launch a pan-Hellenic invasion of the Persian Empire.

    This didn’t preclude them from being patriots to their polis and constantly warring with eachother. Besides, everyone knows Greeks love arguing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    The European powers came together to crush the Boxer Rebellion, demonstrating pan-European solidarity. Yet this does not imply the idea of a "European nation."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Gerard2 says:
    @AP
    Remember your stupid claim about Ukrainians in America?

    Why did you run away from that conversation, Felix?

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/no-solzhenitsyn-did-not-ask-the-us-to-nuke-the-ussr/#comment-2306969

    Ukrainian diaspora are a lot wealthier than most other white people, in some of the richest countries on the planet. They have avoided assimilation to a greater degree than have others, retaining their identity after generations. Some have achieved positions of considerable influence (i.e, Foreign Minister of Canada). And Ukraine is becoming more like what they want it to be.

    So rather than lie like you did last time Felix, why don’t do try to honestly answer the question -

    How are they “not at all successful”, as you claimed?

    :::::::::::::

    As for your latest nonsense:

    LMAO, Ukrainians are “doing well” trying to live on $200 average monthly wage
     
    Outside Kiev, depending on region, average salaries are $250-$300 per month, depending on region. So you are off by a quarter to a third - wrong as usual.

    $300 in Lviv oblast is probably at least like $1000 in Moscow.

    Between 2013 and 2017 the value of US dollar in Ukrainian currency went from 8 to 26. In a country that doesn’t produce anything of what its people need
     
    Ukraine has around 40 million people and produces its own food, clothing, construction materials, medicines, etc. I-phones and cars have become a lot more expensive but these are not essentials.

    Also salaries have adjusted somewhat. About a year ago Lviv oblast's average salary was $250 (it's probably around $300 now).

    In summer 2013 it was $364.

    In December 2009 it was $243.

    $300 in Lviv oblast is probably at least like $1000 in Moscow.

    another bizarre and straightforward lie. All adjustments made, the average Muscovite makes 3, 3-4 times more money than the average person in Kiev, in shithole Lvov that figure goes to 4 or between 4 and 5 times….and this is not including the cheaper and more plentiful consumption of oil and gas, extra subsidies on more extensive public transport network, Mat-kapital that Russia offers and Ukrop having double the unemployment rate of Russa and so on.

    [MORE]

    Your idiocy is further exacerbated when we factor in that Lvov is not even top 9 in wages in Ukraine….add is only supplemted to a still shit level because of people in different regions of the very poor western Ukraine moving to Lvov, as most of the least populated and/or lowest wage areas are in the non Novorossiya part

    Remember your stupid claim about Ukrainians in America?

    Ukrainians learn less then every ethnic group in America…..that’s a fact , you insecure imbecile.

    LMAO, Ukrainians are “doing well” trying to live on $200 average monthly wage

    ..Felix was ..again..bang on target with this

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Normally I don't respond your nonsense but:

    Ukrainians learn less then every ethnic group in America…..that’s a fact
     
    Medium household income for non-Hispanic whites in the US in 2016 was $65,041. Source:

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/233324/median-household-income-in-the-united-states-by-race-or-ethnic-group/

    In 2016 median household income for Ukrainian Americans was $72,449.

    Source:

    https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

    It's well above the white average.

    Remember Felix had claimed, in his words, that Ukrainians in America "are doing better than niggers and Mexicans, but overall it’s a picture of mediocrity."

    When he was exposed he ran away from the discussion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. Gerard2 says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    Your original claim was:

    Are you are impaired? It’s in an even worse and more failed state now then it was then.
     


    So what? That’s completely irrelevant..whoever said it was going to be a bottomless pit of descent in Ukraine’s GDP? The fact is this “growth ” is absurdly abysmal, 0.2% in last quarter of 2017 ( they cheated and changed the figures to slightly higher but still very low figure)industry nowhere in practically all sectors, likewise services, huge population loss, FDI nowhere, trade nowhere, crime?…at skyhigh levels throughout the country, corruption? through the roof–and it was already obscene before. After a 20% loss in GDP , they should now be experiencing at least a 5-7% increase in GDP per annum…they are so far away from this it’s beyond a joke.
     
    Let's unpack this.

    First--low growth after big GDP loss. Completely true, but point being it seems the worst is over. We'll see what the Ukrainian government does from now. Low hanging fruit would be permitting the sale of agricultural land, at the very least to other Ukrainians.

    Huge population loss is at this time useful for the Ukraine for reasons I mentioned earlier.

    I don't know the FDI levels for the Ukraine (I assume they are nonexistent) and am not going to look them up, but if the Ukraine can create some reasonable certainly for foreign investors there is obviously great potential here. And since the Ukrainian regime is more or less a Western puppet government I don't see why that would be impossible.

    And bear in mind that I am not a Ukrainophile or a Russophobe. In fact if you read many of my other comments you'll see that I am annoyed by Ukrainian independence.

    None the less, I get the impression that Ukrainian state capacity has improved since the Maidan.


    Libya is in growth ( and their population still earning more than ukrops…as are Iraq’s), Iran under sanctions has still been growing nicely, even Syria’s is growing…and all of these at much higher rates than Ukraine’s failed economy is doing. All those facts still don’t take away from the fact that all those countries, with the exemption of Iran are in a dreadful position. Almost all countries have faced a fight to get to their pre financial crash 2008 GDP levels…but Ukraine is struggling to get to their pre-1991 levels, before that it ,must get to it’s 2013 levels ( which should about take 15+ years) ..and in turn must get into it’s still inadequate 2008 levels ( which would have been still much lower if Yanukovich had not been PM at the time to try and repair the farce from the Yushchenko/Tymoshenko idiot competition)_
     
    Libya has recovering oil production, and the fact that Arabs outbreed whites is not exactly newsworthy. Iran has been under sanctions since 1979 and has adapted.

    As for Syria the IMF has this to say: https://www.imf.org/en/Countries/SYR#featured (no data)

    The CIA claims -10%, but the latest year is 2014.

    The World Bank also doesn't show recent data.

    That said I would expect a recovering economy in much of Syria as so much of Syria has recently been reconquered from various jihadists. The Ukraine on the other hand did not retake the Donets Basin (let alone Crimea) and has obviously lost a lot of the Russian market.

    The Ukraine is indeed fighting (hopefully?) to restore its economy, but note that I said that the Ukraine's entire post-Soviet experience has been dreadful. The Maidan was an own goal which made things worse, but the deterioration from that appears to have now ended.

    ….don’t make me laugh…this is probably worse for them then it was for the Gruzians in 2008
     
    I had to look up "Gruzians". Is this what Russians call Georgians?

    I have no way of assessing this and rely on Anatoly Karlin's observations, which I generally trust.

    If the two of you wish to debate that would be interesting.


    I would take it that Priednistroviye has made more of a success of itself , much more, than Ukraine has since Independence. Ukraine has had every possible positive thing going for it to be not just the most successful ex-USSR country…but even the most successful ex-Warsaw Pact country ( with the exception of perhaps Czechs/Slovaks & maybe Hungary)…in a much more advantageous position than Moldova in 1991….but it has failed spectacularly.
     
    Something like one twentieth of Moldova's GDP was recently stolen by criminals I heard. This isn't a rumor or anything, I just don't recall the details or the exact sum. And the per capita GDP of Moldova is lower than the Ukraine, though the development since 1991 I do not know. I assume the Ukraine was one of the wealthier parts of the USSR based on its agriculture, industry, mines, etc. No clue how Bessarabia rated in the USSR.

    I had to look up "Priednistroviye" as well. I don't know much about Transnistria.

    I had to look up “Gruzians”. Is this what Russians call Georgians?

    Sorry about that!

    As for FDI. they are effectively zero for Ukraine, Russia which has terrible FDI but stll 12 times more

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. AP says:
    @Randal

    By modern ideas all Greek-speaking people were Greeks, so an Athenian “nationalist” opposed to a Spartan “nationalist” would be impossible.
     
    By Greek ideas at the time all Greek speaking people were Greeks, as well, and the rest were barbarians. The fact that Athenians fought with Thebans or Spartans didn't make either not Greek.

    You are correct that vague ethnic solidarity existed long before modern nationalism, but this was not nationalism.
     
    On the contrary this is precisely nationalism, just not modern nation-state nationalism. The latter is built upon the former, not a new creation out of nothing. We are arguing over terminology mostly, but the terminology is important to ensure recognition of that continuity and underlying reality.

    All Europeans recognize that they are more like each other than they are like Africans, or Chinese, and they once felt that they were superior to all of those other peoples. That does not imply that the Europeans are all one nation, just as Greek unity in the face of the alien Persians did not imply a sense of ancient Greek nationalism.
     
    Those who emphasised a sense of European unity and superiority over non-European peoples, and who in some cases even identify as "European", were and are voicing a nascent Euro-nationalism, much as those who voiced early ideas of American identity in the C18th were the first builders of the future American nationalism which came to dominate.

    By Greek ideas at the time all Greek speaking people were Greeks, as well, and the rest were barbarians. The fact that Athenians fought with Thebans or Spartans didn’t make either not Greek.

    Correct, just as up to the mid 20th century Europeans all saw themselves as Europeans and most others as barbarians or savages. This does not imply the existence of Greek or European “nationalism.”

    You are correct that vague ethnic solidarity existed long before modern nationalism, but this was not nationalism.

    “On the contrary this is precisely nationalism, just not modern nation-state nationalism.”

    Nationalism is by definition nation-state nationalism. The term nationalism was first used in the 1830s and coincided with the rise of nation-states.

    It grew out of and overlaps older ideas such as patriotism or tribalism but is not the same as those things. The fact that modern nationalists look to pre-nationalist figures as heroes and incorporate them into their mythologies does not mean that those people were nationalists. Frederick the Great was certainly a devoted patriot of Prussia but he was no German nationalist, though German nationalists used him.

    To quote Lukacs:

    Patriotism is the love of a particular land, with its particular traditions; nationalism is the love of something less tangible, of the myth of a “people”, justifying many things, a political and ideological substitute for religion. Patriotism is old-fashioned (and, at time and in some places, aristocratic); nationalism is modern and populist. In one sense patriotic and national consciousness may be similar; but in anther sense, more and more apparent after 1870, national consciousness began to affect more and more people who, generally, had been immune to that before—as, for example, many people within the multinational empire of Austria-Hungary. It went deeper than class consciousness. Here and there it superseded religious affiliations, too.

    :::::::::::

    In pre-nationalist Ukraine, Orthodox Ukrainians slaughtered Uniate Ukrainians. Ukrainian magnates (Orthodox as well as Catholic) fought Ukrainian peasants and lesser nobles. But the era of nationalism, Ukrainian Orthodox and Uniates of all social groups have been united against Russians (and before that, Poles).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Correct, just as up to the mid 20th century Europeans all saw themselves as Europeans and most others as barbarians or savages. This does not imply the existence of Greek or European “nationalism.”
     
    Yes it does, or more precisely it reflects the existence and centrality to modern nation-state nationalism of what modern Greek and European nationalism was built upon.

    Though European identity has never been a significant force culturally or as widely and self-consciously adopted as was Greek identity in ancient Greece. But it could be, given the right policies and circumstances over a few generations. (I don't mean by that to endorse it - it would be anathema to me, but it's foolish imo to dismiss the potential danger of it).

    Nationalism is by definition nation-state nationalism. The term nationalism was first used in the 1830s and coincided with the rise of nation-states.
     
    At root it is the same thing, just manifesting in a different context. But imo it's important to maintain the connection, because otherwise nationalism can be dismissed as a modern innovation with no real roots.

    I think distinctions between patriotism and nationalism, such as the one you quote, are of questionable utility. Mostly they are created, in my experience, to allow people to draw a distinction between "good" nationalism (what they like) and "bad" nationalism (what they don't like).


    In pre-nationalist Ukraine, Orthodox Ukrainians slaughtered Uniate Ukrainians. Ukrainian magnates (Orthodox as well as Catholic) fought Ukrainian peasants and lesser nobles. But the era of nationalism, Ukrainian Orthodox and Uniates of all social groups have been united against Russians (and before that, Poles).
     
    When the priority is an external enemy, nations unite as the Greeks did (with notable exceptions generally regarded as traitors or at any rate as people who bowed to force majeure) against the Persians. When that priority is not there, they fight amongst themselves. I see nothing different there between what you describe as the nationalist and the pre-nationalist eras.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. AP says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    The ancient Greeks themselves agreed with modern ideas, which is why they called non-Greeks barbarians and had pan-Hellenic events like the Olympic Games.

    That's also why the Greeks successfully united to defeat the Persian invasions, and then happily joined the barely-Greek Macedonians to launch a pan-Hellenic invasion of the Persian Empire.

    This didn't preclude them from being patriots to their polis and constantly warring with eachother. Besides, everyone knows Greeks love arguing.

    The European powers came together to crush the Boxer Rebellion, demonstrating pan-European solidarity. Yet this does not imply the idea of a “European nation.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    If the EU weren't run by people who hate Europeans (and also enact very stupid monetary policies) a European nation would one day be feasible.

    China and India have been described as "civilization-states" before.

    , @songbird

    The European powers came together to crush the Boxer Rebellion
     
    To further your point, Japan was also involved. Not only in the crushing, but also in the cooperative defense of the foreign civilians and converts who were trapped. It was in Japanese interests.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. AP says:
    @Gerard2

    $300 in Lviv oblast is probably at least like $1000 in Moscow.
     
    another bizarre and straightforward lie. All adjustments made, the average Muscovite makes 3, 3-4 times more money than the average person in Kiev, in shithole Lvov that figure goes to 4 or between 4 and 5 times....and this is not including the cheaper and more plentiful consumption of oil and gas, extra subsidies on more extensive public transport network, Mat-kapital that Russia offers and Ukrop having double the unemployment rate of Russa and so on.



    Your idiocy is further exacerbated when we factor in that Lvov is not even top 9 in wages in Ukraine....add is only supplemted to a still shit level because of people in different regions of the very poor western Ukraine moving to Lvov, as most of the least populated and/or lowest wage areas are in the non Novorossiya part

    Remember your stupid claim about Ukrainians in America?
     
    Ukrainians learn less then every ethnic group in America.....that's a fact , you insecure imbecile.


    LMAO, Ukrainians are “doing well” trying to live on $200 average monthly wage
     
    ..Felix was ..again..bang on target with this

    Normally I don’t respond your nonsense but:

    Ukrainians learn less then every ethnic group in America…..that’s a fact

    Medium household income for non-Hispanic whites in the US in 2016 was $65,041. Source:

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/233324/median-household-income-in-the-united-states-by-race-or-ethnic-group/

    In 2016 median household income for Ukrainian Americans was $72,449.

    Source:

    https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk

    It’s well above the white average.

    Remember Felix had claimed, in his words, that Ukrainians in America “are doing better than niggers and Mexicans, but overall it’s a picture of mediocrity.”

    When he was exposed he ran away from the discussion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich

    Remember Felix had claimed, in his words, that Ukrainians in America “are doing better than niggers and Mexicans, but overall it’s a picture of mediocrity.”

    When he was exposed he ran away from the discussion.
     

    ffs, this isn't a war, this isn't some sort kind of battle or tournament, and I'm not obligated to respond to everything you write. Grow up, dude! There is no big prize for you to win by "defeating" me on the internet.

    You want to argue about minor technicalities, without really adressing any of my points. It doesn't matter if the average Ukrainian earns $200 or $250, the bottomline he is still dirt poor. Being off by "a quarter or a third" in this situation does not make me wrong since the numbers we're talking about are still ridiculously low.

    PS:
    https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
    This link you submitted doesn't open for me, and I have to say, the fact that you felt the need to use one source for White American income, and a completely different source for Ukrainian American income looks suspicious. You should be using numbers from the same data set, when making comparisons, to make sure it's the same methodology.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. @AP
    I meant national identity, not ethnic or tribal identity. A national identity is achieved when the majority of the population become literate in their national language and through universal schools adopt and take for granted a national identity and story. All of the modern European nations have such national identities.

    It's not the same thing as "we are locals who speak different from those other guys." That situation involves much more malleability. And it is not the same thing as when local elites (but not illiterate peasants, the masses) have achieved this - the elites can be arrested, killed or exiled.

    Despite attempts at Russification Poles, Balts and Ukrainian never became Russians because these peoples achieved mass literacy as Poles, Balts and Ukrainians. Russia could have assimilated all of these peoples had it engaged in aggressive Russification in, say, the early 1700s. But the Russian state itself was not nationalist at that time so this is an impossible scenario. And even by 1910 it was too late. Galicia was 100% literate among young people, with Ukrainian orientation (it's why Polish attempts to assimilate Galicians just resulted in a violent murderous backlash), and the Ukrainian countryside in the Russian Empire was full of activists spreading the Ukrainian nationalist gospel, setting up reading rooms, etc. In the 1917 elections 70% of people in ethnic Ukrainian regions were voting for Ukrainian nationalist parties.

    I was not aware of Scania's situation. It may indeed be a counterexample. Scania had been part of Denmark but were the masses (not just local elites) conscious of themselves as Scanians or Danes, literate in the Danish language (not just speaking it), believers in a Scanian or Danish national history? In other words, was it a population with a strong Danish national idea? Or were they just villagers who happened to speak a Danish dialect and who had a crude sense of being different from the Swedish outsiders.

    I don' think the Roman Empire was some sort of proto-Italian nationalist state.

    Wiki says most Sicilians still speak the local dialect amongst themselves, not Italian which they learn in school. Sicily had its own old pre-nationalist kingdom but it didn't seem to have a "Sicilian national identity" of its own prior to integration with Italy.

    You’re describing literacy rather than nationality. And yes, I realize that schooling was used (and is still in some countries) to build nationality.

    Do you think Joan of Arc, who was almost certainly illiterate, lacked a French national identity?

    Russification efforts started very late compared to earlier efforts in other countries and did not last very long, so the failure is not surprising.

    Wiki says most Sicilians still speak the local dialect amongst themselves, not Italian which they learn in school. Sicily had its own old pre-nationalist kingdom but it didn’t seem to have a “Sicilian national identity” of its own prior to integration with Italy.

    Sicilians themselves resented being incorporated into Two Sicilies and revolted. And the Sicilian dialect continues its decline.

    The Ukraine today would be a lot more like Sicily had the tragedy of 1917 not occurred.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    You’re describing literacy rather than nationality. And yes, I realize that schooling was used (and is still in some countries) to build nationality.
     
    Schooling is a necessary building block for creating a nationality.

    Do you think Joan of Arc, who was almost certainly illiterate, lacked a French national identity
     
    I would not describe her as some sort of French nationalist. She was aware of not being English, and of outsiders coming in, and she opposed them. As such she was more like Sitting Bull or Arminius than a nationalist.

    Modern nationalists certainly use these figures for their purposes when building up nationalist histories.

    In east Slavic there is a term "tyteshny." "From here." When pre-literate peasants were surveyed about their "nationality", many of them didn't know what to say and simply claimed to be "tuteshny." Such raw material, in Ukraine or Belarus or even Poland, could have been transformed into Russians or Ukrainians. But it hasn't existed since the late 19th century and even then only in isolated pockets.


    The Ukraine today would be a lot more like Sicily had the tragedy of 1917 not occurred
     
    Too late by then - there was already a widespread Ukrainian national idea. A that point you would have at best, from the Russian nationalist POV, a Catalonia situation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. @AP
    The European powers came together to crush the Boxer Rebellion, demonstrating pan-European solidarity. Yet this does not imply the idea of a "European nation."

    If the EU weren’t run by people who hate Europeans (and also enact very stupid monetary policies) a European nation would one day be feasible.

    China and India have been described as “civilization-states” before.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. AP says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    You're describing literacy rather than nationality. And yes, I realize that schooling was used (and is still in some countries) to build nationality.

    Do you think Joan of Arc, who was almost certainly illiterate, lacked a French national identity?

    Russification efforts started very late compared to earlier efforts in other countries and did not last very long, so the failure is not surprising.

    Wiki says most Sicilians still speak the local dialect amongst themselves, not Italian which they learn in school. Sicily had its own old pre-nationalist kingdom but it didn’t seem to have a “Sicilian national identity” of its own prior to integration with Italy.
     

    Sicilians themselves resented being incorporated into Two Sicilies and revolted. And the Sicilian dialect continues its decline.

    The Ukraine today would be a lot more like Sicily had the tragedy of 1917 not occurred.

    You’re describing literacy rather than nationality. And yes, I realize that schooling was used (and is still in some countries) to build nationality.

    Schooling is a necessary building block for creating a nationality.

    Do you think Joan of Arc, who was almost certainly illiterate, lacked a French national identity

    I would not describe her as some sort of French nationalist. She was aware of not being English, and of outsiders coming in, and she opposed them. As such she was more like Sitting Bull or Arminius than a nationalist.

    Modern nationalists certainly use these figures for their purposes when building up nationalist histories.

    In east Slavic there is a term “tyteshny.” “From here.” When pre-literate peasants were surveyed about their “nationality”, many of them didn’t know what to say and simply claimed to be “tuteshny.” Such raw material, in Ukraine or Belarus or even Poland, could have been transformed into Russians or Ukrainians. But it hasn’t existed since the late 19th century and even then only in isolated pockets.

    The Ukraine today would be a lot more like Sicily had the tragedy of 1917 not occurred

    Too late by then – there was already a widespread Ukrainian national idea. A that point you would have at best, from the Russian nationalist POV, a Catalonia situation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson


    I would not describe her as some sort of French nationalist. She was aware of not being English, and of outsiders coming in, and she opposed them. As such she was more like Sitting Bull or Arminius than a nationalist.

    Modern nationalists certainly use these figures for their purposes when building up nationalist histories.

    In east Slavic there is a term “tyteshny.” “From here.” When pre-literate peasants were surveyed about their “nationality”, many of them didn’t know what to say and simply claimed to be “tuteshny.” Such raw material, in Ukraine or Belarus or even Poland, could have been transformed into Russians or Ukrainians. But it hasn’t existed since the late 19th century and even then only in isolated pockets.
     
    Joan of Arc described England as violating France. France was nearly five centuries old (with far older origins of course) in her lifetime and its Frankish predecessors almost a milennium old. Joan was from core France were the Langues d'oïl were spoken and Frankish manorialism was first practiced (Kingdom of Austrasia).

    The lady was French and proud of it:


    Of the love or hatred God has for the English, I know nothing, but I do know that they will all be thrown out of France, except those who die there.
     
    Meanwhile the war which the Angevins began as a dynastic war of Norman nobles ended up unifying the English once more and establishing a solid national identity based on hating the French, something which persists in English culture to this day. Note that the Law of Englishry was repealed three years after the start of the war.

    You're projecting Eastern Europe's history on Western Europe. Agriculture, civilization, and identity are much older in Western Europe.

    Take "Macedonians" for instance. These south slavs just suddenly decided like a 100 years ago that they were "Macedonians" for some bizarre reason. Since many of their lords would've been Turkish Moslem Beys no doubt there was not much consciousness there until recently.


    Too late by then – there was already a widespread Ukrainian national idea. A that point you would have at best, from the Russian nationalist POV, a Catalonia situation.
     
    Scanians were literate Danes who felt themselves Danish. Scanians kept signing up for the Danish Army or otherwise worked to assist the Danes in post-1658 wars. Ethnocide was a success regardless.

    You might want to try reading the Bible. The Old Testament is after all a legendary chronicle of the Jewish nation in the Bronze Age, and in it are described other nations such the Caananites. Chapter 10 of Genesis provides the Table of Nations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. songbird says:
    @Thorfinnsson


    1.) CCP retains control of large chunks of the economy and will never give it up
     
    This is double-edged. The cons are well known (SOEs tend to be less productive), but there are pros as well. SOEs can be used for politically important but uneconomic (or too grand/risky) projects--OBOR for instance. And it prevents the bourgeoisie from controlling the state, which is probably a good thing in the era of cheap travel (and thus immigration).


    2.) low fertility rate (better than importing hordes of hostile savages)
     
    Not optimal but a problem faced by all industrial peoples, and China will still have a workforce of ~750 million people by mid-century anyway.


    3.) perhaps, an Asian mindset? (communal => socialistic)
     
    Double-edged once again.


    #3 is really a question. The question is, why does Japan have the highest debt to GDP in the world? South Korea and Taiwan don’t, but they face the constant threat of invasion, so have different incentives.
     
    The basic reason is a failed policy response to the collapse of the famous 1980s bubble. If Japan had done what the Swedes did it would have a "normal" (state) debt to GDP ratio.

    Anyhow this is not really a problem as evidenced by Japan's ultra-low interest rates. The debt is also completely Yen-denominated, half-owned by gov't agencies, and Japan is the world's largest creditor nation.

    People just get worked up into knots about government debt (and, frankly, debt period) because they don't understand money.

    People just get worked up into knots about government debt

    Debt is an important indicator in general. Modern examples: Venezuela, Greece, Zimbabwe. The US has its own public liabilities (like pension shortfalls) that will have enormous future political consequences.

    Japanese debt obviously is not equivalent, for various reasons, but regardless of how one views it, I think it really serves as an important reminder of the incredible bubble that was created. Japan seemed set on a stratospheric rise. If I recall, with incredible absurdity, Tokyo real estate was valued more than the whole of California. How could such a thing even be possible? I don’t mean mathematically; I mean psychologically. The distortion was obviously bigger than the Japanese political leadership.

    If there is any chance this is a special Asian susceptibility, then China has similar factors to 1980s Japan, with some (from Communism) obviously much worse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson

    Debt is an important indicator in general. Modern examples: Venezuela, Greece, Zimbabwe. The US has its own public liabilities (like pension shortfalls) that will have enormous future political consequences.

    Japanese debt obviously is not equivalent, for various reasons, but regardless of how one views it, I think it really serves as an important reminder of the incredible bubble that was created. Japan seemed set on a stratospheric rise. If I recall, with incredible absurdity, Tokyo real estate was valued more than the whole of California. How could such a thing even be possible? I don’t mean mathematically; I mean psychologically. The distortion was obviously bigger than the Japanese political leadership.

    If there is any chance this is a special Asian susceptibility, then China has similar factors to 1980s Japan, with some (from Communism) obviously much worse.
     

    It's not the overall level of debt that's the problem, it's the ability to service that debt. In Japan the ability to service the debt is not in question at all.

    Greece, as a member of the Eurozone, is not a sovereign currency issuer. Therefore Greece faces a budget constraint comparable to what countries on the gold standard did. As a country with a current account deficit it therefore required a capital account surplus to balance its books and service its debt. After the financial crisis that capital disappeared, hence the debt crisis and endless austerity. Such a thing is not possible in Japan. The constraint there is instead inflation, which obviously is not an issue.

    Venezuela and Zimbabwe aren't even worth discussing as they are countries run and inhabited by simians.

    The bubble was indeed incredible, and I've heard it said that the imperial palace alone was valued more than all land in California. Such a thing is possible because of the Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) and as such asset price manias are fairly common. People see others around them getting rich (on paper) and feel anxiety about not getting rich themselves. So they convince themselves that "this time it's different". Lenders feed the bubble as they don't want to lose out to competitors and tell themselves the same thing, and to lenders every loan they make is an asset. Look at crypto recently.

    Hyman Minsky explained this in considerable detail. Stability itself in fact produces instability, because long periods of stability cause people to become more tolerant of risk. Regulation is not necessarily a solution, because stability also leads to the promotion of market-friendly regulators and the election of market-friendly politicians.

    Asians do love gambling, but asset price manias and speculation are hardly unique to them.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. Randal says:
    @AP

    By Greek ideas at the time all Greek speaking people were Greeks, as well, and the rest were barbarians. The fact that Athenians fought with Thebans or Spartans didn’t make either not Greek.
     
    Correct, just as up to the mid 20th century Europeans all saw themselves as Europeans and most others as barbarians or savages. This does not imply the existence of Greek or European "nationalism."

    You are correct that vague ethnic solidarity existed long before modern nationalism, but this was not nationalism.

    "On the contrary this is precisely nationalism, just not modern nation-state nationalism."
     
    Nationalism is by definition nation-state nationalism. The term nationalism was first used in the 1830s and coincided with the rise of nation-states.

    It grew out of and overlaps older ideas such as patriotism or tribalism but is not the same as those things. The fact that modern nationalists look to pre-nationalist figures as heroes and incorporate them into their mythologies does not mean that those people were nationalists. Frederick the Great was certainly a devoted patriot of Prussia but he was no German nationalist, though German nationalists used him.

    To quote Lukacs:

    Patriotism is the love of a particular land, with its particular traditions; nationalism is the love of something less tangible, of the myth of a “people”, justifying many things, a political and ideological substitute for religion. Patriotism is old-fashioned (and, at time and in some places, aristocratic); nationalism is modern and populist. In one sense patriotic and national consciousness may be similar; but in anther sense, more and more apparent after 1870, national consciousness began to affect more and more people who, generally, had been immune to that before—as, for example, many people within the multinational empire of Austria-Hungary. It went deeper than class consciousness. Here and there it superseded religious affiliations, too.

    :::::::::::

    In pre-nationalist Ukraine, Orthodox Ukrainians slaughtered Uniate Ukrainians. Ukrainian magnates (Orthodox as well as Catholic) fought Ukrainian peasants and lesser nobles. But the era of nationalism, Ukrainian Orthodox and Uniates of all social groups have been united against Russians (and before that, Poles).

    Correct, just as up to the mid 20th century Europeans all saw themselves as Europeans and most others as barbarians or savages. This does not imply the existence of Greek or European “nationalism.”

    Yes it does, or more precisely it reflects the existence and centrality to modern nation-state nationalism of what modern Greek and European nationalism was built upon.

    Though European identity has never been a significant force culturally or as widely and self-consciously adopted as was Greek identity in ancient Greece. But it could be, given the right policies and circumstances over a few generations. (I don’t mean by that to endorse it – it would be anathema to me, but it’s foolish imo to dismiss the potential danger of it).

    Nationalism is by definition nation-state nationalism. The term nationalism was first used in the 1830s and coincided with the rise of nation-states.

    At root it is the same thing, just manifesting in a different context. But imo it’s important to maintain the connection, because otherwise nationalism can be dismissed as a modern innovation with no real roots.

    I think distinctions between patriotism and nationalism, such as the one you quote, are of questionable utility. Mostly they are created, in my experience, to allow people to draw a distinction between “good” nationalism (what they like) and “bad” nationalism (what they don’t like).

    In pre-nationalist Ukraine, Orthodox Ukrainians slaughtered Uniate Ukrainians. Ukrainian magnates (Orthodox as well as Catholic) fought Ukrainian peasants and lesser nobles. But the era of nationalism, Ukrainian Orthodox and Uniates of all social groups have been united against Russians (and before that, Poles).

    When the priority is an external enemy, nations unite as the Greeks did (with notable exceptions generally regarded as traitors or at any rate as people who bowed to force majeure) against the Persians. When that priority is not there, they fight amongst themselves. I see nothing different there between what you describe as the nationalist and the pre-nationalist eras.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    At root it is the same thing, just manifesting in a different context. But imo it’s important to maintain the connection, because otherwise nationalism can be dismissed as a modern innovation with no real roots.
     
    Nationalism certainly has roots. And there are worse things than nationalism.

    When the priority is an external enemy, nations unite as the Greeks did (with notable exceptions generally regarded as traitors or at any rate as people who bowed to force majeure) against the Persians. When that priority is not there, they fight amongst themselves. I see nothing different there between what you describe as the nationalist and the pre-nationalist eras.
     
    In pre-nationalist Ukraine, Ukrainian Uniates and princes were allied with Poles in slaughtering Ukrainian peasants and lesser nobles; Ukrainian peasants and lesser nobles were allied with Tatars in slaughtering Uniates.

    My knowledge of German history is fuzzier, but it seems to me that in pre-nationalist Germany German Protestants united with Swedes in slaughtering German Catholics.

    Such actions would be hard to imagine in nationalist times.

    I suppose the idea that some external force has to be the primary enemy is itself a product of nationalism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. songbird says:
    @AP
    The European powers came together to crush the Boxer Rebellion, demonstrating pan-European solidarity. Yet this does not imply the idea of a "European nation."

    The European powers came together to crush the Boxer Rebellion

    To further your point, Japan was also involved. Not only in the crushing, but also in the cooperative defense of the foreign civilians and converts who were trapped. It was in Japanese interests.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. AP says:
    @Randal

    Correct, just as up to the mid 20th century Europeans all saw themselves as Europeans and most others as barbarians or savages. This does not imply the existence of Greek or European “nationalism.”
     
    Yes it does, or more precisely it reflects the existence and centrality to modern nation-state nationalism of what modern Greek and European nationalism was built upon.

    Though European identity has never been a significant force culturally or as widely and self-consciously adopted as was Greek identity in ancient Greece. But it could be, given the right policies and circumstances over a few generations. (I don't mean by that to endorse it - it would be anathema to me, but it's foolish imo to dismiss the potential danger of it).

    Nationalism is by definition nation-state nationalism. The term nationalism was first used in the 1830s and coincided with the rise of nation-states.
     
    At root it is the same thing, just manifesting in a different context. But imo it's important to maintain the connection, because otherwise nationalism can be dismissed as a modern innovation with no real roots.

    I think distinctions between patriotism and nationalism, such as the one you quote, are of questionable utility. Mostly they are created, in my experience, to allow people to draw a distinction between "good" nationalism (what they like) and "bad" nationalism (what they don't like).


    In pre-nationalist Ukraine, Orthodox Ukrainians slaughtered Uniate Ukrainians. Ukrainian magnates (Orthodox as well as Catholic) fought Ukrainian peasants and lesser nobles. But the era of nationalism, Ukrainian Orthodox and Uniates of all social groups have been united against Russians (and before that, Poles).
     
    When the priority is an external enemy, nations unite as the Greeks did (with notable exceptions generally regarded as traitors or at any rate as people who bowed to force majeure) against the Persians. When that priority is not there, they fight amongst themselves. I see nothing different there between what you describe as the nationalist and the pre-nationalist eras.

    At root it is the same thing, just manifesting in a different context. But imo it’s important to maintain the connection, because otherwise nationalism can be dismissed as a modern innovation with no real roots.

    Nationalism certainly has roots. And there are worse things than nationalism.

    When the priority is an external enemy, nations unite as the Greeks did (with notable exceptions generally regarded as traitors or at any rate as people who bowed to force majeure) against the Persians. When that priority is not there, they fight amongst themselves. I see nothing different there between what you describe as the nationalist and the pre-nationalist eras.

    In pre-nationalist Ukraine, Ukrainian Uniates and princes were allied with Poles in slaughtering Ukrainian peasants and lesser nobles; Ukrainian peasants and lesser nobles were allied with Tatars in slaughtering Uniates.

    My knowledge of German history is fuzzier, but it seems to me that in pre-nationalist Germany German Protestants united with Swedes in slaughtering German Catholics.

    Such actions would be hard to imagine in nationalist times.

    I suppose the idea that some external force has to be the primary enemy is itself a product of nationalism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird
    If your semantics depend on the leadership being in favor of co-ethnics, then by that definition the West is clearly post national. The leaders may not be slaughtering their own people, but if you take the view that coercive extraction is violence, then there is still a high level of violence involved.

    The days we are living in are quite like the King of Leinster inviting the Normans into Ireland to help regain his crown. There is less killing and maiming, but the political aspect is largely the same.
    , @Randal

    And there are worse things than nationalism.
     
    For sure. In general I'm in favour of it.

    In pre-nationalist Ukraine, Ukrainian Uniates and princes were allied with Poles in slaughtering Ukrainian peasants and lesser nobles; Ukrainian peasants and lesser nobles were allied with Tatars in slaughtering Uniates.

    My knowledge of German history is fuzzier, but it seems to me that in pre-nationalist Germany German Protestants united with Swedes in slaughtering German Catholics.

    Such actions would be hard to imagine in nationalist times.
     
    Isn't it notorious (if perhaps controversial around here) that members of some eastern European nations quite recently joined with German invaders to slaughter fellow subjects of their own states who were perceived as different, with some enthusiasm?

    How is that not much the same thing?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. songbird says:
    @AP

    At root it is the same thing, just manifesting in a different context. But imo it’s important to maintain the connection, because otherwise nationalism can be dismissed as a modern innovation with no real roots.
     
    Nationalism certainly has roots. And there are worse things than nationalism.

    When the priority is an external enemy, nations unite as the Greeks did (with notable exceptions generally regarded as traitors or at any rate as people who bowed to force majeure) against the Persians. When that priority is not there, they fight amongst themselves. I see nothing different there between what you describe as the nationalist and the pre-nationalist eras.
     
    In pre-nationalist Ukraine, Ukrainian Uniates and princes were allied with Poles in slaughtering Ukrainian peasants and lesser nobles; Ukrainian peasants and lesser nobles were allied with Tatars in slaughtering Uniates.

    My knowledge of German history is fuzzier, but it seems to me that in pre-nationalist Germany German Protestants united with Swedes in slaughtering German Catholics.

    Such actions would be hard to imagine in nationalist times.

    I suppose the idea that some external force has to be the primary enemy is itself a product of nationalism.

    If your semantics depend on the leadership being in favor of co-ethnics, then by that definition the West is clearly post national. The leaders may not be slaughtering their own people, but if you take the view that coercive extraction is violence, then there is still a high level of violence involved.

    The days we are living in are quite like the King of Leinster inviting the Normans into Ireland to help regain his crown. There is less killing and maiming, but the political aspect is largely the same.

    Read More
    • Agree: AP
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. @songbird

    People just get worked up into knots about government debt
     
    Debt is an important indicator in general. Modern examples: Venezuela, Greece, Zimbabwe. The US has its own public liabilities (like pension shortfalls) that will have enormous future political consequences.

    Japanese debt obviously is not equivalent, for various reasons, but regardless of how one views it, I think it really serves as an important reminder of the incredible bubble that was created. Japan seemed set on a stratospheric rise. If I recall, with incredible absurdity, Tokyo real estate was valued more than the whole of California. How could such a thing even be possible? I don't mean mathematically; I mean psychologically. The distortion was obviously bigger than the Japanese political leadership.

    If there is any chance this is a special Asian susceptibility, then China has similar factors to 1980s Japan, with some (from Communism) obviously much worse.

    Debt is an important indicator in general. Modern examples: Venezuela, Greece, Zimbabwe. The US has its own public liabilities (like pension shortfalls) that will have enormous future political consequences.

    Japanese debt obviously is not equivalent, for various reasons, but regardless of how one views it, I think it really serves as an important reminder of the incredible bubble that was created. Japan seemed set on a stratospheric rise. If I recall, with incredible absurdity, Tokyo real estate was valued more than the whole of California. How could such a thing even be possible? I don’t mean mathematically; I mean psychologically. The distortion was obviously bigger than the Japanese political leadership.

    If there is any chance this is a special Asian susceptibility, then China has similar factors to 1980s Japan, with some (from Communism) obviously much worse.

    It’s not the overall level of debt that’s the problem, it’s the ability to service that debt. In Japan the ability to service the debt is not in question at all.

    Greece, as a member of the Eurozone, is not a sovereign currency issuer. Therefore Greece faces a budget constraint comparable to what countries on the gold standard did. As a country with a current account deficit it therefore required a capital account surplus to balance its books and service its debt. After the financial crisis that capital disappeared, hence the debt crisis and endless austerity. Such a thing is not possible in Japan. The constraint there is instead inflation, which obviously is not an issue.

    Venezuela and Zimbabwe aren’t even worth discussing as they are countries run and inhabited by simians.

    The bubble was indeed incredible, and I’ve heard it said that the imperial palace alone was valued more than all land in California. Such a thing is possible because of the Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) and as such asset price manias are fairly common. People see others around them getting rich (on paper) and feel anxiety about not getting rich themselves. So they convince themselves that “this time it’s different”. Lenders feed the bubble as they don’t want to lose out to competitors and tell themselves the same thing, and to lenders every loan they make is an asset. Look at crypto recently.

    Hyman Minsky explained this in considerable detail. Stability itself in fact produces instability, because long periods of stability cause people to become more tolerant of risk. Regulation is not necessarily a solution, because stability also leads to the promotion of market-friendly regulators and the election of market-friendly politicians.

    Asians do love gambling, but asset price manias and speculation are hardly unique to them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. Anonymous[210] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr. Hack
    The 'Butcher of Ukraine' a Ukrainian? He was born in Russia, his name is Russian sounding, not Ukrainian (in Ukrainian, his name would simply be 'Khrushch'). Having a fondness for borshch and Ukrainian women doesn't make one a Ukrainian!

    Gerad here.This is really dumb. If we go on this idiotic logic then Russia has had Ukrainians in charge of Saint Petersburg, numerous other governors in different regions,mayors,security services,PM…..and I don’t know where to start if we do russian names in positions of power in the fictitious country of ukraine, because the list is so vast.

    The level of intermarriage is that high it makes your argument particularly dumb and all but confirms there is no separate ethnicity

    And khrushchev was obviously ukropian you clown

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    there is no separate ethnicity
     
    Okay Do Do bird! But try explaining that to the smart guys running the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute. They all must be laboiring under false pretenses? You should write them a letter and ask them to close down their three chairs in Ukrainian studies. Good luck with that!

    http://www.huri.harvard.edu/

    You know what, don't waste your time writing that letter, and I wont waste my time trying to have a dialogue with a dope like you.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. @Sean

    https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/01/red-and-black

    https://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/640-width/images/2016/01/blogs/graphic-detail/20160123_woc888_1.png

    IN DECEMBER 1979 Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan. The oil price at the time was at its peak of $101 a barrel. The high price combined with fast-growing production of oil in Western Siberia provided the Soviet Union with unprecedented revenues. Instead of saving this money for a rainy day, the Soviet government financed foreign adventures and imports of food. Seven years later the Brent crude oil price fell to around $30 a barrel and Mikhail Gorbachev launched the policy of Perestroika (restructuring) and convergence with the West. The high oil price coincided with Soviet aggression, but as the price fell the Soviet Union became more democratic and friendly to the West.

    That the oil price correlated with Soviet politics is not surprising – in the uncompetitive command economy oil and gas revenues accounted for 67% of all exports. But the correlation remained just as strong after the end of the Soviet Union and transition to a market economy, and oil and gas remained the main source of Russian export revenues. When Vladimir Putin came to power the price of oil was $25 a barrel. Mr Putin allied himself with America, did not object to NATO’s enlargement that took in the Baltic States and saw September 11th 2001 as Russia’s chance to get closer to NATO. Seven years later, when the oil price was at $105 a barrel, Russia invaded Georgia, and its relationship with America deteriorated dramatically. Thanks to the global financial crisis, oil prices soon fell to $67 a barrel, and Russia accepted Barack Obama's attempted "reset" (though that effort soon went sour).

     

    Russia's problem is oil prices, and those are very dependent on Saudi Arabia which has repeatedly tried to weaken post revolutionary Iran by driving down the price of oil. The forthcoming destruction of Iran by America will be good for Russia, but bad for America.

    I suppose that the prolonged loss of much of Iran’s oil production / export will raise prices so much that it would be a net benefit to those regions of the USA where a major volume of oil and gas is produced.

    Namely Texas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Alaska, and Wyoming, and to a lesser extent Louisiana, Colorado, and Utah.

    Then again, taxpayers in those States — meaning the disproportionately white and Asian 50% of the population who actually pay federal income tax — will be paying big time for the increased unemployment benefits, food stamps, Medicaid, and crime costs in the other States, where fuel, groceries, and other goods will inflate in price at least for a time, perhaps substantially.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    The Russians will be fat and happy, but as I said the US will suffer: good, hard times make hard people and something far greater that cheap groceries is the ultimate objective, which can be achieved thus:-

    1. Move embassy to Jerusalem to give Israel confidence in the West . Done
    2. Attack and crush Iran, then fund separatist movements to fragment it, thereby eliminating the last state military DETERRENT TO expulsions.
    3. Allow ISIS into Jordan, creating a war that transfers the bulk of of West Bank Arabs can take place under the cover of, and allow weapons and terrorist cadres into into the west bank so that a massive armed Arab revolt can justify exceptional, but nonetheless proportionate, measures.
    4. Expel most of the West Bank Arabs (leaving a substantial number of tame ones so the world can see Israel has not gone Nazi) . Western Jewish influence will be neutralized as the mainspring behind the Zeroth amendment movement, and the minimally compensated repatriation of alien wedge immigrant populations from Western counties back to their ancestral homelands will become at least thinkable. Israeli would like some of its people back too.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. @AP
    Normally I don't respond your nonsense but:

    Ukrainians learn less then every ethnic group in America…..that’s a fact
     
    Medium household income for non-Hispanic whites in the US in 2016 was $65,041. Source:

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/233324/median-household-income-in-the-united-states-by-race-or-ethnic-group/

    In 2016 median household income for Ukrainian Americans was $72,449