The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Why I am Not Celebrating Victory Day
🔊 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

The idea that the pomp and pageantry around the annual festivities commemorating Victory in the Great Patriotic War constitute a sort of foundational myth of the Russian state is a popular one.

There are any number of articles on the Internet making this argument, mostly from the last few years, though come to think of it, I was writing very similar things back in 2010:

The Kremlin is faced with a dilemma in reconciling Stalin with Victory. Promoting the Victory isn’t only feelgood propaganda. It is very useful. It stokes the social cohesion that Russia needs to consolidate itself, and to actualize her shift towards sobornost’ (the catch-all term for a deep sense of internal peace and unity between races, religions, sexes, etc, within a society). It also creates powerful bonds with other peoples of the erstwhile USSR, buttressing the Kremlin’s drive to (re)gather the Russian lands. For this reason, under Putin, Russia has devoted lavish attention to the public spectacle of Victory. The Victory parades in Moscow become ever more impressive, – indeed, imperial – with every passing year. Under the initiative of Kremlin-affiliated youth movements, the Ribbon of Saint George was popularized as a symbol of Victory since 2005. This harkens back to the Medal For the Victory Over Germany, which was awarded after the war to all the soldiers, officers and partisans who directly participated in live combat actions against the European Axis. A medal dominated by Stalin’s visage.

Since then, the trend has, if anything, accelerated, with the grassroots emergence of the Immortal Regiments marches, a much more humane and introspective ritual that emphasizes the human costs of the war to ordinary Russians.

But this was in 2010. The current year is 2018, and a lot of things have become much clearer since then, often in a depressing direction. It’s time for a reconsideration.

1. The Soviets themselves didn’t make a big deal of it.

The main holiday under the Marxist-Leninist regime was always May 1, the internationalist labor holiday. This is hardly surprising – the Soviets thought they were boldly marching to the victory of the global proletarian revolution, and considering Victory Day as the apex of their history would have seemed insane to them. It’s worth stressing that May 9 only became a public holiday in 1965, which also marked the second ever Victory parade in Moscow. The third was in 1985.

1985. Only the third ever Victory Day parade in Moscow.

It was only when the Soviet order started disintegrating that Victory Day started becoming sacralized. The next one appeared in 1990, on the eve of the USSR’s collapse. And they became yearly event in 1995, at the absolute nadir of Russia’s decline. Essentially, the post-sovok elites created it as a palliative to draw attention away from the fact that everything else had been lost – and their own looting. Consequently, it is worth noting that the vast majority of the veterans of the Great Patriotic War lived most of their lives without Victory Day being an annual religious event.

Now one might rejoinder that the non-Communist Russian patriot might rejoinder that Victory Day is by far not the worst Schelling point around which to base modern Russian identity – after all, it has connotations of patriotism, unity, self-sacrifice. The following points will address this.

2. You cannot sanitize Victory from Communists.

You can certainly try, and the Kremlin certainly does, but ultimately Stalin is as canonical a figure as Churchill in Britain, or F.D. Roosevelt in the US. Dissociating it from Communism is hardly feasible when the current denizens of the Kremlin watch over the Victory parade from a cheap cardboard pedestal, while the soldiers and war machines drive past the imposing granite monolith that is the tomb of the malevolent founder of the Soviet state, with his name prominently inscribed upon it. The former seems fleeting, insecure; the latter powerful, eternal. At least in their current form, Victory Day celebrations are a permanently running, lowkey legitimization of the multinational mafia that took Russia hostage and killed millions of Russians along with Hitler.

3. It is a celebration of idiocy.

The entire ruinous war would have been averted if not for the decades of Bolshevik treason, extremism, and stupidity that had preceded it and helped lead to it.

Russia was slated to be on the winning side of World War I. The Bolsheviks, and especially Lenin, need to take the credit from grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory. Conversely, Germany’s defeat would have been all the more comprehensive, making its future resurgence – with pro-Russian kingdoms installed in Bohemia and Poland – all the more improbable.

Without the memory of the Red Terror and the reality of Stalin’s tyranny, there would have been no bourgeois reaction against Leftism and “weak” democracies in Europe; the Nazi coup was an incredibly close-run thing as it was. Even a relative “moderate” at the Soviet helm, such as Nikolay Bukharin, who was open to cooperating with Social Democrats, would have been sufficient to forestall that timeline.

Even all that aside, a Russia that avoided a decade of lost industrial development due to the Civil War, around 15 million deaths due to the Civil War and recurring famines, a sullen peasantry that was initially willing to welcome the Germans before their depredations became known, the Red Army purges, and the persecutions of Tsarist technical specialists would have been much better positioned to counter a German invasion, without the vast sacrifices (27 million Soviet dead) that they actually entailed.

map-schulte-1915-ww1

French post-war plans in 1915.

The USSR in 1945 merely acquired the territories that the Russian Empire would have otherwise acquired or vassalized after WW1 (minus Finland, Tsargrad, and Greater Armenia). Not that Russians ever benefited from it – in 1947, “victorious” Russia experienced another major famine with 1.5 million deaths (that’s thrice more than the worst famine under late Tsarism, but hardly anyone knows about it), because grain was requisitioned to feed the “defeated” Germans in order to politically solidify the GDR. It then fostered hate against itself by locking the countries it had occupied, along with itself, into four decades of economic idiocy – before proceeding to give it all away in exchange for empty promises.

This is what “Victory” amounted to. Pure, distilled idiocy. SO WHAT ARE WE EVEN CELEBRATING?

4. It fosters the spread of idiotic attitudes and values.

Intelligent people, such as Americans, don’t want to die for their country – they want foreign bastards to die for theirs. Soviet cretins celebrate Russians dying for the “victory of the Soviet people against fascism.”

This leads to an entire complex of harmful and self-defeating attitudes.

First, it contributes to the sentiment that the guys in epaulettes – most personified by the Georgian mustachioed one – know best and cannot be questioned. This implicitly encourages subservience to power, even in the face of the most self-evident incompetence, corruption, and betrayal of national interests. Do you think that Mutko, Russia’s Sports Minister, who has overseen the discreding of Russia in international sports and has become a byword for incompetence and venality, isn’t qualified to manage a food stall let alone be promoted to the Deputy Prime Ministership in charge of housing? Do you think the pot-bellied 90 IQ cockroaches at Roskomnadzor should not have the divine right to determine what you can and cannot read? Too bad. You need to suck it up, because blind sacrifice for the glory of the country is the right thing to do.

Second, it deludes Russians into thinking that they died to “protect the world against fascism” or something similarly silly. In reality, they died – due to Communist incompetence, in far greater numbers than was necessary – to prevent themselves from being exterminated by Germans. After all, Stalin’s USSR was far more dangerous to Russians, even Communist ones, than Mussolini’s Italy, the birthplace of fascism, which over the two decades of its existence executed just nine people (most of them terrorists). This prevents Russians from clearly understanding the deep undercurrent of racial hatred that animates European Russophobia and fosters harmful delusions to this day, such as the absurd preoccupation with the German relationship.

5. It twists historical facts to impose a politically correct multinational ideology.

victory-placard

Walking through the Ekaterininsky Park in Moscow, near the Central Military Museum, one gets the distinct impression that it was Caucasians and Central Asians who won the war while Vanya drank vodka in the rear.

Reality was of course quite different.

soviet-military-deaths-ww2-by-percentage-of-ethnicity

The contributions of Central Asians were minor relative to their populations, and their presence often lowered rather than raised combat effectiveness (even in the late USSR, they were disproportionately assigned to the lowest-quality Class C rearguard divisions). Meanwhile, mobilization in the Muslim North Caucasus, especially Chechnya, failed entirely; collaboration was so extensive that deportation of their entire people to Kazakhstan was more humane than the “legalistic” alternative, which was the execution of most of their menfolk.

Still, history has always been used to service present-day political priorities, and as this constitutes multi-nationalism in the Russian Federation, everything else follows.

6. Even so, it is not even effective at that.

The Near Abroad is drifting away from Russia regardless, because few young Uzbeks are interested in “celebrating with tears in their eyes” what is to them the conclusion of a foreign country’s military campaign three generations ago.

In 2016, Kazakhstan canceled its Victory Day march even as it accelerated the transition to the Latin alphabet. The Immortal Regiments marches, perhaps the one genuinely grassroots Russian expression of Victory, have been getting banned in Tajikistan (a quarter of its GDP generated by remittances from Russia) and now Belorussia (which enjoys cheaper gas from Russia than Russians themselves).

Nor can Victory in WW2 be used as a vector of soft power – not when the vast majority of Westerners know of the USSR’s contributions though German generals’ war memoirs and believe that it was the Americans who were responsible for the defeat of Nazi Germany:

poll-ussr-usa-contributed-allied-victory-ww2

The East Europeans, and after the Maidan even official Ukraine (which now marks only the Western May 8 Victory Day, using the remembrance poppy it pilfered from Britain as its symbol), consider the Russian version of Victory Day as a disgusting celebration of Russian chauvinism and imperialism. At some level, these attitudes are of course understandable – the Communists robbed their national futures, just as they did Russia’s. But mention the Germans’ plans for them, and most will consider you a troll.

And it’s likely that, over time, Central Asia, Armenia, and Belorussia will follow in the same footsteps. All the signs are there.

Thanks to Russia’s loser status, its continued association with loser ideologies, and its catastrophic lack of any soft power (RT and Sputnik exist just to troll Westerners), things can hardly be otherwise.

7. People stuck in the past have no future.

Going back to the first point, recall that even the Soviets – blasting the first man into space and dreaming of world proletarian revolution – would have thought it insane to make Victory in WW2 the lynchpin of their history.

This is doubly insane for Russian civilization, which should not be confused with the entity presently calling itself the Russian Federation, which has always had trouble justifying its own existence.

In the past decade, the only addition to the national myth has been the reincorporation of Crimea, which was entirely right and proper, but it’s lame and gay to make what is ultimately just a marginal adjustment to Russia’s 17th century borders a cornerstone of the national ideology. Relative to the dreams and ambitions briefly unleashed by the Russian Spring in 2014, the blatantly politicized celebrations over Crimea – up to and including making its anniversary coincide with the date of Putin’s elections – sooner make a mockery of the entire affair.

Here are a few real national ideas worthy of Russian civilization:

  • The regathering of the Russian lands
  • Genetic IQ augmentation
  • Atomically blasting Imperial Russian Navy battleships off into space

These are all cool, WINNER ideas that self-respecting Russians can get behind.

Participating in this lame Soviet LOSER ritual, designed in its present form under Yeltsin to mask the fundamental hollowness of the Russian Federation – thanks but no thanks.

 
• Category: History • Tags: Russia, World War II 
Hide 647 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Well, harrrumph!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nadya
    It is stupid and a lie. That man has probably nothing to celebrate. My grandfather always celebrated the Victory Day meeting with his friends, the other veterans, they always putting on their awards and receiving gratitude and honour. We celebrate it the same way: to salute the memory of our defenders and remind ourselves of who are our moral compass and we should be worthy of their memory. The time this day was not celebrated and not even a holiday was during Khruschev, who hated Stalin and wanted to clean the memory of Stalin`s State great Victory out of the mind of the new generations. Breznev brought it back. And only the liberals of the 90-s, i.e. Yeltsin`s pigs, tried to diminish that day again. And it is a lie, it was not designed during Yeltsin`s times.
    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. DFH says:

    The regathering of the Russian lands

    lol, sort of delusional to think that the annexation of two irrelevant nations (which will never ever happen) even poorer and more decrepit than Russia herself is a WINNER idea.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    They are not "nations". lol They are just pieces of territory, parts of historical Russian heartland.

    You take 3 broken pieces of Russia, melt them, mold them, and, hopefully make a real country out of them - that's the idea.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. songbird says:

    I’ve often though that public holidays favor the political class. In the US: Presidents’ Day, or even more atrociously Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

    Any smart society would instead create ones that were counter to the political class. For example, I’d suggest something like Anti-Tax Day or Stupid Politician’s Day or Ancestors’ Day.

    Same is true of public works named after the political class. Nothing I know of is named after taxpayers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. utu says:

    Pretty courageous but it is hard to not agree.

    Read More
    • Agree: AP
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Silva says:

    Why’d there be a pro-Russian Bohemian kingdom instead of Czechoslovakia?

    Read More
    • Replies: @LH
    One of the ideas of Czech anti-Austrian opposition was to create independent kingdom ruled by some Romanov. This kingdom would naturally include more than Bohemia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. The Brits think they won WW2? By doing what, cowering and waiting for help? Thanks for the belly laugh today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    The only people fighting at one point as the Soviet Union supplied Nazi Germany with badly needed oil, not to mention enigma, the RN or the RAF and their contribution to containing Nazi Germany to a land power.

    Actually I find Remembrance Day here in Britain increasingly over the top, and the WWII mythology is pretty tedious anyway.
    , @Philip Owen
    In 1940, while the USSR was still supplying smuggled rubber to Germany, the UK broke the back of the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine robbing Germany of air dominance on the future Eastern Front and war supplies. In 1940 the UK alone out produced Germany in planes, tanks and ships. Canada added even more.

    In 1941, a third of the tanks defending Moscow were from Britain and Canada. Churchill started diverting ships from Canada to Murmansk from June onwards. Valentines may not have been the best tanks in the war but they were there when needed and started in cold weather. The USSR received 3000 Hurricanes before the USA got into gear not to mention many thousands of Bedford trucks. For free, not Lend Lease. A few KAMAZ apart, Russia still can't make trucks. The combined Italian/German armies were kept out of the Middle Eastern oil fields by Empire troops.

    The British/Canadian uranium centred A bomb programme was on the right track unlike the German one. Handing it to the US accelerated it two or three years. The British Empire had been pacifist. It was 4 or 5 years behind Germany in military build up but it was waiting for rescue less than Russia in 1941. By 1943 the UK had a strategic bomber. USSR never got close. Throwing away millions of men with stupid tactics was the Soviet way. Even though the USSR almost always outnumbered the Germans 3:1 in overall force strength, it took them years and vast losses to reclaim what the Germans had taken in months.

    Without Russia, the British Empire would have taken three or four years longer to beat Germany (assuming the USSR stopped supplying rubber, grain, fuel, steel and alloys to Germany as it did in 1940 & 41). The BE had a much bigger economy, better strategic weapons, not just planes,, radar, code breakers (battle of Kursk anyone), and the best heavy tanks of the war. The BE was simply much more mechanised than Germany.

    Soviet, excessive, sacrifice shortened the war and saved millions of British & Empire dead but the war could have been won other ways. Nukes for example.

    Of course Russia and France downplay the British contribution. They have reasons. But from 1939 (when the SU was a German ally) to 1942 the strategic resistance was British. Stalingrad killed far more people than El Alamein but Germans with oil and the Mediterranean (steam straight to the Kuban) would have been just as war losing for the, eventual, allies.

    You are a cretinous fascist probably not talking through your mouth.
    , @dfordoom

    The Brits think they won WW2?
     
    Of course they did. Thank God for Churchill. Without Churchill there would be no British Empire today. Had it not been for Churchill London today might be a city under foreign occupation.
    , @Yevardian
    To be fair, they deserve more credit for continuing the war during the years of 1940-1941, when they were almost completely isolated on the European continent, than the Americans, who only intervened in Europe once the Soviets were already winning.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. AP says:

    Well-written and mostly correct. Boy will this will trigger the Sovoks badly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Fortunately, not everyone in Ukraine has your view on the holiday.

    Particularly, please listen to the wiser comments of the veterans at 6:30 in the video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJK_r4lHQ_A
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Russia was slated to be on the winning side of World War I. The Bolsheviks, and especially Lenin, need to take the credit from grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory. Conversely, Germany’s defeat would have been all the more comprehensive, making its future resurgence – with pro-Russian kingdoms installed in Bohemia and Poland – all the more improbable.

    With all due respect, but this sounds quite megalomaniacal. And that Tsarist Russia would have been on the winning side of WW1 without the Bolshevik takeover (which can hardly be seen as just an accident of history) may be technically true, but hardly means that Russia could be considered to have “won” WW1 given its performance up to 1917.
    I also wonder how the western powers would have eventually reacted if Russia had become as preponderant as in your scenario…even the WW1 alliance was just an alliance of convenience after all, Britain had had serious issues with Russia just a few years before 1914. With Germany removed as an independent power centre, conflict between the western powers and Russia might just have come 30 years earlier than it did.

    Intelligent people, such as Americans, don’t want to die for their country

    Americans sit behind two vast oceans and only have unimportant countries like Canada and Mexico as neighbours, their uniquely blessed historical experience is hardly relevant for a comparison with Russia’s situation

    This prevents Russians from clearly understanding the deep undercurrent of racial hatred that animates European Russophobia

    Nazi Germany doesn’t equal Europe, certainly not today, you’re starting to sound like some SJW ethnic identity activist with things like this.
    It’s true that there are lots of negative views about Russia in Europe (indeed sometimes with a certain racial tinge, “scratch a Russian and you’ll find a Tatar”), but tbh I wonder how you can ignore Russia’s imperial past (and maybe present) as a factor in this. The perception of Russia as a vast, threatening other with imperial ambitions and a desire for gobbling up territory wasn’t without at least some basis in fact for much of the last 300 years.

    Here are a few real national ideas worthy of Russian civilization:

    The regathering of the Russian lands
    Genetic IQ augmentation
    Atomically blasting Imperial Russian Navy battleships off into space

    I’ll expect “Yevardian” and other commenters like him will tell you that you’re not really Russian, and reading things like this one might get the suspicion that they have a point.
    Overly cynical view of the May 9 celebrations imo.
    That being said, we’re clearly living in a transitional age, WW2 is now quite remote in the past (must be incredibly remote for people now in their early 20s), and soon all participants will be dead. This will have interesting implications for the politics of remembrance and identity over the next 20-30 years, not just in Russia.

    Read More
    • Agree: melanf, Beckow
    • Replies: @Mitleser

    With all due respect, but this sounds quite megalomaniacal. And that Tsarist Russia would have been on the winning side of WW1 without the Bolshevik takeover (which can hardly be seen as just an accident of history) may be technically true, but hardly means that Russia could be considered to have “won” WW1 given its performance up to 1917.
     
    Seconded.
    Russia would be kind of like Italy which was on winning side, but their performance was worse than Russia's and the victory not satisfying.
    , @inertial

    That being said, we’re clearly living in a transitional age, WW2 is now quite remote in the past (must be incredibly remote for people now in their early 20s), and soon all participants will be dead.
     
    That's what they were saying in the 1980s. During the Soviet times, Victory Day was an extremely meaningful holiday for the veterans or anyone else who remembered the war. But for the younger generations, even the the people then in their 40s, this was just a day off. So the conventional wisdom at the time was that the holiday will gradually lose its intense meaning and will become something like Memorial Day in the USA (basically, time for barbecue.)

    What actually happened was exactly the opposite.
    , @AP

    And that Tsarist Russia would have been on the winning side of WW1 without the Bolshevik takeover (which can hardly be seen as just an accident of history) may be technically true, but hardly means that Russia could be considered to have “won” WW1 given its performance up to 1917.
     
    Russia defeated 2 of the 3 main central powers - Austria-Hungary (siege of Przemysl was Verdun of the East - and Russia took it) and the Ottoman Empire, forcing the former to depend on Germany and grabbing about 10% of the latter's territory.

    Historiography of Russian performance in World War I is basically a victim of traditional Western Russophobes and pro-commie leftists piling on a country that they both hate.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. inertial says:

    The main holiday under the Marxist-Leninist regime was always May 1, the internationalist labor holiday.

    You’ve been misinformed. May 9 was the second most important Soviet holiday, after November 7. Military parades had nothing to do with it.

    I am yet to read the rest, but for now I’ll just say it again: You are a strange kind of Russian nationalist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @inertial

    Military parades had nothing to do with it.
     
    A far better criteria would be the number of songs written for the occasion. Victory Day was ahead of all other holidays by a mile.

    And it's not true that this holiday was becoming more "sacralized" as the end of the USSR drew near. In the last years of the Soviet Union the Sovoks celebrated the day just as they always did, while the Perestroika liberals started to say... pretty much what you said in this post.
    , @Mitleser
    AK is an Anglo-Californian Russian nationalist.
    , @Amarige
    'The main holiday under the Marxist-Leninist regime was always May 1'

    New Year was always the main holiday in USSR
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. JiriS says: • Website

    Regathering of Russian lands? Who will decide what is a Russian land? The Poles? Lithuanians? Latvians ? Estonians? Malorossiyskie ? Moldovans? Armenians? Georgians ? Azeris? Forget anything east of the Caspian. That’s Chinese territory now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    Russians will decide what is a Russian land. This is what a powerful people can do.

    Forget anything east of the Caspian.
     
    How about north of the Caspian? We might be able to engineer a partition. Only nothern part of Kazakhstan is considered Russian.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. inertial says:
    @inertial

    The main holiday under the Marxist-Leninist regime was always May 1, the internationalist labor holiday.
     
    You've been misinformed. May 9 was the second most important Soviet holiday, after November 7. Military parades had nothing to do with it.

    I am yet to read the rest, but for now I'll just say it again: You are a strange kind of Russian nationalist.

    Military parades had nothing to do with it.

    A far better criteria would be the number of songs written for the occasion. Victory Day was ahead of all other holidays by a mile.

    And it’s not true that this holiday was becoming more “sacralized” as the end of the USSR drew near. In the last years of the Soviet Union the Sovoks celebrated the day just as they always did, while the Perestroika liberals started to say… pretty much what you said in this post.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Intelligent people, such as Americans, don’t want to die for their country – they want foreign bastards to die for theirs

    There was no American national interest in regime change Iraq, just as there isn’t one in Syria now. In reality, what you’re describing is the Jewish/Israel lobby making Americans die for their foreign policy objectives in the Middle East. Your quote is remarkably naïve.

    BTW, have you noticed that Israel gets away being called ‘the US greatest ally’ but it never contributed any troops to serve in combat in the Iraq war, which its leaders (including the “leftists” like Ehud Barak) so energetically pushed?

    Of course, none of this doesn’t excuse Russian idiocy in celebrating an empire which was largely a self-defeating failure, but the notion that Americans are in control of their own foreign policy is laughable.

    More interestingly perhaps, even if you look at WWII there is a huge amount of propaganda to justify that involvement. But as John Mearsheimer pointed out, the so-called “isolationists” actually had an extremely strong case to make before the outbreak of the war. The US was essentially already involved in the war, through massive armament supply help to the UK, even before Germany declared war on them. By that point it was essentially just a formality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    American isolationists were just plastic Americans with German or Irish roots, not fully assimilated and more concerned with petty ethnic score settling. The proper Anglo-Saxon populace supported intervention.

    I used to agree with isolationism but I grew out of it. Even a small US military commitment to Europe would have changed the calculus, even for a genocidal maniac like Hitler. The US simply couldn't have kept their head down whilst Communism and it's evil twin reaction against it ran amok. The mistake was to be late, not to arrive at all.

    That French map is nuts, Napoleon's idea of little German statelets, bit like how they wrongly thought they could make West Germany a dependency through the EU.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Wow , I didn’t know that Belarus and Kazakhstan have cancelled the immortal regiment marches, that’s fucking insane. Even the NATO countries have these marches – except the Baltics and Poland I guess, but is that really what Lukashenko and Nazarbaev are going for?

    Otherwise, I sympathize with what you’ve written, except the “Intelligent people, such as Americans” part, that’s a bit much :D
    I can see where you’re coming from. But maybe for your own sake you can adopt a little more positive view on the matter. Sovok nostalgia or not, I don’t know if you realize that the May 9th parade in Moscow is pretty much the most awesome parade in the world. There is nothing else like it, at least in the white countries. Sovoks may not be cool, but these parades are fucking cool. I don’t think that most people outside Russia perceive it as some loser soviet nostalgia – more like a demonstration that Russia still has strength.
    And the celebration of victory is ultimately a celebration of survival and overcoming challenges and horrors that few other nations can even imagine.

    As a somewhat of a nazi I can’t celebrate the “defeat of fascism” because I think the world would be a better place if at least parts of those ideologies were still around. However, the survival of the Russian people and state seems a perfectly valid cause to celebrate if you are Russian. Even though your alternative history analysis is most probably correct, it still feels a bit like victim blaming.
    Commies or not, it’s entirely the fault of Hitler and the Nazis to decide to exterminate the Russians out of all people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    “Intelligent people, such as Americans”
     
    Intelligent people, such as Americans, speak only one language and are confident that they must protect the world by threatening Russia(mostly by surrounding it with military bases).

    I also found that sentence to be quite dubious.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Mitleser says:
    @German_reader

    Russia was slated to be on the winning side of World War I. The Bolsheviks, and especially Lenin, need to take the credit from grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory. Conversely, Germany’s defeat would have been all the more comprehensive, making its future resurgence – with pro-Russian kingdoms installed in Bohemia and Poland – all the more improbable.
     
    With all due respect, but this sounds quite megalomaniacal. And that Tsarist Russia would have been on the winning side of WW1 without the Bolshevik takeover (which can hardly be seen as just an accident of history) may be technically true, but hardly means that Russia could be considered to have "won" WW1 given its performance up to 1917.
    I also wonder how the western powers would have eventually reacted if Russia had become as preponderant as in your scenario...even the WW1 alliance was just an alliance of convenience after all, Britain had had serious issues with Russia just a few years before 1914. With Germany removed as an independent power centre, conflict between the western powers and Russia might just have come 30 years earlier than it did.


    Intelligent people, such as Americans, don’t want to die for their country
     
    Americans sit behind two vast oceans and only have unimportant countries like Canada and Mexico as neighbours, their uniquely blessed historical experience is hardly relevant for a comparison with Russia's situation

    This prevents Russians from clearly understanding the deep undercurrent of racial hatred that animates European Russophobia

     

    Nazi Germany doesn't equal Europe, certainly not today, you're starting to sound like some SJW ethnic identity activist with things like this.
    It's true that there are lots of negative views about Russia in Europe (indeed sometimes with a certain racial tinge, "scratch a Russian and you'll find a Tatar"), but tbh I wonder how you can ignore Russia's imperial past (and maybe present) as a factor in this. The perception of Russia as a vast, threatening other with imperial ambitions and a desire for gobbling up territory wasn't without at least some basis in fact for much of the last 300 years.

    Here are a few real national ideas worthy of Russian civilization:

    The regathering of the Russian lands
    Genetic IQ augmentation
    Atomically blasting Imperial Russian Navy battleships off into space

     

    I'll expect "Yevardian" and other commenters like him will tell you that you're not really Russian, and reading things like this one might get the suspicion that they have a point.
    Overly cynical view of the May 9 celebrations imo.
    That being said, we're clearly living in a transitional age, WW2 is now quite remote in the past (must be incredibly remote for people now in their early 20s), and soon all participants will be dead. This will have interesting implications for the politics of remembrance and identity over the next 20-30 years, not just in Russia.

    With all due respect, but this sounds quite megalomaniacal. And that Tsarist Russia would have been on the winning side of WW1 without the Bolshevik takeover (which can hardly be seen as just an accident of history) may be technically true, but hardly means that Russia could be considered to have “won” WW1 given its performance up to 1917.

    Seconded.
    Russia would be kind of like Italy which was on winning side, but their performance was worse than Russia’s and the victory not satisfying.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Mitleser says:
    @inertial

    The main holiday under the Marxist-Leninist regime was always May 1, the internationalist labor holiday.
     
    You've been misinformed. May 9 was the second most important Soviet holiday, after November 7. Military parades had nothing to do with it.

    I am yet to read the rest, but for now I'll just say it again: You are a strange kind of Russian nationalist.

    AK is an Anglo-Californian Russian nationalist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH
    Reminiscent of the 'Chinese' nationalists who don't actually live in China
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Mr. Hack says:

    Here are a few real national ideas worthy of Russian civilization:

    The regathering of the Russian lands

    So, tell us Anatoly, how exactly will this ‘regathering’ (of something that never really existed) take place? Will Ukraine continue to exist as a separated state and nationality? I’ve been wating for close to two years for you to present some coherent ideas regarding this ‘national idea’, and yet it seems that it’s you that has been taking the ‘gay and lame’ way out by remaining silent?

    TWO YEARS NOW?…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. Mitleser says:

    Here are a few real national ideas worthy of Russian civilization:

    What is your stance toward the development of North and Far East as national ideas?
    Too feasible and normie-esque?
    Too tied to the USSR?

    Your Solzhenitsyn supported it.

    «The North-East is our vector, chartered long ago for Russia’s natural progress and development…

    The North-East is a reminder that we, Russia, are the North-East of the planet! Our ocean is the Artic, not the Indian one, we are not the Mediterranean, we are not Africa, and we have no business there! Our hands, our sacrifice, our labor, our love is needed by these limitless spaces, recklessly abandoned to freeze in neglect for four centuries…

    The North-East is the key to solving many allegedly unsolvable Russian problems… Its spaces give us a way out of the global technological crisis… Its cold, mostly frozen spaces are yet unready for agriculture and would require an immense investment of energy – but the very depths of the North-East conceal this energy, which we haven’t yet put to waste…

    The North-East is larger than its name and deeper than its geography. The North-East would mean that Russia has eagerly taken the route of SELF-RESTRAINT, a choice of depth and not surface, an inward, not an outward choice. It would mean directing all of the citizens’ development – national, social, educational, family, and personal – toward an internal, not external prosperity.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich

    What is your stance toward the development of North and Far East as national ideas?
     
    If by 'development' you mean building oil rigs/drilling holes in the ground, then Russia is doing this already. Otherwise, it's really dumb idea, dumping money into territories, where nobody wants to life.

    Do you fancy living beyond the Arctic circle, Mitleser? -50°C winters, eh?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Sam says:

    Given that I consider Anatoly to be just about the most interesting nationalist intellectual of any country, I would love hear his plans for Russia. In other words, suppose he was at the helm of the Russian Federation and he were to lay out a realistic long term plan for Russia, what would it look like?

    I’m thinking in terms of the big areas of foreign, tech, social, cultural, and economic policy. Should make for a very interesting, or series of, post(s).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Any answer must include a Mecha-Tsar presiding over Orthodox-liturgy blessed artificial wombs and genemodded bears.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Spisarevski
    Wow , I didn't know that Belarus and Kazakhstan have cancelled the immortal regiment marches, that's fucking insane. Even the NATO countries have these marches - except the Baltics and Poland I guess, but is that really what Lukashenko and Nazarbaev are going for?

    Otherwise, I sympathize with what you've written, except the "Intelligent people, such as Americans" part, that's a bit much :D
    I can see where you're coming from. But maybe for your own sake you can adopt a little more positive view on the matter. Sovok nostalgia or not, I don't know if you realize that the May 9th parade in Moscow is pretty much the most awesome parade in the world. There is nothing else like it, at least in the white countries. Sovoks may not be cool, but these parades are fucking cool. I don't think that most people outside Russia perceive it as some loser soviet nostalgia - more like a demonstration that Russia still has strength.
    And the celebration of victory is ultimately a celebration of survival and overcoming challenges and horrors that few other nations can even imagine.

    As a somewhat of a nazi I can't celebrate the "defeat of fascism" because I think the world would be a better place if at least parts of those ideologies were still around. However, the survival of the Russian people and state seems a perfectly valid cause to celebrate if you are Russian. Even though your alternative history analysis is most probably correct, it still feels a bit like victim blaming.
    Commies or not, it's entirely the fault of Hitler and the Nazis to decide to exterminate the Russians out of all people.

    “Intelligent people, such as Americans”

    Intelligent people, such as Americans, speak only one language and are confident that they must protect the world by threatening Russia(mostly by surrounding it with military bases).

    I also found that sentence to be quite dubious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yevardian
    LOL, I cringed reading that. Honestly, even I personally have some distaste for how Victory Day is used, the existence of people like Akarlin arguing against it is a good reason to never voice such objections in public, which is perfectly understandable. If Akarlin was really Russian, he'd know that the USSR that 'Sovoks' had nostalgia for has nothing to do with the with state pre-Krushchev. Most serious Communist-era figures (eg. Martyanov, probably) privately agreed that Lenin was mostly a disaster, but it simply wasn't discussed, everyone knew he was important as a symbol, nothing more. Under the chaotic circumstances Stalin did as well as anyone figure could to stabilise the country and destroy the warring Bolshevik factions, educated Russians appreciate this whilst acknowledging he was a tyrant. But of course growing up in America and the UK Akarlin either doesn't comprehend his own (alleged) country's history or deliberately ignores such nuances.
    , @Twinkie

    Intelligent people, such as Americans, speak only one language and are confident that they must protect the world by threatening Russia(mostly by surrounding it with military bases).
     
    Do you not get Mr. Karlin's point? We Americans bled the least and reaped the greatest rewards from World War II. That WAS highly intelligent.

    Personally, I wish we had done more of that in Iraq. Always fight with proxies if you can... they are less dear to us than our brothers, cousins, and friends from home.
    , @Johann Ricke

    Intelligent people, such as Americans, speak only one language and are confident that they must protect the world by threatening Russia(mostly by surrounding it with military bases).
     
    We build alliances - they build empires. That's the difference between Americans and Russians. And that's why Russia is bigger than the next two biggest countries combined. It's also why China is bigger than all of its neighbors combined, with the exception of Russia, another empire with world-conquering ambitions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Dmitry says:

    Lol, I don’t have to say – I and mostly everyone else in the world, has to disagree with every eccentric paragraph of the article.

    But good work by Karlin to write such an entertaining article. That was enjoyable to read – in this ‘discussion club’ style where someone is taking points of view like ‘arguing against the use of cutlery’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. @Sam
    Given that I consider Anatoly to be just about the most interesting nationalist intellectual of any country, I would love hear his plans for Russia. In other words, suppose he was at the helm of the Russian Federation and he were to lay out a realistic long term plan for Russia, what would it look like?

    I'm thinking in terms of the big areas of foreign, tech, social, cultural, and economic policy. Should make for a very interesting, or series of, post(s).

    Any answer must include a Mecha-Tsar presiding over Orthodox-liturgy blessed artificial wombs and genemodded bears.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. DFH says:
    @Mitleser
    AK is an Anglo-Californian Russian nationalist.

    Reminiscent of the ‘Chinese’ nationalists who don’t actually live in China

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

    Intelligent people, such as Americans, don’t want to die for their country

    You should have celebrated.

    Great Patriotic War/WWII was one of the few times the Commie RF was allowed to expand.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. Every single government under Jewish control has the same exact narrative: everything before WW2 was bad and this nation is only good because it defeated “fascism.” It’s the same thing in America, England, and France: patriotism is simply defined by their jewish owners as anti-Nazism. Everything else about these nations’ histories is secondary.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. Mr. XYZ says:

    Great article, Anatoly!

    Completely agreed that Russia should have remained in World War I until the very end. Enduring an additional year of World War I would have been better than enduring several years of civil war, and–as you said–Russia would have also acquired some territorial goodies after the end of World War I (though I doubt that Poland and Czechoslovakia would have become as vassalized as you suggest). Plus, it would have strengthened Russia’s credibility among its allies.

    Also, Yes, World War II could have easily been made much less severe had Russia never went Bolshevik–if it would have even occurred at all in this scenario. After all, in such a scenario, Germany would have had to simultaneously fight France, Britain, and Russia!

    As for Russia’s return to its 17th century borders, this could be viewed as both a plus and a minus. After all, while it resulted in tens of millions of Eastern Slavs being separated from Russia, it also resulted in tens of millions of Muslims being separated from Russia. Given how you complain about the West importing too many Muslims, would it have really been a good idea to have tens of millions of additional Muslims remain within Greater Russia’s borders?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gerard2

    Also, Yes, World War II could have easily been made much less severe had Russia never went Bolshevik
     
    Would have been less severe had France and Poland not so pitifully collapsed in such a short space of time.......and if the Americans and British had not aided the rise of Nazi Germany.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Mr. XYZ says:

    : I wonder if Anatoly’s logic could be used to justify a forcible U.S. annexation of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. After all, like the U.S., all of these countries are British settler colonies.

    If forcibly unifying all Eastern Slavs into one state is fair game, why not also unifying all British settler colonies into one state?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. Aedib says:

    Distopy

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. LondonBob says:
    @Bragadocious
    The Brits think they won WW2? By doing what, cowering and waiting for help? Thanks for the belly laugh today.

    The only people fighting at one point as the Soviet Union supplied Nazi Germany with badly needed oil, not to mention enigma, the RN or the RAF and their contribution to containing Nazi Germany to a land power.

    Actually I find Remembrance Day here in Britain increasingly over the top, and the WWII mythology is pretty tedious anyway.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    Actually I find Remembrance Day here in Britain increasingly over the top, and the WWII mythology is pretty tedious anyway.
     
    Maybe we should replace it with an NHS day
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Mr. XYZ says:

    : Had Russia avoided the Bolshevik coup and emerged on the victorious side in World War I (as a result of Allied successes on the Western Front), I think that it would have been able to successfully retain good ties with Britain and France if it would have avoided expanding any further beyond what it would have gotten in the post-WWI peace conference in this scenario.

    Also, it is worth noting that there really wouldn’t have been very many attractive expansion opportunities for Russia after a Russian WWI victory. After all, it would have already unified all Eastern Slavs into one state and it would have already acquired the Armenian-heavy territories of the Ottoman Empire. What else is there? Mongolia? Xinjiang? Afghanistan? Iran? Are any of these territories genuinely worth a war over?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. @DFH

    The regathering of the Russian lands

     

    lol, sort of delusional to think that the annexation of two irrelevant nations (which will never ever happen) even poorer and more decrepit than Russia herself is a WINNER idea.

    They are not “nations”. lol They are just pieces of territory, parts of historical Russian heartland.

    You take 3 broken pieces of Russia, melt them, mold them, and, hopefully make a real country out of them – that’s the idea.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Oh no, looks like the regathering will necessitate Stalinist type gulags, and maybe even Hitleresque concentration camps to help ‘melt and mold’ the recalcitrant Ukrainians. :-( but isn’t this a part of what Karlin is railing against here in this piece? I’d rather hear his take on the ‘melting and molding’, since he’s the High IQ guy running this blog, however, feel free to include your vision of the Russian version of Dante’s Inferno?………………….Karlin, what’s up? Nothing again -0-? (How long will you keep your loyal opposition in suspense?)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. inertial says:
    @German_reader

    Russia was slated to be on the winning side of World War I. The Bolsheviks, and especially Lenin, need to take the credit from grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory. Conversely, Germany’s defeat would have been all the more comprehensive, making its future resurgence – with pro-Russian kingdoms installed in Bohemia and Poland – all the more improbable.
     
    With all due respect, but this sounds quite megalomaniacal. And that Tsarist Russia would have been on the winning side of WW1 without the Bolshevik takeover (which can hardly be seen as just an accident of history) may be technically true, but hardly means that Russia could be considered to have "won" WW1 given its performance up to 1917.
    I also wonder how the western powers would have eventually reacted if Russia had become as preponderant as in your scenario...even the WW1 alliance was just an alliance of convenience after all, Britain had had serious issues with Russia just a few years before 1914. With Germany removed as an independent power centre, conflict between the western powers and Russia might just have come 30 years earlier than it did.


    Intelligent people, such as Americans, don’t want to die for their country
     
    Americans sit behind two vast oceans and only have unimportant countries like Canada and Mexico as neighbours, their uniquely blessed historical experience is hardly relevant for a comparison with Russia's situation

    This prevents Russians from clearly understanding the deep undercurrent of racial hatred that animates European Russophobia

     

    Nazi Germany doesn't equal Europe, certainly not today, you're starting to sound like some SJW ethnic identity activist with things like this.
    It's true that there are lots of negative views about Russia in Europe (indeed sometimes with a certain racial tinge, "scratch a Russian and you'll find a Tatar"), but tbh I wonder how you can ignore Russia's imperial past (and maybe present) as a factor in this. The perception of Russia as a vast, threatening other with imperial ambitions and a desire for gobbling up territory wasn't without at least some basis in fact for much of the last 300 years.

    Here are a few real national ideas worthy of Russian civilization:

    The regathering of the Russian lands
    Genetic IQ augmentation
    Atomically blasting Imperial Russian Navy battleships off into space

     

    I'll expect "Yevardian" and other commenters like him will tell you that you're not really Russian, and reading things like this one might get the suspicion that they have a point.
    Overly cynical view of the May 9 celebrations imo.
    That being said, we're clearly living in a transitional age, WW2 is now quite remote in the past (must be incredibly remote for people now in their early 20s), and soon all participants will be dead. This will have interesting implications for the politics of remembrance and identity over the next 20-30 years, not just in Russia.

    That being said, we’re clearly living in a transitional age, WW2 is now quite remote in the past (must be incredibly remote for people now in their early 20s), and soon all participants will be dead.

    That’s what they were saying in the 1980s. During the Soviet times, Victory Day was an extremely meaningful holiday for the veterans or anyone else who remembered the war. But for the younger generations, even the the people then in their 40s, this was just a day off. So the conventional wisdom at the time was that the holiday will gradually lose its intense meaning and will become something like Memorial Day in the USA (basically, time for barbecue.)

    What actually happened was exactly the opposite.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    The First World War part of the UK's Remembrance Day came back as well as the last of the soldiers died off.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Nadya says:
    @Patrick Armstrong
    Well, harrrumph!

    It is stupid and a lie. That man has probably nothing to celebrate. My grandfather always celebrated the Victory Day meeting with his friends, the other veterans, they always putting on their awards and receiving gratitude and honour. We celebrate it the same way: to salute the memory of our defenders and remind ourselves of who are our moral compass and we should be worthy of their memory. The time this day was not celebrated and not even a holiday was during Khruschev, who hated Stalin and wanted to clean the memory of Stalin`s State great Victory out of the mind of the new generations. Breznev brought it back. And only the liberals of the 90-s, i.e. Yeltsin`s pigs, tried to diminish that day again. And it is a lie, it was not designed during Yeltsin`s times.

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

    jeezz….don’t read the blog for a few days and I come back to this subhuman filth.

    If anything confirms Karlin as a liberast New Times/Ekho/Dozhd/Scientology/Motyl/Valtsman- loving donkey….it’s this despicable garbage.

    catastrophic lack of any soft power

    ….this brainless, attenion-seeking moronism lie……………in the post-soviet space we have huge popularity of Russian television shows ( before many of these ex-ussr countries American controlled authorities decided to ban them), Russian pop music groups& singers very popular even though completely unknown in the west, Russian internet blogs and social media sites and search engines, Russian tv health doctors/”lifestyle gurus”, Russian cars and trucks,not to mention the success of the Olympics and what will be a huge success of the World Cup….that plus Russian women and Kazan,Saint Petersburg,Moscow and now Sochi being superb places for tourists from all over the world…..plus the fact that most of the very talented people in Ukraine have gone not to America or Germany in the last 27 years…but to Russia, likewise Armenia,Moldova,Georgia and the rest

    The fact is what you stupidly call

    “catastrophic lack of any soft power

    ….is in fact extremely successful soft power…so successful and too successful that the Pindostan influenced governments and oligarchs in these other Soviet countries are forced to do everything to destroy it (language is another huge soft power thing)

    Idiot

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    jeezz….don’t read the blog for a few days and I come back to this subhuman filth.

    If anything confirms Karlin as a liberast New Times/Ekho/Dozhd/Scientology/Motyl/Valtsman- loving donkey….it’s this despicable garbage
     

    He's allowed to have his own unusual, if strange, points of view.

    It's not necessary to burn him as a witch.

    When people post this kind of 'argument against eating with cutlery', or 'argument against tying your shoelaces on your shoes', type of eccentric opinions - it can even be useful making people explain why it's better not to eat with your hands. He probably should have posted it tomorrow instead of today, as it was written in a humorous way and designed for entertainment.

    , @DFH

    Russian women
     
    Who doesn't love a woman with a permanent frown?
    , @utu

    ….is in fact extremely successful soft power…so successful and too successful that...
     
    I am not sure if this is an example of soft power or hard power:

    US Government is protecting identity of an American diplomat who [...] described himself to guests as being 'as hard as Lenin's statue'

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5704069/US-Government-protecting-identity-diplomat-sexually-assaulted-woman-22.html#ixzz5FA88DFs2

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. LondonBob says:
    @Polish Perspective

    Intelligent people, such as Americans, don’t want to die for their country – they want foreign bastards to die for theirs
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_PDpwL8kuY

    There was no American national interest in regime change Iraq, just as there isn't one in Syria now. In reality, what you're describing is the Jewish/Israel lobby making Americans die for their foreign policy objectives in the Middle East. Your quote is remarkably naïve.

    BTW, have you noticed that Israel gets away being called 'the US greatest ally' but it never contributed any troops to serve in combat in the Iraq war, which its leaders (including the "leftists" like Ehud Barak) so energetically pushed?

    Of course, none of this doesn't excuse Russian idiocy in celebrating an empire which was largely a self-defeating failure, but the notion that Americans are in control of their own foreign policy is laughable.

    More interestingly perhaps, even if you look at WWII there is a huge amount of propaganda to justify that involvement. But as John Mearsheimer pointed out, the so-called "isolationists" actually had an extremely strong case to make before the outbreak of the war. The US was essentially already involved in the war, through massive armament supply help to the UK, even before Germany declared war on them. By that point it was essentially just a formality.

    American isolationists were just plastic Americans with German or Irish roots, not fully assimilated and more concerned with petty ethnic score settling. The proper Anglo-Saxon populace supported intervention.

    I used to agree with isolationism but I grew out of it. Even a small US military commitment to Europe would have changed the calculus, even for a genocidal maniac like Hitler. The US simply couldn’t have kept their head down whilst Communism and it’s evil twin reaction against it ran amok. The mistake was to be late, not to arrive at all.

    That French map is nuts, Napoleon’s idea of little German statelets, bit like how they wrongly thought they could make West Germany a dependency through the EU.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    American isolationists were just plastic Americans with German or Irish roots, not fully assimilated and more concerned with petty ethnic score settling. The proper Anglo-Saxon populace supported intervention.

    Not true, as noted by our distinguished host himself -- according to a 1941 Gallup poll large majorities in all 48 states were against intervention.

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/war-sentiment/
    , @Bragadocious
    "Plastic Americans." The ones fighting British propaganda were the real Americans. The "plastic English" located in the hunt clubs of Newport and Syosset -- they were the problem. (Along with YKW)

    Just FYI, maybe you miserable deadbeats should've paid your WW1 debts to us; we might've given you a more sympathetic hearing. Instead, we correctly played hardball with you, took your military bases in exchange for some destroyers, then came over to the UK and screwed all your women (back when they weren't fat tramps). I'd say it was a good exchange overall.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Gerard2 says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    Great article, Anatoly!

    Completely agreed that Russia should have remained in World War I until the very end. Enduring an additional year of World War I would have been better than enduring several years of civil war, and--as you said--Russia would have also acquired some territorial goodies after the end of World War I (though I doubt that Poland and Czechoslovakia would have become as vassalized as you suggest). Plus, it would have strengthened Russia's credibility among its allies.

    Also, Yes, World War II could have easily been made much less severe had Russia never went Bolshevik--if it would have even occurred at all in this scenario. After all, in such a scenario, Germany would have had to simultaneously fight France, Britain, and Russia!

    As for Russia's return to its 17th century borders, this could be viewed as both a plus and a minus. After all, while it resulted in tens of millions of Eastern Slavs being separated from Russia, it also resulted in tens of millions of Muslims being separated from Russia. Given how you complain about the West importing too many Muslims, would it have really been a good idea to have tens of millions of additional Muslims remain within Greater Russia's borders?

    Also, Yes, World War II could have easily been made much less severe had Russia never went Bolshevik

    Would have been less severe had France and Poland not so pitifully collapsed in such a short space of time…….and if the Americans and British had not aided the rise of Nazi Germany.

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

    That French map is nuts, Napoleon’s idea of little German statelets

    I like it for Greater Hannover and Greater Saxony, the parts of Germany I care the most.
    And alternate Austria is not bad either.

    Screw Prussia.

    bit like how they wrongly thought they could make West Germany a dependency through the EU.

    Were they wrong?
    Ruling German elite depends on the EU.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. Mr. XYZ says:

    : How exactly did the Americans and British aid the rise of Nazi Germany? By being unwilling to fight for Czechoslovakia in 1938?

    Also, while I don’t know if Poland’s military performance in 1939 could have been improved, Yes, France’s military performance in 1940 could have certainly been improved had France avoided sending its Seventh Army to the Low Countries and instead kept it near the Ardennes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinPNW
    To understand "How exactly did the Americans and British aid the rise of Nazi Germany" you could read Anthony Sutton for a description of how the Anglo Elites (American and British) aided Hitler's rise to power - from a revisionist British-American historical perspective; and Nikolai Starikov who explains it from a revisionist Russian historical perspective.

    Also, Mahan and Mackinder can provide an explanation of the geopolitical and military philosophies behind the actions of the British and American elites.

    Basically, the plan of these Anglo/British elites was to establish world hegemony by getting any potential competitors (Germany, Russia, etc.) to fight each other to the death.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Mr. XYZ says:

    : Do you have a link in regards to Mearsheimer’s (sp?) article in regards to American isolationists and World War II?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. @JiriS
    Regathering of Russian lands? Who will decide what is a Russian land? The Poles? Lithuanians? Latvians ? Estonians? Malorossiyskie ? Moldovans? Armenians? Georgians ? Azeris? Forget anything east of the Caspian. That's Chinese territory now.

    Russians will decide what is a Russian land. This is what a powerful people can do.

    Forget anything east of the Caspian.

    How about north of the Caspian? We might be able to engineer a partition. Only nothern part of Kazakhstan is considered Russian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    Russians will decide what is a Russian land. This is what a powerful people can do.
     
    Sorry Felix, the more powerful Yankees and Europeans have already decided that Ukraine and Belarus aren't Russian lands.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Mr. Hack says:
    @Felix Keverich
    They are not "nations". lol They are just pieces of territory, parts of historical Russian heartland.

    You take 3 broken pieces of Russia, melt them, mold them, and, hopefully make a real country out of them - that's the idea.

    Oh no, looks like the regathering will necessitate Stalinist type gulags, and maybe even Hitleresque concentration camps to help ‘melt and mold’ the recalcitrant Ukrainians. :-( but isn’t this a part of what Karlin is railing against here in this piece? I’d rather hear his take on the ‘melting and molding’, since he’s the High IQ guy running this blog, however, feel free to include your vision of the Russian version of Dante’s Inferno?………………….Karlin, what’s up? Nothing again -0-? (How long will you keep your loyal opposition in suspense?)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    Given that you have in the past proposed that commenters who argue with you get checked into punitive psychological facilities I would suggest that you refrain from calling others Stalinists unless they really sound like neo-Stalinists.

    While I don't think you are aware of it, it does sound very sovok-like to throw people who disagree with you into psychological prisons.

    I don't think it would be hard to recreate a unified Russian identity again given the right policies once all the land has been regathered.

    My proposal on first how to get the land and second how to carry out cultural unification would be something like this:

    Carry out a coup or Anschluss type scenario in Biélorussia.

    Launch a blitzkrieg attack against Maidan government to capture the greater part of Malorussia and Novorussia.

    Leave Greater Galicia as a rump Ukraine.

    Dump the svidomites in Galicia and seal the border (to prevent hit-and-run attacks and American weapons flooding the region).

    Station Russian gendarmerie in the regained territories to pacify the region (At worst I think it will be like the North Caucasus insurgency).

    Send diplomatic note expressing worry over the treatment of the Slavic population (and other minorities?) in Kazakhstan (given Nazarbayev's policies this shouldn't be difficult).

    Encourage local population to agitate for formation of South Siberian autonomous Republic in North Kazakhstan.

    Keep the South Siberian Republic disassociating from Kazakh state structures until Astana cracks down on the Russian population.

    Hold referendum and declare South Siberian independence.

    Send Russian army south to protect the new border and prevent Kazakh army from retaking the area.

    Keep fighting until the Russian army and pro-Russian militias have captured the northern half of the country.

    Perform Operation Storm-like ethnic cleansing in South Siberia.

    Hold referendum on South Siberia joining Russia.

    That is the military part.

    To unify Russia culturally:

    Encourage Surzhik-like dialects in former Bielorussia and Ukraine (West Russia) to blur the linguistic distinction between the languages.

    Incorporate Ukrainian and Bielorussian words into Russian while encouraging West Russians to speak Russian.

    Pursue a Franquist policy of adopting some elements of regional cultures ex. Ukrainian peasant clothes and songs while discouraging others ex. vernacular spellings of peoples' names.

    Emphasise the Russian National State's status as a successor to Old Rus' and as a Third Rome.

    Encourage internal migration and intermarriage within Russia so that West Russians settle further east (perhaps in national minority regions like former Tatarstan and Tuva?) and Great Russians settle in the regained territories.

    Make sure that education and media reinforces the previously mentioned points.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Dmitry says:
    @Gerard2
    jeezz....don't read the blog for a few days and I come back to this subhuman filth.

    If anything confirms Karlin as a liberast New Times/Ekho/Dozhd/Scientology/Motyl/Valtsman- loving donkey....it's this despicable garbage.

    catastrophic lack of any soft power

     

    ....this brainless, attenion-seeking moronism lie...............in the post-soviet space we have huge popularity of Russian television shows ( before many of these ex-ussr countries American controlled authorities decided to ban them), Russian pop music groups& singers very popular even though completely unknown in the west, Russian internet blogs and social media sites and search engines, Russian tv health doctors/"lifestyle gurus", Russian cars and trucks,not to mention the success of the Olympics and what will be a huge success of the World Cup....that plus Russian women and Kazan,Saint Petersburg,Moscow and now Sochi being superb places for tourists from all over the world.....plus the fact that most of the very talented people in Ukraine have gone not to America or Germany in the last 27 years...but to Russia, likewise Armenia,Moldova,Georgia and the rest

    The fact is what you stupidly call

    "catastrophic lack of any soft power
     
    ....is in fact extremely successful soft power...so successful and too successful that the Pindostan influenced governments and oligarchs in these other Soviet countries are forced to do everything to destroy it (language is another huge soft power thing)

    Idiot

    jeezz….don’t read the blog for a few days and I come back to this subhuman filth.

    If anything confirms Karlin as a liberast New Times/Ekho/Dozhd/Scientology/Motyl/Valtsman- loving donkey….it’s this despicable garbage

    He’s allowed to have his own unusual, if strange, points of view.

    It’s not necessary to burn him as a witch.

    When people post this kind of ‘argument against eating with cutlery’, or ‘argument against tying your shoelaces on your shoes’, type of eccentric opinions – it can even be useful making people explain why it’s better not to eat with your hands. He probably should have posted it tomorrow instead of today, as it was written in a humorous way and designed for entertainment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    He probably should have posted it tomorrow instead of today, as it was written in a humorous way and designed for entertainment.
     
    What have you been smoking lately, Tovarishch Ja Upisilsa? :-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Mitleser

    Here are a few real national ideas worthy of Russian civilization:
     
    What is your stance toward the development of North and Far East as national ideas?
    Too feasible and normie-esque?
    Too tied to the USSR?

    Your Solzhenitsyn supported it.

    «The North-East is our vector, chartered long ago for Russia’s natural progress and development…

    The North-East is a reminder that we, Russia, are the North-East of the planet! Our ocean is the Artic, not the Indian one, we are not the Mediterranean, we are not Africa, and we have no business there! Our hands, our sacrifice, our labor, our love is needed by these limitless spaces, recklessly abandoned to freeze in neglect for four centuries…

    The North-East is the key to solving many allegedly unsolvable Russian problems… Its spaces give us a way out of the global technological crisis… Its cold, mostly frozen spaces are yet unready for agriculture and would require an immense investment of energy – but the very depths of the North-East conceal this energy, which we haven’t yet put to waste…

    The North-East is larger than its name and deeper than its geography. The North-East would mean that Russia has eagerly taken the route of SELF-RESTRAINT, a choice of depth and not surface, an inward, not an outward choice. It would mean directing all of the citizens’ development – national, social, educational, family, and personal – toward an internal, not external prosperity.”
     

    What is your stance toward the development of North and Far East as national ideas?

    If by ‘development’ you mean building oil rigs/drilling holes in the ground, then Russia is doing this already. Otherwise, it’s really dumb idea, dumping money into territories, where nobody wants to life.

    Do you fancy living beyond the Arctic circle, Mitleser? -50°C winters, eh?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mitleser
    Tropical Hyperborea shall fix that.

    -50°C winters, eh?
     
    Not that bad as long as it is not combined with (high) humidity.
    , @songbird
    It has a certain attraction, but mostly in the abstract: an underground city would be as snug as a bug in a rug. Cheaper than a Mars colony, and you are safe from the hordes of sub-Saharans that are ready to break loose.
    , @anonymous coward

    Otherwise, it’s really dumb idea, dumping money into territories, where nobody wants to life.
     
    Factually false. Three points:

    a) The Far East has better fertility than European Russia. Despite the lack of infrastructure, it's a good place to live.

    b) Most of the Far East is warmer than Moscow and certainly warmer than St. Petersburg.

    c) In reality, the cold places in the far north have better population growth than the warm ones. Seems like people actually don't mind cold weather.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Mitleser says:
    @Felix Keverich

    What is your stance toward the development of North and Far East as national ideas?
     
    If by 'development' you mean building oil rigs/drilling holes in the ground, then Russia is doing this already. Otherwise, it's really dumb idea, dumping money into territories, where nobody wants to life.

    Do you fancy living beyond the Arctic circle, Mitleser? -50°C winters, eh?

    Tropical Hyperborea shall fix that.

    -50°C winters, eh?

    Not that bad as long as it is not combined with (high) humidity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Mr. Hack says:
    @Dmitry

    jeezz….don’t read the blog for a few days and I come back to this subhuman filth.

    If anything confirms Karlin as a liberast New Times/Ekho/Dozhd/Scientology/Motyl/Valtsman- loving donkey….it’s this despicable garbage
     

    He's allowed to have his own unusual, if strange, points of view.

    It's not necessary to burn him as a witch.

    When people post this kind of 'argument against eating with cutlery', or 'argument against tying your shoelaces on your shoes', type of eccentric opinions - it can even be useful making people explain why it's better not to eat with your hands. He probably should have posted it tomorrow instead of today, as it was written in a humorous way and designed for entertainment.

    He probably should have posted it tomorrow instead of today, as it was written in a humorous way and designed for entertainment.

    What have you been smoking lately, Tovarishch Ja Upisilsa? :-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Look at the last paragraph - It's concluding about atomically blasting ships (I imagine staffed with Admiral Martyanov) into space.

    It's mainly a comedy or entertainment article, with a few of his unusual points of view. Maybe it should have been posted tomorrow from civilized taste - still it hardly requires to burn him as a witch.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. DFH says:
    @Gerard2
    jeezz....don't read the blog for a few days and I come back to this subhuman filth.

    If anything confirms Karlin as a liberast New Times/Ekho/Dozhd/Scientology/Motyl/Valtsman- loving donkey....it's this despicable garbage.

    catastrophic lack of any soft power

     

    ....this brainless, attenion-seeking moronism lie...............in the post-soviet space we have huge popularity of Russian television shows ( before many of these ex-ussr countries American controlled authorities decided to ban them), Russian pop music groups& singers very popular even though completely unknown in the west, Russian internet blogs and social media sites and search engines, Russian tv health doctors/"lifestyle gurus", Russian cars and trucks,not to mention the success of the Olympics and what will be a huge success of the World Cup....that plus Russian women and Kazan,Saint Petersburg,Moscow and now Sochi being superb places for tourists from all over the world.....plus the fact that most of the very talented people in Ukraine have gone not to America or Germany in the last 27 years...but to Russia, likewise Armenia,Moldova,Georgia and the rest

    The fact is what you stupidly call

    "catastrophic lack of any soft power
     
    ....is in fact extremely successful soft power...so successful and too successful that the Pindostan influenced governments and oligarchs in these other Soviet countries are forced to do everything to destroy it (language is another huge soft power thing)

    Idiot

    Russian women

    Who doesn’t love a woman with a permanent frown?

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Big Red Scary
    More frequent and unpredictable than permanent. I speak from many years of intimate observation.
    , @Gerard2

    Who doesn’t love a woman with a permanent frown?
     
    ....you must be confusing Russian women with angry ,sad Polish women stuck in loveless marriages with some fat oaf who she doesn't actually have sexual relations with( as evidenced by the very small sized families in Poland despite the lack of belief in contraception and the supposedly longer marriages) whilst living in a cultural dump with next to nought tourists , like Warsaw?.....and with the husband or son away more than half the time in Germany or the UK?

    Russian women have great humour and ability to enjoy themselves at any age
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. DFH says:
    @Felix Keverich
    Russians will decide what is a Russian land. This is what a powerful people can do.

    Forget anything east of the Caspian.
     
    How about north of the Caspian? We might be able to engineer a partition. Only nothern part of Kazakhstan is considered Russian.

    Russians will decide what is a Russian land. This is what a powerful people can do.

    Sorry Felix, the more powerful Yankees and Europeans have already decided that Ukraine and Belarus aren’t Russian lands.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich

    Sorry Felix, the more powerful Yankees and Europeans have already decided that Ukraine and Belarus aren’t Russian lands.
     
    I question your notion that Europeans have more power than the Russian people. What is 'Europeans' anyway? Poland, Lithuania, Eurocrats? Don't make me laugh!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Dmitry says:
    @Mr. Hack

    He probably should have posted it tomorrow instead of today, as it was written in a humorous way and designed for entertainment.
     
    What have you been smoking lately, Tovarishch Ja Upisilsa? :-)

    Look at the last paragraph – It’s concluding about atomically blasting ships (I imagine staffed with Admiral Martyanov) into space.

    It’s mainly a comedy or entertainment article, with a few of his unusual points of view. Maybe it should have been posted tomorrow from civilized taste – still it hardly requires to burn him as a witch.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Since you almost seem to have a direct passageway to the inner workings of Karlin's mind, why not share with us what you consider to be some of Karlin's 'unusual points of view' that he expresses here?
    Would you consider his 'real national ideas worthy of Russian civilization' that includes:

    The regathering of the Russian lands
     
    to be one of his provocative funny bone statements, or more closely resembling something that he indeed holds near and dear to his heart? (I'd ask him to answer for himself, but he avoids any deeper discussion about this topic like the plague).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. songbird says:
    @Felix Keverich

    What is your stance toward the development of North and Far East as national ideas?
     
    If by 'development' you mean building oil rigs/drilling holes in the ground, then Russia is doing this already. Otherwise, it's really dumb idea, dumping money into territories, where nobody wants to life.

    Do you fancy living beyond the Arctic circle, Mitleser? -50°C winters, eh?

    It has a certain attraction, but mostly in the abstract: an underground city would be as snug as a bug in a rug. Cheaper than a Mars colony, and you are safe from the hordes of sub-Saharans that are ready to break loose.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    This reminds me of the "seasteading" dreams which came very, very close to fruition in 2017 and then failed again:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/french-polynesia-ends-agreement-with-peter-thiel-seasteading-institute-2018-3

    From a technological perspective, I think its fascinating and its disappointing that it can never seem to find its legs to exist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @DFH

    Russian women
     
    Who doesn't love a woman with a permanent frown?

    More frequent and unpredictable than permanent. I speak from many years of intimate observation.

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

    even official Ukraine (which now marks only the Western May 8 Victory Day, using the remembrance poppy it pilfered from Britain as its symbol)

    Is this some pathetic attempt to appear more Western, less Russian, and therefore more likeable to Anglos, or does the poppy have some historical relevance in Ukraine?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. @Bragadocious
    The Brits think they won WW2? By doing what, cowering and waiting for help? Thanks for the belly laugh today.

    In 1940, while the USSR was still supplying smuggled rubber to Germany, the UK broke the back of the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine robbing Germany of air dominance on the future Eastern Front and war supplies. In 1940 the UK alone out produced Germany in planes, tanks and ships. Canada added even more.

    In 1941, a third of the tanks defending Moscow were from Britain and Canada. Churchill started diverting ships from Canada to Murmansk from June onwards. Valentines may not have been the best tanks in the war but they were there when needed and started in cold weather. The USSR received 3000 Hurricanes before the USA got into gear not to mention many thousands of Bedford trucks. For free, not Lend Lease. A few KAMAZ apart, Russia still can’t make trucks. The combined Italian/German armies were kept out of the Middle Eastern oil fields by Empire troops.

    The British/Canadian uranium centred A bomb programme was on the right track unlike the German one. Handing it to the US accelerated it two or three years. The British Empire had been pacifist. It was 4 or 5 years behind Germany in military build up but it was waiting for rescue less than Russia in 1941. By 1943 the UK had a strategic bomber. USSR never got close. Throwing away millions of men with stupid tactics was the Soviet way. Even though the USSR almost always outnumbered the Germans 3:1 in overall force strength, it took them years and vast losses to reclaim what the Germans had taken in months.

    Without Russia, the British Empire would have taken three or four years longer to beat Germany (assuming the USSR stopped supplying rubber, grain, fuel, steel and alloys to Germany as it did in 1940 & 41). The BE had a much bigger economy, better strategic weapons, not just planes,, radar, code breakers (battle of Kursk anyone), and the best heavy tanks of the war. The BE was simply much more mechanised than Germany.

    Soviet, excessive, sacrifice shortened the war and saved millions of British & Empire dead but the war could have been won other ways. Nukes for example.

    Of course Russia and France downplay the British contribution. They have reasons. But from 1939 (when the SU was a German ally) to 1942 the strategic resistance was British. Stalingrad killed far more people than El Alamein but Germans with oil and the Mediterranean (steam straight to the Kuban) would have been just as war losing for the, eventual, allies.

    You are a cretinous fascist probably not talking through your mouth.

    Read More
    • LOL: German_reader
    • Replies: @DFH

    The BE was simply much more mechanised than Germany.
     
    Most of British industry was extremely backwards and inefficient. Even in 1944 the German aircraft factories and coal mines, despite the bombing, were 1/4 more efficient. Many machine tools and complex parts had to be imported from America because Britain wasn't capable of manufacturing them.
    , @German_reader

    Without Russia, the British Empire would have taken three or four years longer to beat Germany
     
    You're delusional, even with the Wehrmacht already being broken in the east and the massive contributions of the Americans, the landings in France in 1944 were extremely risky, no way Britain could have done something like this alone. I also have a hard time believing the British public would have tolerated the massive casualties inevitable in a full-scale fight against the Wehrmacht, no one in Britain wanted a repeat of the mass slaughter of WW1.
    If Germany hadn't attacked the Soviet Union in 1941, I'd suppose there would have been prolonged stalemate between Germany and the British empire, with neither side being able to hurt the other sufficiently to force a decision. Or maybe Germany would have succeeded in strangling Britain economically with u-boats. But the idea that the British empire alone would have been able to eject German forces from their conquests (something which would have been absolutely unprecedented in British history) must surely rank as the least likely scenario.
    Maybe British contributions are undervalued, and Britain certainly had a lot of impressive technology in WW2. But at some point revisionism just becomes silly.
    , @Bragadocious
    LOL, I stopped reading after "the British Empire was pacifist." You Limeys are hopeless.

    Here's a great Twitter feed you should read sometime, maybe you can rewire the fried motherboard between your ears.

    Britain didn't fight for the worlds freedom in WW2, they fought to try and cling on to the British Empire. Following the end of WW2, Britain assisted in restoring Dutch colonial rule in Indonesia and French colonial rule in Vietnam #VEDay— Crimes of Britain (@crimesofbrits) May 8, 2018
     
    , @Gerard2
    Oh Phil.....so so silly

    USSR was still supplying smuggled rubber to Germany
     
    ...it's called trade Phil you cretin.....like what the US and UK did ( plus loans and politics) to build-up Nazi Germany against the Soviets. USSR gave NATO countries Oil and Gas and many more things during the Cold War....does that mean they were allies using you dimwitted logic>

    Distance from mainland Britain to France?......40km
    Distance from Moscow to Praga?....nearly 2000km

    let's not forget the Channel Islands easy occupation by the Nazis

    I would do a point by point rebuttal, of your poist but I'm in a rush
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @inertial

    That being said, we’re clearly living in a transitional age, WW2 is now quite remote in the past (must be incredibly remote for people now in their early 20s), and soon all participants will be dead.
     
    That's what they were saying in the 1980s. During the Soviet times, Victory Day was an extremely meaningful holiday for the veterans or anyone else who remembered the war. But for the younger generations, even the the people then in their 40s, this was just a day off. So the conventional wisdom at the time was that the holiday will gradually lose its intense meaning and will become something like Memorial Day in the USA (basically, time for barbecue.)

    What actually happened was exactly the opposite.

    The First World War part of the UK’s Remembrance Day came back as well as the last of the soldiers died off.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. DFH says:
    @Philip Owen
    In 1940, while the USSR was still supplying smuggled rubber to Germany, the UK broke the back of the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine robbing Germany of air dominance on the future Eastern Front and war supplies. In 1940 the UK alone out produced Germany in planes, tanks and ships. Canada added even more.

    In 1941, a third of the tanks defending Moscow were from Britain and Canada. Churchill started diverting ships from Canada to Murmansk from June onwards. Valentines may not have been the best tanks in the war but they were there when needed and started in cold weather. The USSR received 3000 Hurricanes before the USA got into gear not to mention many thousands of Bedford trucks. For free, not Lend Lease. A few KAMAZ apart, Russia still can't make trucks. The combined Italian/German armies were kept out of the Middle Eastern oil fields by Empire troops.

    The British/Canadian uranium centred A bomb programme was on the right track unlike the German one. Handing it to the US accelerated it two or three years. The British Empire had been pacifist. It was 4 or 5 years behind Germany in military build up but it was waiting for rescue less than Russia in 1941. By 1943 the UK had a strategic bomber. USSR never got close. Throwing away millions of men with stupid tactics was the Soviet way. Even though the USSR almost always outnumbered the Germans 3:1 in overall force strength, it took them years and vast losses to reclaim what the Germans had taken in months.

    Without Russia, the British Empire would have taken three or four years longer to beat Germany (assuming the USSR stopped supplying rubber, grain, fuel, steel and alloys to Germany as it did in 1940 & 41). The BE had a much bigger economy, better strategic weapons, not just planes,, radar, code breakers (battle of Kursk anyone), and the best heavy tanks of the war. The BE was simply much more mechanised than Germany.

    Soviet, excessive, sacrifice shortened the war and saved millions of British & Empire dead but the war could have been won other ways. Nukes for example.

    Of course Russia and France downplay the British contribution. They have reasons. But from 1939 (when the SU was a German ally) to 1942 the strategic resistance was British. Stalingrad killed far more people than El Alamein but Germans with oil and the Mediterranean (steam straight to the Kuban) would have been just as war losing for the, eventual, allies.

    You are a cretinous fascist probably not talking through your mouth.

    The BE was simply much more mechanised than Germany.

    Most of British industry was extremely backwards and inefficient. Even in 1944 the German aircraft factories and coal mines, despite the bombing, were 1/4 more efficient. Many machine tools and complex parts had to be imported from America because Britain wasn’t capable of manufacturing them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Philip Owen
    In 1940, while the USSR was still supplying smuggled rubber to Germany, the UK broke the back of the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine robbing Germany of air dominance on the future Eastern Front and war supplies. In 1940 the UK alone out produced Germany in planes, tanks and ships. Canada added even more.

    In 1941, a third of the tanks defending Moscow were from Britain and Canada. Churchill started diverting ships from Canada to Murmansk from June onwards. Valentines may not have been the best tanks in the war but they were there when needed and started in cold weather. The USSR received 3000 Hurricanes before the USA got into gear not to mention many thousands of Bedford trucks. For free, not Lend Lease. A few KAMAZ apart, Russia still can't make trucks. The combined Italian/German armies were kept out of the Middle Eastern oil fields by Empire troops.

    The British/Canadian uranium centred A bomb programme was on the right track unlike the German one. Handing it to the US accelerated it two or three years. The British Empire had been pacifist. It was 4 or 5 years behind Germany in military build up but it was waiting for rescue less than Russia in 1941. By 1943 the UK had a strategic bomber. USSR never got close. Throwing away millions of men with stupid tactics was the Soviet way. Even though the USSR almost always outnumbered the Germans 3:1 in overall force strength, it took them years and vast losses to reclaim what the Germans had taken in months.

    Without Russia, the British Empire would have taken three or four years longer to beat Germany (assuming the USSR stopped supplying rubber, grain, fuel, steel and alloys to Germany as it did in 1940 & 41). The BE had a much bigger economy, better strategic weapons, not just planes,, radar, code breakers (battle of Kursk anyone), and the best heavy tanks of the war. The BE was simply much more mechanised than Germany.

    Soviet, excessive, sacrifice shortened the war and saved millions of British & Empire dead but the war could have been won other ways. Nukes for example.

    Of course Russia and France downplay the British contribution. They have reasons. But from 1939 (when the SU was a German ally) to 1942 the strategic resistance was British. Stalingrad killed far more people than El Alamein but Germans with oil and the Mediterranean (steam straight to the Kuban) would have been just as war losing for the, eventual, allies.

    You are a cretinous fascist probably not talking through your mouth.

    Without Russia, the British Empire would have taken three or four years longer to beat Germany

    You’re delusional, even with the Wehrmacht already being broken in the east and the massive contributions of the Americans, the landings in France in 1944 were extremely risky, no way Britain could have done something like this alone. I also have a hard time believing the British public would have tolerated the massive casualties inevitable in a full-scale fight against the Wehrmacht, no one in Britain wanted a repeat of the mass slaughter of WW1.
    If Germany hadn’t attacked the Soviet Union in 1941, I’d suppose there would have been prolonged stalemate between Germany and the British empire, with neither side being able to hurt the other sufficiently to force a decision. Or maybe Germany would have succeeded in strangling Britain economically with u-boats. But the idea that the British empire alone would have been able to eject German forces from their conquests (something which would have been absolutely unprecedented in British history) must surely rank as the least likely scenario.
    Maybe British contributions are undervalued, and Britain certainly had a lot of impressive technology in WW2. But at some point revisionism just becomes silly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    I agree that amphibious assault and head to head combat wouldn't have worked, for either party. Both had the strength (RAF, Royal Navy - Wehrmacht) to defend but not to win. I've left out the Japanese because that makes the US inevitable or takes 40 divisions away from Russia at a critical point. There were 5 million Indian volunteers 3 million were recruited. In the long term, which never came, they might have been sigificant but not if Churchill sent them into Italy or Greece which he would have done. It would have come down to nukes or Churchill losing an election and the new guy looking for a truce.
    , @dfordoom

    If Germany hadn’t attacked the Soviet Union in 1941, I’d suppose there would have been prolonged stalemate between Germany and the British empire
     
    Not very prolonged. Britain was broke. Britain would have been forced to make peace with Germany. Germany would almost certainly have offered rather attractive terms for such a peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @DFH

    Russians will decide what is a Russian land. This is what a powerful people can do.
     
    Sorry Felix, the more powerful Yankees and Europeans have already decided that Ukraine and Belarus aren't Russian lands.

    Sorry Felix, the more powerful Yankees and Europeans have already decided that Ukraine and Belarus aren’t Russian lands.

    I question your notion that Europeans have more power than the Russian people. What is ‘Europeans’ anyway? Poland, Lithuania, Eurocrats? Don’t make me laugh!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @German_reader

    Without Russia, the British Empire would have taken three or four years longer to beat Germany
     
    You're delusional, even with the Wehrmacht already being broken in the east and the massive contributions of the Americans, the landings in France in 1944 were extremely risky, no way Britain could have done something like this alone. I also have a hard time believing the British public would have tolerated the massive casualties inevitable in a full-scale fight against the Wehrmacht, no one in Britain wanted a repeat of the mass slaughter of WW1.
    If Germany hadn't attacked the Soviet Union in 1941, I'd suppose there would have been prolonged stalemate between Germany and the British empire, with neither side being able to hurt the other sufficiently to force a decision. Or maybe Germany would have succeeded in strangling Britain economically with u-boats. But the idea that the British empire alone would have been able to eject German forces from their conquests (something which would have been absolutely unprecedented in British history) must surely rank as the least likely scenario.
    Maybe British contributions are undervalued, and Britain certainly had a lot of impressive technology in WW2. But at some point revisionism just becomes silly.

    I agree that amphibious assault and head to head combat wouldn’t have worked, for either party. Both had the strength (RAF, Royal Navy – Wehrmacht) to defend but not to win. I’ve left out the Japanese because that makes the US inevitable or takes 40 divisions away from Russia at a critical point. There were 5 million Indian volunteers 3 million were recruited. In the long term, which never came, they might have been sigificant but not if Churchill sent them into Italy or Greece which he would have done. It would have come down to nukes or Churchill losing an election and the new guy looking for a truce.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    There were 5 million Indian volunteers 3 million were recruited
     
    I know Indian troops fought in North Africa and the Mideast, but to defeat Germany they would have needed to enter ground combat in Europe in truly vast numbers, and suffer corresponding casualties. It seems unlikely to me that Indians would have been that enthusiastic to die in a white man's war for the British empire. As it was, the British only hung on in India with difficulty during the war ("Quit India") and pretty much had to promise they'd grant India independence soon after the war.

    It would have come down to nukes or Churchill losing an election and the new guy looking for a truce
     
    Which sounds rather different from "the British empire could have won on its own".
    I can see how dismissal of Britain's contributions is offensive, but that doesn't make far-fetched alternative history scenarios any more credible.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Philip Owen
    I agree that amphibious assault and head to head combat wouldn't have worked, for either party. Both had the strength (RAF, Royal Navy - Wehrmacht) to defend but not to win. I've left out the Japanese because that makes the US inevitable or takes 40 divisions away from Russia at a critical point. There were 5 million Indian volunteers 3 million were recruited. In the long term, which never came, they might have been sigificant but not if Churchill sent them into Italy or Greece which he would have done. It would have come down to nukes or Churchill losing an election and the new guy looking for a truce.

    There were 5 million Indian volunteers 3 million were recruited

    I know Indian troops fought in North Africa and the Mideast, but to defeat Germany they would have needed to enter ground combat in Europe in truly vast numbers, and suffer corresponding casualties. It seems unlikely to me that Indians would have been that enthusiastic to die in a white man’s war for the British empire. As it was, the British only hung on in India with difficulty during the war (“Quit India”) and pretty much had to promise they’d grant India independence soon after the war.

    It would have come down to nukes or Churchill losing an election and the new guy looking for a truce

    Which sounds rather different from “the British empire could have won on its own”.
    I can see how dismissal of Britain’s contributions is offensive, but that doesn’t make far-fetched alternative history scenarios any more credible.

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

    Russia was slated to be on the winning side of World War I. The Bolsheviks, and especially Lenin, need to take the credit from grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory. Conversely, Germany’s defeat would have been all the more comprehensive, making its future resurgence – with pro-Russian kingdoms installed in Bohemia and Poland – all the more improbable.
     
    With all due respect, but this sounds quite megalomaniacal. And that Tsarist Russia would have been on the winning side of WW1 without the Bolshevik takeover (which can hardly be seen as just an accident of history) may be technically true, but hardly means that Russia could be considered to have "won" WW1 given its performance up to 1917.
    I also wonder how the western powers would have eventually reacted if Russia had become as preponderant as in your scenario...even the WW1 alliance was just an alliance of convenience after all, Britain had had serious issues with Russia just a few years before 1914. With Germany removed as an independent power centre, conflict between the western powers and Russia might just have come 30 years earlier than it did.


    Intelligent people, such as Americans, don’t want to die for their country
     
    Americans sit behind two vast oceans and only have unimportant countries like Canada and Mexico as neighbours, their uniquely blessed historical experience is hardly relevant for a comparison with Russia's situation

    This prevents Russians from clearly understanding the deep undercurrent of racial hatred that animates European Russophobia

     

    Nazi Germany doesn't equal Europe, certainly not today, you're starting to sound like some SJW ethnic identity activist with things like this.
    It's true that there are lots of negative views about Russia in Europe (indeed sometimes with a certain racial tinge, "scratch a Russian and you'll find a Tatar"), but tbh I wonder how you can ignore Russia's imperial past (and maybe present) as a factor in this. The perception of Russia as a vast, threatening other with imperial ambitions and a desire for gobbling up territory wasn't without at least some basis in fact for much of the last 300 years.

    Here are a few real national ideas worthy of Russian civilization:

    The regathering of the Russian lands
    Genetic IQ augmentation
    Atomically blasting Imperial Russian Navy battleships off into space

     

    I'll expect "Yevardian" and other commenters like him will tell you that you're not really Russian, and reading things like this one might get the suspicion that they have a point.
    Overly cynical view of the May 9 celebrations imo.
    That being said, we're clearly living in a transitional age, WW2 is now quite remote in the past (must be incredibly remote for people now in their early 20s), and soon all participants will be dead. This will have interesting implications for the politics of remembrance and identity over the next 20-30 years, not just in Russia.

    And that Tsarist Russia would have been on the winning side of WW1 without the Bolshevik takeover (which can hardly be seen as just an accident of history) may be technically true, but hardly means that Russia could be considered to have “won” WW1 given its performance up to 1917.

    Russia defeated 2 of the 3 main central powers – Austria-Hungary (siege of Przemysl was Verdun of the East – and Russia took it) and the Ottoman Empire, forcing the former to depend on Germany and grabbing about 10% of the latter’s territory.

    Historiography of Russian performance in World War I is basically a victim of traditional Western Russophobes and pro-commie leftists piling on a country that they both hate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Russia defeated 2 of the 3 main central powers
     
    And yet Russia collapsed into chaos before Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman empire, so it seems to have been a rather special kind of victory.
    Ottoman empire also had to fight the British (Gallipoli, Iraq and probably more I can't think of right now), so Russia didn't face the Ottomans alone.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @AP

    And that Tsarist Russia would have been on the winning side of WW1 without the Bolshevik takeover (which can hardly be seen as just an accident of history) may be technically true, but hardly means that Russia could be considered to have “won” WW1 given its performance up to 1917.
     
    Russia defeated 2 of the 3 main central powers - Austria-Hungary (siege of Przemysl was Verdun of the East - and Russia took it) and the Ottoman Empire, forcing the former to depend on Germany and grabbing about 10% of the latter's territory.

    Historiography of Russian performance in World War I is basically a victim of traditional Western Russophobes and pro-commie leftists piling on a country that they both hate.

    Russia defeated 2 of the 3 main central powers

    And yet Russia collapsed into chaos before Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman empire, so it seems to have been a rather special kind of victory.
    Ottoman empire also had to fight the British (Gallipoli, Iraq and probably more I can’t think of right now), so Russia didn’t face the Ottomans alone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    "Russia defeated 2 of the 3 main central powers"

    And yet Russia collapsed into chaos before Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman empire, so it seems to have been a rather special kind of victory.
     
    Russia underwent a revolution. At the time it was actually driving the Germans back (Kerensky offensive). It was an internal event, not a military defeat. Like the collapse of the USSR, which was not something outsiders did.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @songbird
    It has a certain attraction, but mostly in the abstract: an underground city would be as snug as a bug in a rug. Cheaper than a Mars colony, and you are safe from the hordes of sub-Saharans that are ready to break loose.

    This reminds me of the “seasteading” dreams which came very, very close to fruition in 2017 and then failed again:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/french-polynesia-ends-agreement-with-peter-thiel-seasteading-institute-2018-3

    From a technological perspective, I think its fascinating and its disappointing that it can never seem to find its legs to exist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @songbird
    That is unfortunately the drawback of most of these schemes: old countries will not permit new ones to exist. That is why I think space holds such an appeal for so many. The distances involved evoke a sense of peace, or perhaps just a grace period to develop into a power which can defend its own territory.
    , @Ali Choudhury
    It was tried in the Bioshock videogame and did not work out very well there.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. MarkinPNW says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    @Gerard2: How exactly did the Americans and British aid the rise of Nazi Germany? By being unwilling to fight for Czechoslovakia in 1938?

    Also, while I don't know if Poland's military performance in 1939 could have been improved, Yes, France's military performance in 1940 could have certainly been improved had France avoided sending its Seventh Army to the Low Countries and instead kept it near the Ardennes.

    To understand “How exactly did the Americans and British aid the rise of Nazi Germany” you could read Anthony Sutton for a description of how the Anglo Elites (American and British) aided Hitler’s rise to power – from a revisionist British-American historical perspective; and Nikolai Starikov who explains it from a revisionist Russian historical perspective.

    Also, Mahan and Mackinder can provide an explanation of the geopolitical and military philosophies behind the actions of the British and American elites.

    Basically, the plan of these Anglo/British elites was to establish world hegemony by getting any potential competitors (Germany, Russia, etc.) to fight each other to the death.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinPNW
    The Anglo/British elites originally recruited the Bolsheviks to impose ruin on Russia to keep it from profiting by being on the "winning side" of WW1, and then when at the death of Lenin and Stalin out-maneuvering Trotsky they lost control of the Bolsheviks, they recruited Hitler to counter them.
    , @random rand

    Also, Mahan and Mackinder can provide an explanation of the geopolitical and military philosophies behind the actions of the British and American elites.

    Basically, the plan of these Anglo/British elites was to establish world hegemony by getting any potential competitors (Germany, Russia, etc.) to fight each other to the death.
     
    This is a very good point. If we follow this strategy, then USG actions actually make much more sense than what Anglo propaganda would have you believe. Didn't Ukraine do a very good job of keeping Germany and Russia apart? What if the actual purpose of withdrawing from the Iranian deal is to fuck with Europe? I highly doubt American geopolitical strategy is as incompetent as what the media would have you believe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. MarkinPNW says:
    @MarkinPNW
    To understand "How exactly did the Americans and British aid the rise of Nazi Germany" you could read Anthony Sutton for a description of how the Anglo Elites (American and British) aided Hitler's rise to power - from a revisionist British-American historical perspective; and Nikolai Starikov who explains it from a revisionist Russian historical perspective.

    Also, Mahan and Mackinder can provide an explanation of the geopolitical and military philosophies behind the actions of the British and American elites.

    Basically, the plan of these Anglo/British elites was to establish world hegemony by getting any potential competitors (Germany, Russia, etc.) to fight each other to the death.

    The Anglo/British elites originally recruited the Bolsheviks to impose ruin on Russia to keep it from profiting by being on the “winning side” of WW1, and then when at the death of Lenin and Stalin out-maneuvering Trotsky they lost control of the Bolsheviks, they recruited Hitler to counter them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    Yet Lenin's gold came from Germany. Trotsky had no more than a good expense account.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Dmitry says:

    How Victory Day was around the world

    In Moscow

    In Minsk.

    In Sevastopol

    In Kiev (they now do a day earlier)

    In Berlin (Germany)

    In Tokyo (Japan)

    In Ashdod (Israel)

    In Madrid (Spain)

    In Seoul (South Korea)

    And even Washington DC

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  64. Eh, I think Mr. Karlin overstates his case a bit too much here. He thinks Russia shouldn’t dwell on the past but it does seem he’s so overly nostalgic for the Russian Empire he constantly dwells on that past. At the end of the day, Victory Day still isn’t a bad Schelling Point. People still remember WWII and if Russia lost the war Russians would stop existing as a people. Sure, maybe if Bolshevism never happened WWII would not have happened as it did but Bolshevism did happen so you might as well keep the Schelling Points you can make use of. As german_reader said, this article is an overly cynical view.

    An interesting point worth noting is how Mr. Karlin called the Americans smart at foreign policy. I actually do think Americans are underestimated at geopolitics and the promotion of the idea that the American establishment is ran by a bunch of morons probably serves US foreign policy. There’s no reason to believe American strategists are fundamentally less competent than Europeans or Russians. Even if the Americans are not playing nth dimensions chess they are at the very least playing chess. Maybe if the current generation of American strategists die and college libs and SJWs take power the US will implode in a hurry but we’re not at that point yet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mitleser

    There’s no reason to believe American strategists are fundamentally less competent than Europeans or Russians.
     
    They are not less competent.
    But they are not more competent, either.

    Note how they handle the rise of the PRC as an emerging superpower.
    Some competence like the recent tech restrictions, but also a lot of incompetence which makes countries like India and Japan not rely too much on America in order to deal with China.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @MarkinPNW
    To understand "How exactly did the Americans and British aid the rise of Nazi Germany" you could read Anthony Sutton for a description of how the Anglo Elites (American and British) aided Hitler's rise to power - from a revisionist British-American historical perspective; and Nikolai Starikov who explains it from a revisionist Russian historical perspective.

    Also, Mahan and Mackinder can provide an explanation of the geopolitical and military philosophies behind the actions of the British and American elites.

    Basically, the plan of these Anglo/British elites was to establish world hegemony by getting any potential competitors (Germany, Russia, etc.) to fight each other to the death.

    Also, Mahan and Mackinder can provide an explanation of the geopolitical and military philosophies behind the actions of the British and American elites.

    Basically, the plan of these Anglo/British elites was to establish world hegemony by getting any potential competitors (Germany, Russia, etc.) to fight each other to the death.

    This is a very good point. If we follow this strategy, then USG actions actually make much more sense than what Anglo propaganda would have you believe. Didn’t Ukraine do a very good job of keeping Germany and Russia apart? What if the actual purpose of withdrawing from the Iranian deal is to fuck with Europe? I highly doubt American geopolitical strategy is as incompetent as what the media would have you believe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Increasing tensions with Russia and the arc of instability around Europe in MENA has fucked Europe. German Russian rapprochement is the great fear of US foreign policy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @LondonBob
    American isolationists were just plastic Americans with German or Irish roots, not fully assimilated and more concerned with petty ethnic score settling. The proper Anglo-Saxon populace supported intervention.

    I used to agree with isolationism but I grew out of it. Even a small US military commitment to Europe would have changed the calculus, even for a genocidal maniac like Hitler. The US simply couldn't have kept their head down whilst Communism and it's evil twin reaction against it ran amok. The mistake was to be late, not to arrive at all.

    That French map is nuts, Napoleon's idea of little German statelets, bit like how they wrongly thought they could make West Germany a dependency through the EU.

    American isolationists were just plastic Americans with German or Irish roots, not fully assimilated and more concerned with petty ethnic score settling. The proper Anglo-Saxon populace supported intervention.

    Not true, as noted by our distinguished host himself — according to a 1941 Gallup poll large majorities in all 48 states were against intervention.

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/war-sentiment/

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    No one sane enjoys getting involved in a war but the US was a signatory and crafter of the Versailles peace treaty and the US should have signalled they would uphold it.

    That map shows it was ethnic German areas most opposed to intervention, Ben Franklin had them figured right, Palatine Boors.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. DFH says:
    @LondonBob
    The only people fighting at one point as the Soviet Union supplied Nazi Germany with badly needed oil, not to mention enigma, the RN or the RAF and their contribution to containing Nazi Germany to a land power.

    Actually I find Remembrance Day here in Britain increasingly over the top, and the WWII mythology is pretty tedious anyway.

    Actually I find Remembrance Day here in Britain increasingly over the top, and the WWII mythology is pretty tedious anyway.

    Maybe we should replace it with an NHS day

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

    Please, consider the following analogy – a man gets seriously ill, partially because of his own idiocy, and partially because his enemies actions. Then he nearly dies, but at the last moment grips himself, changes his life, makes hard work and gets cured, which for him looks and feels almost like a miracle. Normally, such a man would celebrate this recovery from near death for the rest of his life, even if he might understand he had been idiot to get ill in the first place and he had been too stupid and slow to get proper medical treatment before it became too serious.

    Also, unfortunately your lack of prolonged childhood cultural background in Russia makes itself clear in this blog post.

    Victory Day and WWII memory in general was of huge personal and cultural importance to people in the late Soviet Union and post-Soviet era. It is clearly seen trough the vast numbers of songs and films dedicated to it (a lot of them are really good and known to generations of Russians). Indeed, the VD traditions were not so official and “imperial” before 1965, but after that time it quickly rose in state-recognized status, well before Yeltsin Era. While May 1 (up to 1968) and November 7 (up to 1990) continued to be the days fo military parades (except for 9 May in 1965, 1985 and 1990), that was just sticking to older Soviet traditions, which wasn’t properly matching public of ordinary people.

    Modern Victory Day is not about celebration of communism – there are some Stalinists making PR on this holiday, of course, but those, hopefully, are mostly marginals. It is really bad idea to denounce the entire holiday because of them.

    For most people in Russia Victory Day is:

    a) a family holiday, day of rememrance of soldiers and victims of war (and often, not only WWII, but other XXth centuries wars) – almost every Russian family have someone to remember. That reminds the situation in other European countries, but for Russia the day is much more important because of much, much larger numbers of war dead and size of the army.

    b) a day, when national power and unity and spirit and pride are demonstrated. That’s the difference from European countries, most of which were loosers or poor performers in the war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Generally good comment.

    One of my elderly in-laws is an actual veteran of the war. He doesn't talk about it but considers the day sacred and spends May 9th on his dacha with his family, away from any parades. He has a low opinion of Putin.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @Philip Owen
    In 1940, while the USSR was still supplying smuggled rubber to Germany, the UK broke the back of the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine robbing Germany of air dominance on the future Eastern Front and war supplies. In 1940 the UK alone out produced Germany in planes, tanks and ships. Canada added even more.

    In 1941, a third of the tanks defending Moscow were from Britain and Canada. Churchill started diverting ships from Canada to Murmansk from June onwards. Valentines may not have been the best tanks in the war but they were there when needed and started in cold weather. The USSR received 3000 Hurricanes before the USA got into gear not to mention many thousands of Bedford trucks. For free, not Lend Lease. A few KAMAZ apart, Russia still can't make trucks. The combined Italian/German armies were kept out of the Middle Eastern oil fields by Empire troops.

    The British/Canadian uranium centred A bomb programme was on the right track unlike the German one. Handing it to the US accelerated it two or three years. The British Empire had been pacifist. It was 4 or 5 years behind Germany in military build up but it was waiting for rescue less than Russia in 1941. By 1943 the UK had a strategic bomber. USSR never got close. Throwing away millions of men with stupid tactics was the Soviet way. Even though the USSR almost always outnumbered the Germans 3:1 in overall force strength, it took them years and vast losses to reclaim what the Germans had taken in months.

    Without Russia, the British Empire would have taken three or four years longer to beat Germany (assuming the USSR stopped supplying rubber, grain, fuel, steel and alloys to Germany as it did in 1940 & 41). The BE had a much bigger economy, better strategic weapons, not just planes,, radar, code breakers (battle of Kursk anyone), and the best heavy tanks of the war. The BE was simply much more mechanised than Germany.

    Soviet, excessive, sacrifice shortened the war and saved millions of British & Empire dead but the war could have been won other ways. Nukes for example.

    Of course Russia and France downplay the British contribution. They have reasons. But from 1939 (when the SU was a German ally) to 1942 the strategic resistance was British. Stalingrad killed far more people than El Alamein but Germans with oil and the Mediterranean (steam straight to the Kuban) would have been just as war losing for the, eventual, allies.

    You are a cretinous fascist probably not talking through your mouth.

    LOL, I stopped reading after “the British Empire was pacifist.” You Limeys are hopeless.

    Here’s a great Twitter feed you should read sometime, maybe you can rewire the fried motherboard between your ears.

    Britain didn't fight for the worlds freedom in WW2, they fought to try and cling on to the British Empire. Following the end of WW2, Britain assisted in restoring Dutch colonial rule in Indonesia and French colonial rule in Vietnam #VEDay— Crimes of Britain (@crimesofbrits) May 8, 2018

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    Which bit of the British Empire was Poland? Remind me again.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Steven says:

    Just a few thoughts :
    -I dare you to go and share your contemptuous ideas and words among the patriots and fighters of the already (+/-) regathered Russian lands, Crimea and Donbass. They’ll lynch you or beat you up so severely that you won’t even remember you’re a Russian.
    -Lol pro-russian kingdoms in Bohemia or Poland wouldn’t have survived for 5 years, you’re deluded.
    Or wouldn’t they have fostered hate against Russia as happened in the soviet satellite states ?
    -There was no nazi coup, they won the elections. Nazism was deeply rooted in revanchism, racial superiority, antisemitism,thirst for Lebensraum,pan-germanism, anti-capitalism and of course anticommunism. Some of these ideas went back centuries in time and even without a soviet Russia national-socialism would have come to power in Germany.
    -I’m convinced that without a man of steel, whatever his sins, Russia would have been crushed completely, certainly with a decadent, unworldly and westernized tsar as it’s leader.
    -Spitting on your own history (which you can’t deny nor change) won’t stop drifting the Near Abroad away, you can’t stop the course of history. It’s not necessarily the consequence of Russia’s “loser status”, it’s because they feel and are different on certain crucial points.
    -Crimea is not a marginal adjustment, it’s a symbolically and strategically very important region.
    -If RT exists just to troll Westerners, what the hell are you doing than in their programs, just pocketing the money ?!
    -Don’t overestimate Western soft power, they’re good at feeding naive,impoverished and russophobic masses in certain Eastern European countries. In Western Europe, more and more people see through their demagogic lies.
    -You’re an isolated, nationalistic nerd, in a way a real loser.
    -Your 3 “national ideas worthy of Russian civilization” are too ridicule to discuss.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    I dare you to go and share your contemptuous ideas and words among the patriots and fighters of the already (+/-) regathered Russian lands, Crimea and Donbass.
     
    Quite a number of them will agree with my assessment. For instance, I'm sure Zhuchkovsky will.

    There was no nazi coup, they won the elections.
     
    They won the elections, not the right to completely reformat the German political system into a dictatorship.

    Spitting on your own history (which you can’t deny nor change) won’t stop drifting the Near Abroad away, you can’t stop the course of history. It’s not necessarily the consequence of Russia’s “loser status”, it’s because they feel and are different on certain crucial points.
     
    So you merely disagree on semantics. Good to know.

    If RT exists just to troll Westerners, what the hell are you doing than in their programs, just pocketing the money ?!
     
    I have appeared on RT approximately three or four times and have never received a cent from them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @MarkinPNW
    The Anglo/British elites originally recruited the Bolsheviks to impose ruin on Russia to keep it from profiting by being on the "winning side" of WW1, and then when at the death of Lenin and Stalin out-maneuvering Trotsky they lost control of the Bolsheviks, they recruited Hitler to counter them.

    Yet Lenin’s gold came from Germany. Trotsky had no more than a good expense account.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Bragadocious
    LOL, I stopped reading after "the British Empire was pacifist." You Limeys are hopeless.

    Here's a great Twitter feed you should read sometime, maybe you can rewire the fried motherboard between your ears.

    Britain didn't fight for the worlds freedom in WW2, they fought to try and cling on to the British Empire. Following the end of WW2, Britain assisted in restoring Dutch colonial rule in Indonesia and French colonial rule in Vietnam #VEDay— Crimes of Britain (@crimesofbrits) May 8, 2018
     

    Which bit of the British Empire was Poland? Remind me again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bragadocious
    Uh, you said the British Empire was pacifist. Why don't you unpack that ludicrous statement for everyone? Instead you're trying to change the subject to Poland.

    But since you bring it up, no one ordered your incompetent PM to guarantee Polish sovereignty against a German attack. That was his roll of the dice. But like all British "diplomacy," it came up snake eyes. You tried to cash a check with insufficient funds. Then you spent 2 years cowering in bunkers, much to everyone's amusement.

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

    Meanwhile in Kiev – nationalists unsuccessfully picketing and sticker bombing “Inter” TV channel to stop them broadcasting their Victory Day concert.

    [MORE]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  74. songbird says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    This reminds me of the "seasteading" dreams which came very, very close to fruition in 2017 and then failed again:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/french-polynesia-ends-agreement-with-peter-thiel-seasteading-institute-2018-3

    From a technological perspective, I think its fascinating and its disappointing that it can never seem to find its legs to exist.

    That is unfortunately the drawback of most of these schemes: old countries will not permit new ones to exist. That is why I think space holds such an appeal for so many. The distances involved evoke a sense of peace, or perhaps just a grace period to develop into a power which can defend its own territory.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @LondonBob
    American isolationists were just plastic Americans with German or Irish roots, not fully assimilated and more concerned with petty ethnic score settling. The proper Anglo-Saxon populace supported intervention.

    I used to agree with isolationism but I grew out of it. Even a small US military commitment to Europe would have changed the calculus, even for a genocidal maniac like Hitler. The US simply couldn't have kept their head down whilst Communism and it's evil twin reaction against it ran amok. The mistake was to be late, not to arrive at all.

    That French map is nuts, Napoleon's idea of little German statelets, bit like how they wrongly thought they could make West Germany a dependency through the EU.

    “Plastic Americans.” The ones fighting British propaganda were the real Americans. The “plastic English” located in the hunt clubs of Newport and Syosset — they were the problem. (Along with YKW)

    Just FYI, maybe you miserable deadbeats should’ve paid your WW1 debts to us; we might’ve given you a more sympathetic hearing. Instead, we correctly played hardball with you, took your military bases in exchange for some destroyers, then came over to the UK and screwed all your women (back when they weren’t fat tramps). I’d say it was a good exchange overall.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Steven
    Just a few thoughts :
    -I dare you to go and share your contemptuous ideas and words among the patriots and fighters of the already (+/-) regathered Russian lands, Crimea and Donbass. They'll lynch you or beat you up so severely that you won't even remember you're a Russian.
    -Lol pro-russian kingdoms in Bohemia or Poland wouldn't have survived for 5 years, you're deluded.
    Or wouldn't they have fostered hate against Russia as happened in the soviet satellite states ?
    -There was no nazi coup, they won the elections. Nazism was deeply rooted in revanchism, racial superiority, antisemitism,thirst for Lebensraum,pan-germanism, anti-capitalism and of course anticommunism. Some of these ideas went back centuries in time and even without a soviet Russia national-socialism would have come to power in Germany.
    -I'm convinced that without a man of steel, whatever his sins, Russia would have been crushed completely, certainly with a decadent, unworldly and westernized tsar as it's leader.
    -Spitting on your own history (which you can't deny nor change) won't stop drifting the Near Abroad away, you can't stop the course of history. It's not necessarily the consequence of Russia's "loser status", it's because they feel and are different on certain crucial points.
    -Crimea is not a marginal adjustment, it's a symbolically and strategically very important region.
    -If RT exists just to troll Westerners, what the hell are you doing than in their programs, just pocketing the money ?!
    -Don't overestimate Western soft power, they're good at feeding naive,impoverished and russophobic masses in certain Eastern European countries. In Western Europe, more and more people see through their demagogic lies.
    -You're an isolated, nationalistic nerd, in a way a real loser.
    -Your 3 "national ideas worthy of Russian civilization" are too ridicule to discuss.

    I dare you to go and share your contemptuous ideas and words among the patriots and fighters of the already (+/-) regathered Russian lands, Crimea and Donbass.

    Quite a number of them will agree with my assessment. For instance, I’m sure Zhuchkovsky will.

    There was no nazi coup, they won the elections.

    They won the elections, not the right to completely reformat the German political system into a dictatorship.

    Spitting on your own history (which you can’t deny nor change) won’t stop drifting the Near Abroad away, you can’t stop the course of history. It’s not necessarily the consequence of Russia’s “loser status”, it’s because they feel and are different on certain crucial points.

    So you merely disagree on semantics. Good to know.

    If RT exists just to troll Westerners, what the hell are you doing than in their programs, just pocketing the money ?!

    I have appeared on RT approximately three or four times and have never received a cent from them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Mikhail says: • Website

    As RT has paid good money to some others who unfairly bashed that station.

    How official Russia screws itself in a way that’s not so well known remains an ongoing issue.

    Russia should honor Victory Day in an objective manner that acknowledges Stalin’s brutality.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  78. AP says:
    @AlexBond
    Please, consider the following analogy - a man gets seriously ill, partially because of his own idiocy, and partially because his enemies actions. Then he nearly dies, but at the last moment grips himself, changes his life, makes hard work and gets cured, which for him looks and feels almost like a miracle. Normally, such a man would celebrate this recovery from near death for the rest of his life, even if he might understand he had been idiot to get ill in the first place and he had been too stupid and slow to get proper medical treatment before it became too serious.

    Also, unfortunately your lack of prolonged childhood cultural background in Russia makes itself clear in this blog post.

    Victory Day and WWII memory in general was of huge personal and cultural importance to people in the late Soviet Union and post-Soviet era. It is clearly seen trough the vast numbers of songs and films dedicated to it (a lot of them are really good and known to generations of Russians). Indeed, the VD traditions were not so official and "imperial" before 1965, but after that time it quickly rose in state-recognized status, well before Yeltsin Era. While May 1 (up to 1968) and November 7 (up to 1990) continued to be the days fo military parades (except for 9 May in 1965, 1985 and 1990), that was just sticking to older Soviet traditions, which wasn't properly matching public of ordinary people.

    Modern Victory Day is not about celebration of communism - there are some Stalinists making PR on this holiday, of course, but those, hopefully, are mostly marginals. It is really bad idea to denounce the entire holiday because of them.

    For most people in Russia Victory Day is:

    a) a family holiday, day of rememrance of soldiers and victims of war (and often, not only WWII, but other XXth centuries wars) - almost every Russian family have someone to remember. That reminds the situation in other European countries, but for Russia the day is much more important because of much, much larger numbers of war dead and size of the army.

    b) a day, when national power and unity and spirit and pride are demonstrated. That's the difference from European countries, most of which were loosers or poor performers in the war.

    Generally good comment.

    One of my elderly in-laws is an actual veteran of the war. He doesn’t talk about it but considers the day sacred and spends May 9th on his dacha with his family, away from any parades. He has a low opinion of Putin.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Philip Owen
    Which bit of the British Empire was Poland? Remind me again.

    Uh, you said the British Empire was pacifist. Why don’t you unpack that ludicrous statement for everyone? Instead you’re trying to change the subject to Poland.

    But since you bring it up, no one ordered your incompetent PM to guarantee Polish sovereignty against a German attack. That was his roll of the dice. But like all British “diplomacy,” it came up snake eyes. You tried to cash a check with insufficient funds. Then you spent 2 years cowering in bunkers, much to everyone’s amusement.

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

    Russia defeated 2 of the 3 main central powers
     
    And yet Russia collapsed into chaos before Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman empire, so it seems to have been a rather special kind of victory.
    Ottoman empire also had to fight the British (Gallipoli, Iraq and probably more I can't think of right now), so Russia didn't face the Ottomans alone.

    “Russia defeated 2 of the 3 main central powers”

    And yet Russia collapsed into chaos before Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman empire, so it seems to have been a rather special kind of victory.

    Russia underwent a revolution. At the time it was actually driving the Germans back (Kerensky offensive). It was an internal event, not a military defeat. Like the collapse of the USSR, which was not something outsiders did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    It was an internal event, not a military defeat
     
    That's a bit like saying Germany wasn't defeated in 1918, it just went down because of internal revolution. A home front doesn't collapse without good reason.
    It's news to me that Kerensky offensive is now supposed to have been a success.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Gerard2 says:
    @DFH

    Russian women
     
    Who doesn't love a woman with a permanent frown?

    Who doesn’t love a woman with a permanent frown?

    ….you must be confusing Russian women with angry ,sad Polish women stuck in loveless marriages with some fat oaf who she doesn’t actually have sexual relations with( as evidenced by the very small sized families in Poland despite the lack of belief in contraception and the supposedly longer marriages) whilst living in a cultural dump with next to nought tourists , like Warsaw?…..and with the husband or son away more than half the time in Germany or the UK?

    Russian women have great humour and ability to enjoy themselves at any age

    Read More
    • Replies: @szopen

    next to nought tourists
     
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/413249/number-of-arrivals-spent-in-short-stay-accommodation-in-poland/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @AP

    "Russia defeated 2 of the 3 main central powers"

    And yet Russia collapsed into chaos before Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman empire, so it seems to have been a rather special kind of victory.
     
    Russia underwent a revolution. At the time it was actually driving the Germans back (Kerensky offensive). It was an internal event, not a military defeat. Like the collapse of the USSR, which was not something outsiders did.

    It was an internal event, not a military defeat

    That’s a bit like saying Germany wasn’t defeated in 1918, it just went down because of internal revolution. A home front doesn’t collapse without good reason.
    It’s news to me that Kerensky offensive is now supposed to have been a success.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    That’s a bit like saying Germany wasn’t defeated in 1918, it just went down because of internal revolution.
     
    At the time that Germany surrendered it was being thrown back at various points:

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

    It’s news to me that Kerensky offensive is now supposed to have been a success.
     
    Kerensky offensive successfully drove the Germans and Austro-Hungarian back and ended not because of German victory on the battlefield but by mutiny and desertion by the Russian troops. Only after the Russian troops mutinied first, were the Germans able to advance later. It was an internal issue, not forced upon Russia by the Germans.

    If in World War II, 1945, the Soviet soldiers decided to stop fighting and went home, enabling the Germans to later retake their country, would this mean Germany had beaten the Soviet Union?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Anonymous[196] • Disclaimer says:

    I’m not Russian, just a red-blooded American. But when I read that disrespectful bullshit by Karlin, about the past generations who sacrificed so much for their country, I got pissed off. Show some respect you little ingrate. You flabby, long-haired Berkeley-educated bitch. Maybe instead of reading all that emasculating sci-fi/fantasy crap you should read a few books about Stalingrad. No wonder Pol Pot wanted to wipe out all the intellectuals. What a worthless bunch of motherfuckers they are, doing nothing but spouting bullshit!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  84. Mr. XYZ says:

    : Yeah, I had the impression that the Kerensky Offensive had some initial successes but ultimately petered out and failed.

    Also, the Germans captured Riga in September 1917:

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

    Of course, one could claim that Russia would have performed better in 1917 had it not been for the Petrograd Soviet weakening military discipline with its Order No. 1 and if Bolshevik defeatist propaganda would not have circulated among Russian troops on the front lines.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail
    The WW I start date of 1914 as opposed to 1916 played a role in Russia's fate, as well as the very mistaken attempt for Russia to have launched an offensive into Germany as early as it did in WW I.

    Comparatively, imagine the USSR launching an offensive into Germany, on-or before, or shortly after June 22, 1941.

    , @AP

    Yeah, I had the impression that the Kerensky Offensive had some initial successes but ultimately petered out and failed.
     
    It was a success until the Russian troops decided to stop fighting and go home, despite having the Germans in retreat. The Germans didn't beat them, they decided not to fight anymore.

    Riga was captured a few months later. It was over by then.

    Of course, one could claim that Russia would have performed better in 1917 had it not been for the Petrograd Soviet weakening military discipline with its Order No. 1 and if Bolshevik defeatist propaganda would not have circulated among Russian troops on the front lines.
     
    Of course. This is why Russia fell, it wasn't beaten, it "beat" itself. As in the Soviet loss in the Cold War.

    Entering the war in 1914 was stupid for Russia to do - it was too early by about 10 years. But it's performance was by no means disastrous. The British struggled with the Ottomans, losing at Gallipoli - the Russians defeated them in multiple battles and grabbed about 10% of their territory. The Russians crushed the Austro-Hungarians. So if there had been a Russo-Turkish-Austrian war the Russians would have had a spectacular victory against these two powers. What a difference from the loss to Japan just 10 years earlier.

    And although Russia lost territory to Germany they maintained a front with that country, at least until they decided to stop fighting.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Mr. XYZ says:

    : As for Germany, it wasn’t totally militarily defeated in late 1918, but it was on its way there. Perhaps a bit similar to Japan in 1945, but without the nuclear weapons factor.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  86. Mr. XYZ says:

    : Is your elderly in-law ethnically Russian or ethnically Ukrainian?

    Also, off-topic, but I can’t resist asking–had there been no World War II and Holocaust, what do you think the role of Eastern European Jews (the ones who would have remained there–as opposed to the ones who would have emigrated elsewhere) would have been in the 21st century?

    Would they have largely been pushing for left-wing political causes like U.S. Jews largely do? Or would they have been more nationalistic–similar to how Poles and Hungarians are extremely hostile towards allowing large numbers of Muslims and Africans to move to their countries?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    : Is your elderly in-law ethnically Russian or ethnically Ukrainian?
     
    Russian, in Moscow. May 9th was always a sacred holiday in that part of the family. But it wasn't a public event.

    what do you think the role of Eastern European Jews (the ones who would have remained there–as opposed to the ones who would have emigrated elsewhere) would have been in the 21st century?
     
    There would have been discrete groups: Hasids with large families being a sort of Amish society living apart from others, right-wing Zionists, and left-wing agitators.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Bigly says:

    Anatoly wrote:

    In 2016, Kazakhstan canceled its Victory Day march even as it accelerated the transition to the Latin alphabet. The Immortal Regiments marches, perhaps the one genuinely grassroots Russian expression of Victory, have been getting banned in Tajikistan (a quarter of its GDP generated by remittances from Russia) and now Belorussia (which enjoys cheaper gas from Russia than Russians themselves).

    The info about Belarus is not true, the authorities eventually ceded and gave the green light for the Immortal Regiment march to proceed. From the anti-Russian, Western-funded NGO “Charter 97″:

    https://charter97.org/en/news/2018/5/9/289300/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  88. Dmitry says:

    Offtopic:

    There seem to have been another round of airstrikes from Israel into Syria tonight.

    I’m reading on the Hebrew boards – they have posters living in Northern District and Golan posting about some loud noises (missile takeoffs) they hear and of planes flying over their house. Jokes about how people in Switzerland would not understand their excuse for being tired at work tomorrow.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    You're not up to date, Iranian forces have supposedly fired 20 missiles at the Golan.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-44063022
    Well, looks like Greasy William's prayers might be fulfilled after all.
    I wonder if the US will join in. On some level I hope so, the sooner US credibility gets destroyed, the better.
    , @Mikhail
    https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5255666,00.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @Dmitry
    Offtopic:

    There seem to have been another round of airstrikes from Israel into Syria tonight.

    I'm reading on the Hebrew boards - they have posters living in Northern District and Golan posting about some loud noises (missile takeoffs) they hear and of planes flying over their house. Jokes about how people in Switzerland would not understand their excuse for being tired at work tomorrow.

    You’re not up to date, Iranian forces have supposedly fired 20 missiles at the Golan.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-44063022

    Well, looks like Greasy William’s prayers might be fulfilled after all.
    I wonder if the US will join in. On some level I hope so, the sooner US credibility gets destroyed, the better.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    Supposedly it's the Syrian army that is shooting back and has hit the Golan:
    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/05/syrians-and-israelis-are-shooting-at-each-other-ttg.html
    , @Dmitry
    The rockets initiated the airstrikes, but the airstrikes were probably as pre-planned (Isael already knowing about the rocket attack plans as well).

    Obviously this is the main reason Netanyahu was in Moscow yesterday with the meetings in the Kremlin last afternoon. It seems he had some permission or approval, as airstrikes in response were beginning 20 minutes after he landed.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Dmitry
    Offtopic:

    There seem to have been another round of airstrikes from Israel into Syria tonight.

    I'm reading on the Hebrew boards - they have posters living in Northern District and Golan posting about some loud noises (missile takeoffs) they hear and of planes flying over their house. Jokes about how people in Switzerland would not understand their excuse for being tired at work tomorrow.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @German_reader
    You're not up to date, Iranian forces have supposedly fired 20 missiles at the Golan.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-44063022
    Well, looks like Greasy William's prayers might be fulfilled after all.
    I wonder if the US will join in. On some level I hope so, the sooner US credibility gets destroyed, the better.

    Supposedly it’s the Syrian army that is shooting back and has hit the Golan:

    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/05/syrians-and-israelis-are-shooting-at-each-other-ttg.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Mr. Hack says:
    @Dmitry
    Look at the last paragraph - It's concluding about atomically blasting ships (I imagine staffed with Admiral Martyanov) into space.

    It's mainly a comedy or entertainment article, with a few of his unusual points of view. Maybe it should have been posted tomorrow from civilized taste - still it hardly requires to burn him as a witch.

    Since you almost seem to have a direct passageway to the inner workings of Karlin’s mind, why not share with us what you consider to be some of Karlin’s ‘unusual points of view’ that he expresses here?
    Would you consider his ‘real national ideas worthy of Russian civilization’ that includes:

    The regathering of the Russian lands

    to be one of his provocative funny bone statements, or more closely resembling something that he indeed holds near and dear to his heart? (I’d ask him to answer for himself, but he avoids any deeper discussion about this topic like the plague).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Since you almost seem to have a direct passageway to the inner workings of Karlin’s mind, why not share with us what you consider to be some of Karlin’s ‘unusual points of view’ that he expresses here?
    Would you consider his ‘real national ideas worthy of Russian
     
    The whole thing is an combination of eccentric and unusual, with some comedy mixed. Of course, not only I, but most people in the world, will disagree with every paragraph. But that's his prerogative - I was not personally offended, or a 'snowflake', but just found it an entertaining writing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Mr. XYZ
    @German_reader: Yeah, I had the impression that the Kerensky Offensive had some initial successes but ultimately petered out and failed.

    Also, the Germans captured Riga in September 1917:

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

    Of course, one could claim that Russia would have performed better in 1917 had it not been for the Petrograd Soviet weakening military discipline with its Order No. 1 and if Bolshevik defeatist propaganda would not have circulated among Russian troops on the front lines.

    The WW I start date of 1914 as opposed to 1916 played a role in Russia’s fate, as well as the very mistaken attempt for Russia to have launched an offensive into Germany as early as it did in WW I.

    Comparatively, imagine the USSR launching an offensive into Germany, on-or before, or shortly after June 22, 1941.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Bragadocious
    The Brits think they won WW2? By doing what, cowering and waiting for help? Thanks for the belly laugh today.

    The Brits think they won WW2?

    Of course they did. Thank God for Churchill. Without Churchill there would be no British Empire today. Had it not been for Churchill London today might be a city under foreign occupation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Anon 2 says:

    Re: “Russia’s loser status”

    Anatoly, if it makes you feel any better, it is Germany that is truly
    a failed civilization. 100 million German speakers, excellent location, , and yet there is not a single German-speaking country outside
    of Europe. At the same time the Spanish, the Portuguese, the French,
    and, of course, the Brits almost effortlessly extended their civilizations
    throughout the globe. France, Spain, Italy are loaded with soft power
    whereas Germany is still seen as repellent (Merkel’s millions is the
    latest fiasco) in Europe, and possibly only attractive to the Middle Eastern
    types (Turks, Syrians, Afghans, and Israelis). I still recall how in September
    2015 a Syrian migrant interviewed on the way north said, “We love the
    Germans because of what they did to the Jews.”

    Read More
    • Agree: German_reader
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  96. Mr. XYZ says:

    : In regards to invading Germany in 1914, one’s view on this might depend on whether one believes that this affected the outcome of campaign in the West in August-September 1914. After all, if France would have fell in 1914, Russia would have been screwed (though not as much as in our TL since there would have been no opening for the Bolsheviks to seize power).

    As for having World War I break out in 1916, please keep in mind that a World War I which breaks out in 1916 could have Britain remain neutral (due to Russia’s growing military might and also possibly due to the Schlieffen Plan becoming outdated by that point in time). British neutrality in an alt-World War I might very well cancel out the effects of Russia’s increased military strength. In other words, Germany might have a harder time in the East but an easier time in the West in an alt-World War I which breaks out in 1916.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  97. dfordoom says: • Website
    @German_reader

    Without Russia, the British Empire would have taken three or four years longer to beat Germany
     
    You're delusional, even with the Wehrmacht already being broken in the east and the massive contributions of the Americans, the landings in France in 1944 were extremely risky, no way Britain could have done something like this alone. I also have a hard time believing the British public would have tolerated the massive casualties inevitable in a full-scale fight against the Wehrmacht, no one in Britain wanted a repeat of the mass slaughter of WW1.
    If Germany hadn't attacked the Soviet Union in 1941, I'd suppose there would have been prolonged stalemate between Germany and the British empire, with neither side being able to hurt the other sufficiently to force a decision. Or maybe Germany would have succeeded in strangling Britain economically with u-boats. But the idea that the British empire alone would have been able to eject German forces from their conquests (something which would have been absolutely unprecedented in British history) must surely rank as the least likely scenario.
    Maybe British contributions are undervalued, and Britain certainly had a lot of impressive technology in WW2. But at some point revisionism just becomes silly.

    If Germany hadn’t attacked the Soviet Union in 1941, I’d suppose there would have been prolonged stalemate between Germany and the British empire

    Not very prolonged. Britain was broke. Britain would have been forced to make peace with Germany. Germany would almost certainly have offered rather attractive terms for such a peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Probably, Japanese entry, or not, in to the war would have been decisive. Would have been BE fighting a two front war.

    The smart move by Hitler would have been a push to take Egypt, the Suez Canal and open up the oil supply of the Middle East rather than invading the SU. Still issues supplying across the Med with British sea and air power interdicting.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Mbc says:

    It is incredible stuff this guy comes up with. Russian eempire was dissolving and soldiers were deserting, yet hee says they were on the cusp of victory.
    Every European country celebrates the end wwwii. Countries such as Denmark and Netherlands that had negligible resistance movements make a big deal out of their contribution to the victory.
    He posts graphs, pictures and lengthy rants, but to no avail.
    The man is a first class moron who likes to hear himself talk.
    Really sad.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  99. Mitleser says:
    @random rand
    Eh, I think Mr. Karlin overstates his case a bit too much here. He thinks Russia shouldn't dwell on the past but it does seem he's so overly nostalgic for the Russian Empire he constantly dwells on that past. At the end of the day, Victory Day still isn't a bad Schelling Point. People still remember WWII and if Russia lost the war Russians would stop existing as a people. Sure, maybe if Bolshevism never happened WWII would not have happened as it did but Bolshevism did happen so you might as well keep the Schelling Points you can make use of. As german_reader said, this article is an overly cynical view.

    An interesting point worth noting is how Mr. Karlin called the Americans smart at foreign policy. I actually do think Americans are underestimated at geopolitics and the promotion of the idea that the American establishment is ran by a bunch of morons probably serves US foreign policy. There's no reason to believe American strategists are fundamentally less competent than Europeans or Russians. Even if the Americans are not playing nth dimensions chess they are at the very least playing chess. Maybe if the current generation of American strategists die and college libs and SJWs take power the US will implode in a hurry but we're not at that point yet.

    There’s no reason to believe American strategists are fundamentally less competent than Europeans or Russians.

    They are not less competent.
    But they are not more competent, either.

    Note how they handle the rise of the PRC as an emerging superpower.
    Some competence like the recent tech restrictions, but also a lot of incompetence which makes countries like India and Japan not rely too much on America in order to deal with China.

    Read More
    • Replies: @random rand

    They are not less competent.
    But they are not more competent, either.
     
    I agree but the important point is that the US only needs to be as competent as Europeans and Russians to stay far ahead of them. Americans don't need to be more competent because they already have control over the global financial system, the strongest military, military bases everywhere, and Europe as their semi-vassal. The playing field is so uneven that the USG doesn't need to be overly competent to beat everyone else. Everyone else needs to be vastly more competent than the Americans to catch up with them. Even if China was the most competent geopolitical player in the past few decades, they're still 7 years behind in high tech manufacturing and ZTE effectively seized operations due to the chip ban.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Anon 2 says:

    Here’s Europe’s tragedy at its starkest:

    Area of Europe (from Portugal to the Urals): 10,180,000 sq km
    Area of China: 9,597,000 sq km

    i.e., Europe and China have basically the same area, about 10 million sq km.

    Now compare the populations:

    Europe 750 million
    China 1.38 billion

    Hence it’s reasonable to conclude that Europe is missing at least 630 million people!
    What happened to them? Clearly, it’s not Europe’s location which is nearly
    perfect (temperate zone, rich soils, etc). I would hypothesize that it’s Europe’s
    near constant wars (since Charlemagne) that are primarily responsible for the fact that
    Europe is so severely underpopulated. Of course, the bleeding of the populations
    to the colonies has also been a contributing factor. Nevertheless, Europe with
    a population of 1.4 billion would be a superpower to reckon with but it’s too
    late for that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon 2
    By the way, the area of the United States is

    9,834,000 sq km, i.e., about 10 million sq km.

    Hence Europe, China, and the United States all have the same area: ~10 million sq km.
    A nice round number. What a strange coincidence!
    , @songbird
    China is something of an anomaly in that it is a high IQ country with (at least partly) a Southern range of latitudes. Since, it is relatively well-watered, it supported a high population. Meanwhile, rice was not a crop which could do well in Europe. It is an interesting question what would have happened if the potato had been introduced much earlier to Europe, say 1000 AD, or even the founding of Rome.

    As I understand it, the IQ by region in China is relatively homogeneous. Makes me wonder about the fertility - if the fertility is relatively higher in the south.

    It is easy to believe Russia would have had a higher population without communism and the more recent wars, I'm not too sure about the rest of Europe though (maybe more emigration or a drop in fertility) but it is easy to believe the West would have been better off. Imagine if the war dead had only been sent to America or South Africa, or maybe Argentina.
    , @Bigly
    Russia has 17.1 million km² according to Google. If Ukraine is annexed (one can dream) this number will rise to 17.7 million km².

    That's not far from the US + Canada combined, and leaves the whole of Europe well behind.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @Mr. Hack
    Oh no, looks like the regathering will necessitate Stalinist type gulags, and maybe even Hitleresque concentration camps to help ‘melt and mold’ the recalcitrant Ukrainians. :-( but isn’t this a part of what Karlin is railing against here in this piece? I’d rather hear his take on the ‘melting and molding’, since he’s the High IQ guy running this blog, however, feel free to include your vision of the Russian version of Dante’s Inferno?………………….Karlin, what’s up? Nothing again -0-? (How long will you keep your loyal opposition in suspense?)

    Given that you have in the past proposed that commenters who argue with you get checked into punitive psychological facilities I would suggest that you refrain from calling others Stalinists unless they really sound like neo-Stalinists.

    While I don’t think you are aware of it, it does sound very sovok-like to throw people who disagree with you into psychological prisons.

    I don’t think it would be hard to recreate a unified Russian identity again given the right policies once all the land has been regathered.

    My proposal on first how to get the land and second how to carry out cultural unification would be something like this:

    Carry out a coup or Anschluss type scenario in Biélorussia.

    Launch a blitzkrieg attack against Maidan government to capture the greater part of Malorussia and Novorussia.

    Leave Greater Galicia as a rump Ukraine.

    Dump the svidomites in Galicia and seal the border (to prevent hit-and-run attacks and American weapons flooding the region).

    Station Russian gendarmerie in the regained territories to pacify the region (At worst I think it will be like the North Caucasus insurgency).

    Send diplomatic note expressing worry over the treatment of the Slavic population (and other minorities?) in Kazakhstan (given Nazarbayev’s policies this shouldn’t be difficult).

    Encourage local population to agitate for formation of South Siberian autonomous Republic in North Kazakhstan.

    Keep the South Siberian Republic disassociating from Kazakh state structures until Astana cracks down on the Russian population.

    Hold referendum and declare South Siberian independence.

    Send Russian army south to protect the new border and prevent Kazakh army from retaking the area.

    Keep fighting until the Russian army and pro-Russian militias have captured the northern half of the country.

    Perform Operation Storm-like ethnic cleansing in South Siberia.

    Hold referendum on South Siberia joining Russia.

    That is the military part.

    To unify Russia culturally:

    Encourage Surzhik-like dialects in former Bielorussia and Ukraine (West Russia) to blur the linguistic distinction between the languages.

    Incorporate Ukrainian and Bielorussian words into Russian while encouraging West Russians to speak Russian.

    Pursue a Franquist policy of adopting some elements of regional cultures ex. Ukrainian peasant clothes and songs while discouraging others ex. vernacular spellings of peoples’ names.

    Emphasise the Russian National State’s status as a successor to Old Rus’ and as a Third Rome.

    Encourage internal migration and intermarriage within Russia so that West Russians settle further east (perhaps in national minority regions like former Tatarstan and Tuva?) and Great Russians settle in the regained territories.

    Make sure that education and media reinforces the previously mentioned points.

    Read More
    • LOL: Mr. Hack
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Yes, you're right, I have advocated that Ukrainaphobes check into the closest psychiatric clinic for help. Do you consider your Ukrinophobia to be of the class 1 variety or possibly class 2?

    Modern scholars define two types of anti-Ukrainian sentiment. One is based on discrimination of Ukrainians based on their ethnic or cultural origin, a typical kind of xenophobia and racism. Another one is based on the conceptual rejection of Ukrainians, Ukrainian culture, and language as artificial and unnatural; at the turn of the 20th century, several authors supported an assertion that Ukrainian identity and language had been created artificially in order to undermine Russia.[3
     
    Perhap you suffer both kinds? In any event you can get help, so please look into it and don't let this nasty thing fester any more out of control. Trust me, you'll feel much better and you might even begin to appreciate things like a sunny day, the smile of a child, the warm caress of a beautiful woman...
    , @AP
    So much wishful thinking and optimism.

    Launch a blitzkrieg attack against Maidan government to capture the greater part of Malorussia and Novorussia.
     
    Invade a country with 200,000 well-armed soldiers and about 40 million people. You'll win, but it will cost you. It's not 2014 anymore.

    Leave Greater Galicia as a rump Ukraine.
     
    Why not keep it and add Poland too, since we are in wishful thinking mode.

    Dump the svidomites in Galicia and seal the border (to prevent hit-and-run attacks and American weapons flooding the region).
     
    That would be about 80% of the population in a region with 20 million people (central and parts of eastern Ukraine outside Galicia).

    Station Russian gendarmerie in the regained territories to pacify the region (At worst I think it will be like the North Caucasus insurgency).
     
    After you've deported 16 million people it might be even easier. I don't think Hitler or Stalin even managed to deport 16 million people, but your optimism is noted.

    But if you haven't deported them, keep in mind that Chechnya only had 1.4 million people, the Russia-hating city of Kiev alone has 3 times that many. So you've got about 20 million patriotic Ukrainians living outside western Ukraine, in central and parts of Eastern Ukraine. It's not 2014 anymore. There are plenty of weapons and 100,000s of these people have been through the army and seen some combat. It will be quite an insurgency. Maybe after killing a few 100,000s of people, or a million or two, you will subdue the place, and then you'll be successfully ruling a sullen, occupied place like Poland was during the Cold War. In the mean time you will have lost tens of thousands of people yourself, become North Koreaized, and the next time you are in another war guess which part of "Russia" will stab you in the back?

    Encourage Surzhik-like dialects in former Bielorussia and Ukraine (West Russia) to blur the linguistic distinction between the languages.
     
    Loss of Gaelic turned Irish people into loyal Brits, Englishmen really..

    With the exception of the Scanians of Sweden (who were outnumbered 9:1 by Swedes and whose culture and language were closer to Swedish than Ukrainian is to Russian) no people have as a group switched their fully formed national identity for a new one. But you are in extreme optimism mode.

    I hope you are a bright and enthusiastic teenager.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Mr. XYZ says:

    : Would a similar strategy work in regards to having the U.S. annex Canada, Australia, and New Zealand?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    I think Australia and New Zealand are too far away. I am skeptical about the ability of countries with large distances between their territories to hold together.

    Just look at how Russia and America still have large contiguous territories while Britain gave independence to their white dominions.

    Of course, modern developed communications and transport may make it easier to hold far-flung lands together than in the past.

    I think that Québec should be separated from the rest of Canada and made an independent protectorate.

    I think assimilation of Canada, Australia and NZ would fairly easy given that there is no deep history of hostiles between the countries and the widespread influence of American culture worldwide.

    It would probably be better to present the unified Anglosphere as a new country than as simply a takeover by the USA even if that is what it would be de facto. Local peoples, even if they belong to a fake nation, can be very prickly.
    , @dfordoom

    Would a similar strategy work in regards to having the U.S. annex Canada, Australia, and New Zealand?
     
    Why would the U.S. need to annex Australia? We're already their most faithful most pathetically grovelling lapdog (apart from Britain of course). We're already part of the American Empire. But as long as it can be pretended that countries like Australia and Britain are independent countries then the U.S. can claim to have allies rather than colonial possessions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Anon 2 says:
    @Anon 2
    Here's Europe's tragedy at its starkest:

    Area of Europe (from Portugal to the Urals): 10,180,000 sq km
    Area of China: 9,597,000 sq km

    i.e., Europe and China have basically the same area, about 10 million sq km.

    Now compare the populations:

    Europe 750 million
    China 1.38 billion

    Hence it's reasonable to conclude that Europe is missing at least 630 million people!
    What happened to them? Clearly, it's not Europe's location which is nearly
    perfect (temperate zone, rich soils, etc). I would hypothesize that it's Europe's
    near constant wars (since Charlemagne) that are primarily responsible for the fact that
    Europe is so severely underpopulated. Of course, the bleeding of the populations
    to the colonies has also been a contributing factor. Nevertheless, Europe with
    a population of 1.4 billion would be a superpower to reckon with but it's too
    late for that.

    By the way, the area of the United States is

    9,834,000 sq km, i.e., about 10 million sq km.

    Hence Europe, China, and the United States all have the same area: ~10 million sq km.
    A nice round number. What a strange coincidence!

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

    It was an internal event, not a military defeat
     
    That's a bit like saying Germany wasn't defeated in 1918, it just went down because of internal revolution. A home front doesn't collapse without good reason.
    It's news to me that Kerensky offensive is now supposed to have been a success.

    That’s a bit like saying Germany wasn’t defeated in 1918, it just went down because of internal revolution.

    At the time that Germany surrendered it was being thrown back at various points:

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

    It’s news to me that Kerensky offensive is now supposed to have been a success.

    Kerensky offensive successfully drove the Germans and Austro-Hungarian back and ended not because of German victory on the battlefield but by mutiny and desertion by the Russian troops. Only after the Russian troops mutinied first, were the Germans able to advance later. It was an internal issue, not forced upon Russia by the Germans.

    If in World War II, 1945, the Soviet soldiers decided to stop fighting and went home, enabling the Germans to later retake their country, would this mean Germany had beaten the Soviet Union?

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    Kerensky offensive successfully drove the Germans and Austro-Hungarian back and ended not because of German victory on the battlefield but by mutiny and desertion by the Russian troops
     
    When morale in your army is so low that soldiers start mutinying and deserting during an offensive (and iirc they started doing that already after only a few days/weeks), that's a pretty strong sign imo that, contrary to your assertion, the Russian army in 1917 wasn't capable of winning anything. Morale and willingness to fight must surely rank as one of the most crucial aspects of any fighting force.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Mr. Hack says:
    @Hyperborean
    Given that you have in the past proposed that commenters who argue with you get checked into punitive psychological facilities I would suggest that you refrain from calling others Stalinists unless they really sound like neo-Stalinists.

    While I don't think you are aware of it, it does sound very sovok-like to throw people who disagree with you into psychological prisons.

    I don't think it would be hard to recreate a unified Russian identity again given the right policies once all the land has been regathered.

    My proposal on first how to get the land and second how to carry out cultural unification would be something like this:

    Carry out a coup or Anschluss type scenario in Biélorussia.

    Launch a blitzkrieg attack against Maidan government to capture the greater part of Malorussia and Novorussia.

    Leave Greater Galicia as a rump Ukraine.

    Dump the svidomites in Galicia and seal the border (to prevent hit-and-run attacks and American weapons flooding the region).

    Station Russian gendarmerie in the regained territories to pacify the region (At worst I think it will be like the North Caucasus insurgency).

    Send diplomatic note expressing worry over the treatment of the Slavic population (and other minorities?) in Kazakhstan (given Nazarbayev's policies this shouldn't be difficult).

    Encourage local population to agitate for formation of South Siberian autonomous Republic in North Kazakhstan.

    Keep the South Siberian Republic disassociating from Kazakh state structures until Astana cracks down on the Russian population.

    Hold referendum and declare South Siberian independence.

    Send Russian army south to protect the new border and prevent Kazakh army from retaking the area.

    Keep fighting until the Russian army and pro-Russian militias have captured the northern half of the country.

    Perform Operation Storm-like ethnic cleansing in South Siberia.

    Hold referendum on South Siberia joining Russia.

    That is the military part.

    To unify Russia culturally:

    Encourage Surzhik-like dialects in former Bielorussia and Ukraine (West Russia) to blur the linguistic distinction between the languages.

    Incorporate Ukrainian and Bielorussian words into Russian while encouraging West Russians to speak Russian.

    Pursue a Franquist policy of adopting some elements of regional cultures ex. Ukrainian peasant clothes and songs while discouraging others ex. vernacular spellings of peoples' names.

    Emphasise the Russian National State's status as a successor to Old Rus' and as a Third Rome.

    Encourage internal migration and intermarriage within Russia so that West Russians settle further east (perhaps in national minority regions like former Tatarstan and Tuva?) and Great Russians settle in the regained territories.

    Make sure that education and media reinforces the previously mentioned points.

    Yes, you’re right, I have advocated that Ukrainaphobes check into the closest psychiatric clinic for help. Do you consider your Ukrinophobia to be of the class 1 variety or possibly class 2?

    Modern scholars define two types of anti-Ukrainian sentiment. One is based on discrimination of Ukrainians based on their ethnic or cultural origin, a typical kind of xenophobia and racism. Another one is based on the conceptual rejection of Ukrainians, Ukrainian culture, and language as artificial and unnatural; at the turn of the 20th century, several authors supported an assertion that Ukrainian identity and language had been created artificially in order to undermine Russia.[3

    Perhap you suffer both kinds? In any event you can get help, so please look into it and don’t let this nasty thing fester any more out of control. Trust me, you’ll feel much better and you might even begin to appreciate things like a sunny day, the smile of a child, the warm caress of a beautiful woman…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    I think that you suffer from cognitive dissonance in denouncing people as stalinists while endorsing sovok type repression of people who disagree with you (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union).

    Why would I be seen as a Class 1?
    My proposal explicitly states that Russians should adopt parts of regional Ukrainian culture.

    I hold no personal ill-will against Ukrainians, I simply don't think the Ukraine should be seen as a proper nation. In the same way, I like Austrians and Montenegrines, but that doesn't mean that they are real countries.

    I think it is interesting how loyal you are to the idea of Ukraine despite living in America. Which generation are you? If you have any children what do they think about Ukraine?

    Usually when I encounter Americans in real life, even by merely the second generation it seems like they have only superficial ties left to their homelands and by the third generation they are completely American.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Talha says:

    The contributions of Central Asians were minor relative to their populations, and their presence often lowered rather than raised combat effectiveness

    Makes sense; why the heck would Central Asians want anything to do with a European war a few thousand miles away from their home? And fighting under an atheist Communist flag at that – seems a fairly silly reason to give up one’s life for. I’m sure the Communists would have loved more cannon fodder, but I can’t think of a single reason why from a Central Asian perspective.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  107. @Mr. XYZ
    @Hyperborean: Would a similar strategy work in regards to having the U.S. annex Canada, Australia, and New Zealand?

    I think Australia and New Zealand are too far away. I am skeptical about the ability of countries with large distances between their territories to hold together.

    Just look at how Russia and America still have large contiguous territories while Britain gave independence to their white dominions.

    Of course, modern developed communications and transport may make it easier to hold far-flung lands together than in the past.

    I think that Québec should be separated from the rest of Canada and made an independent protectorate.

    I think assimilation of Canada, Australia and NZ would fairly easy given that there is no deep history of hostiles between the countries and the widespread influence of American culture worldwide.

    It would probably be better to present the unified Anglosphere as a new country than as simply a takeover by the USA even if that is what it would be de facto. Local peoples, even if they belong to a fake nation, can be very prickly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    It would probably be better to present the unified Anglosphere as a new country than as simply a takeover by the USA even if that is what it would be de facto.
     
    We could call it Oceania. Maybe we could call Australia Airstrip One?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. yevardian says:

    I was prepared to unleash a triggered sovok outburst, but you’ve actually made quite a good argument here, leaving your usual exaggerations about the late USSR aside. As for 5, I don’t honestly see how you can argue an alternative. If the Federation revoked local privileges and pursued your so-called ‘nationalist’ agenda the state would fall apart within months.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yevardian
    Too bad you ruined it with that retarded coda, culminating with this:

    Here are a few real national ideas worthy of Russian civilization:

    The regathering of the Russian lands
    Genetic IQ augmentation
    Atomically blasting Imperial Russian Navy battleships off into space


    -_-
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. AP says:
    @Hyperborean
    Given that you have in the past proposed that commenters who argue with you get checked into punitive psychological facilities I would suggest that you refrain from calling others Stalinists unless they really sound like neo-Stalinists.

    While I don't think you are aware of it, it does sound very sovok-like to throw people who disagree with you into psychological prisons.

    I don't think it would be hard to recreate a unified Russian identity again given the right policies once all the land has been regathered.

    My proposal on first how to get the land and second how to carry out cultural unification would be something like this:

    Carry out a coup or Anschluss type scenario in Biélorussia.

    Launch a blitzkrieg attack against Maidan government to capture the greater part of Malorussia and Novorussia.

    Leave Greater Galicia as a rump Ukraine.

    Dump the svidomites in Galicia and seal the border (to prevent hit-and-run attacks and American weapons flooding the region).

    Station Russian gendarmerie in the regained territories to pacify the region (At worst I think it will be like the North Caucasus insurgency).

    Send diplomatic note expressing worry over the treatment of the Slavic population (and other minorities?) in Kazakhstan (given Nazarbayev's policies this shouldn't be difficult).

    Encourage local population to agitate for formation of South Siberian autonomous Republic in North Kazakhstan.

    Keep the South Siberian Republic disassociating from Kazakh state structures until Astana cracks down on the Russian population.

    Hold referendum and declare South Siberian independence.

    Send Russian army south to protect the new border and prevent Kazakh army from retaking the area.

    Keep fighting until the Russian army and pro-Russian militias have captured the northern half of the country.

    Perform Operation Storm-like ethnic cleansing in South Siberia.

    Hold referendum on South Siberia joining Russia.

    That is the military part.

    To unify Russia culturally:

    Encourage Surzhik-like dialects in former Bielorussia and Ukraine (West Russia) to blur the linguistic distinction between the languages.

    Incorporate Ukrainian and Bielorussian words into Russian while encouraging West Russians to speak Russian.

    Pursue a Franquist policy of adopting some elements of regional cultures ex. Ukrainian peasant clothes and songs while discouraging others ex. vernacular spellings of peoples' names.

    Emphasise the Russian National State's status as a successor to Old Rus' and as a Third Rome.

    Encourage internal migration and intermarriage within Russia so that West Russians settle further east (perhaps in national minority regions like former Tatarstan and Tuva?) and Great Russians settle in the regained territories.

    Make sure that education and media reinforces the previously mentioned points.

    So much wishful thinking and optimism.

    Launch a blitzkrieg attack against Maidan government to capture the greater part of Malorussia and Novorussia.

    Invade a country with 200,000 well-armed soldiers and about 40 million people. You’ll win, but it will cost you. It’s not 2014 anymore.

    Leave Greater Galicia as a rump Ukraine.

    Why not keep it and add Poland too, since we are in wishful thinking mode.

    Dump the svidomites in Galicia and seal the border (to prevent hit-and-run attacks and American weapons flooding the region).

    That would be about 80% of the population in a region with 20 million people (central and parts of eastern Ukraine outside Galicia).

    Station Russian gendarmerie in the regained territories to pacify the region (At worst I think it will be like the North Caucasus insurgency).

    After you’ve deported 16 million people it might be even easier. I don’t think Hitler or Stalin even managed to deport 16 million people, but your optimism is noted.

    But if you haven’t deported them, keep in mind that Chechnya only had 1.4 million people, the Russia-hating city of Kiev alone has 3 times that many. So you’ve got about 20 million patriotic Ukrainians living outside western Ukraine, in central and parts of Eastern Ukraine. It’s not 2014 anymore. There are plenty of weapons and 100,000s of these people have been through the army and seen some combat. It will be quite an insurgency. Maybe after killing a few 100,000s of people, or a million or two, you will subdue the place, and then you’ll be successfully ruling a sullen, occupied place like Poland was during the Cold War. In the mean time you will have lost tens of thousands of people yourself, become North Koreaized, and the next time you are in another war guess which part of “Russia” will stab you in the back?

    Encourage Surzhik-like dialects in former Bielorussia and Ukraine (West Russia) to blur the linguistic distinction between the languages.

    Loss of Gaelic turned Irish people into loyal Brits, Englishmen really..

    With the exception of the Scanians of Sweden (who were outnumbered 9:1 by Swedes and whose culture and language were closer to Swedish than Ukrainian is to Russian) no people have as a group switched their fully formed national identity for a new one. But you are in extreme optimism mode.

    I hope you are a bright and enthusiastic teenager.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Your sarcasm is duly noted and appreciated! :-)

    At least this fellow had the decency to express his thoughts more fully, as Karlin sits meekly by pretending he's somehow above the fray. They're both fellow travelers going down the same road, as far as I'm concerned.

    , @Hyperborean
    While I am aware that the folly of youth is an ancient theme, it seems that many of the older commenters here at Unz often have a defeatist attitude.

    I may be a teenager but I think that the pessimism that many of my elders have is, while understandable (I too have feel this way at times), ultimately the road to oblivion.

    Throughout the world, the most advanced nations whether in North America, Europe, East Asia or elsewhere suffer from old age, both physically and spiritually.

    Their leaders are generally old and barren. They either have no children at all or one or two children to keep as ornaments.

    I like Macron (though he is childless as well) for the fact that he is willing to carry out radical reforms, even if he is still stuck within the mindframe of liberalism and its limitations.

    As Europeans and East Asians seem to be most tired of races, they have no desire or will to do daring anymore.

    The subaltern races of the South despite many being savages or half-savages at best steadily expand their population and the territory they inhabit.

    Russia, like many other countries, needs a youthful leadership not someone who is too worn down and ruined by defeat.

    Ultimately, I don't think that the path of inaction that the Kremlin is pursuing now will lead to victory.

    When I say Greater Galicia I mean everything left of Right-bank Ukraine. There should be plenty of space for more people there.

    I don't think that the casualties are that high. Modern people tend to have a strong aversion to what are historically-speaking quite normal casualty levels.

    As for being North Koreaised America is already doing their best to make that a reality already.
    At least with more land and resources Russia will be able to handle it better.

    Perhaps I misunderstood the situation but I always thought the problem with Ireland was that they resented that the protestant English had very anti-Catholic laws in place.
    , @Mr. Hack
    I wanted to return to this topic, of 'regathering of Russian lands' with you. It's really an important one, and underlies and is used as a propaganda tool for Russia's Ukrainian land grab in 2014 and the continuing Russian supported war in Ukraine to this day. Although we can all agree that Karlin is a proponent of this idea, and frequently likes to bring it up as something worthy to pursue, yet he never goes the extra step to explain how exactly he forsees this policy being put into action? This, as you know, really interests me, for it would more clearly indicate what type of person Karlin really is. Perhaps, his own vision of this process isn't really very much different than the crude remarks made by Hyperborean, that you're so adept at analyzing and discrediting? Aren't you at all concerned about Karlin's own deeper thought process surrounding 'the regathering of Russian lands'?
    , @Jon0815

    But if you haven’t deported them, keep in mind that Chechnya only had 1.4 million people, the Russia-hating city of Kiev alone has 3 times that many.
     
    There's no comparison with Chechnya. In the late 90's and early 00s, the Russian military was in even worse shape than Ukraine's was in 2014. Thanks to huge improvements in training, discipline, and equipment, today's Russian military is probably more than an order of magnitude more powerful than it was then. Also, Ukrainians aren't Chechens. At their peak the Chechen rebels numbered about 40,000, which relative to population size, would be the equivalent of the 20 million in east and central Ukraine fielding a rebel army of over 550,000. That would be quite an achievement even in western Ukraine (the UPA at its mid-1940s peak probably wasn't larger than around 50,000). And prolonged urban combat in Kiev is unlikely, since any Ukrainian force in the city would inevitably be encircled and doomed, and Ukrainians aren't Muslim fanatics eager to martyr themselves.

    So you’ve got about 20 million patriotic Ukrainians living outside western Ukraine, in central and parts of Eastern Ukraine. It’s not 2014 anymore. There are plenty of weapons and 100,000s of these people have been through the army and seen some combat.
     
    Most of that combat has involved shelling villages from miles away with heavy artillery. It has not prepared them at all for unconventional warfare against a vastly superior force.

    It will be quite an insurgency. Maybe after killing a few 100,000s of people, or a million or two, you will subdue the place, and then you’ll be successfully ruling a sullen, occupied place like Poland was during the Cold War. In the mean time you will have lost tens of thousands of people yourself, become North Koreaized, and the next time you are in another war guess which part of “Russia” will stab you in the back?
     
    Of course you never know for certain until a war is fought, but this is almost certainly an extreme exaggeration of what would be required to pacify eastern and central Ukraine. The initial invasion wouldn't be quite the same cakewalk it would have been in 2014 (maybe 1000-2000 KIA instead of a few hundred), but its very implausible that Russian losses to a post-invasion insurgency would be in the tens of thousands, or that Ukrainian losses would be in the hundreds of thousands, let alone millions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Yevardian says:
    @yevardian
    I was prepared to unleash a triggered sovok outburst, but you've actually made quite a good argument here, leaving your usual exaggerations about the late USSR aside. As for 5, I don't honestly see how you can argue an alternative. If the Federation revoked local privileges and pursued your so-called 'nationalist' agenda the state would fall apart within months.

    Too bad you ruined it with that retarded coda, culminating with this:

    Here are a few real national ideas worthy of Russian civilization:

    The regathering of the Russian lands
    Genetic IQ augmentation
    Atomically blasting Imperial Russian Navy battleships off into space

    -_-

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Yevardian says:
    @Bragadocious
    The Brits think they won WW2? By doing what, cowering and waiting for help? Thanks for the belly laugh today.

    To be fair, they deserve more credit for continuing the war during the years of 1940-1941, when they were almost completely isolated on the European continent, than the Americans, who only intervened in Europe once the Soviets were already winning.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bragadocious
    The Brits weren't fighting on the European continent in 1940-41. Name me one British offensive against the Germans on European soil during that time. The Brits decided after Dunkirk that they wanted no part of the German infantry. Yeah, there were some minor skirmishes in Africa -- utterly irrelevant in the big picture. (though the Brits make a big deal out of them)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Dmitry says:
    @German_reader
    You're not up to date, Iranian forces have supposedly fired 20 missiles at the Golan.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-44063022
    Well, looks like Greasy William's prayers might be fulfilled after all.
    I wonder if the US will join in. On some level I hope so, the sooner US credibility gets destroyed, the better.

    The rockets initiated the airstrikes, but the airstrikes were probably as pre-planned (Isael already knowing about the rocket attack plans as well).

    Obviously this is the main reason Netanyahu was in Moscow yesterday with the meetings in the Kremlin last afternoon. It seems he had some permission or approval, as airstrikes in response were beginning 20 minutes after he landed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    Now it's in the news - Israel says it had told Russia about the airstrikes plan before it began.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @Mr. Hack
    Yes, you're right, I have advocated that Ukrainaphobes check into the closest psychiatric clinic for help. Do you consider your Ukrinophobia to be of the class 1 variety or possibly class 2?

    Modern scholars define two types of anti-Ukrainian sentiment. One is based on discrimination of Ukrainians based on their ethnic or cultural origin, a typical kind of xenophobia and racism. Another one is based on the conceptual rejection of Ukrainians, Ukrainian culture, and language as artificial and unnatural; at the turn of the 20th century, several authors supported an assertion that Ukrainian identity and language had been created artificially in order to undermine Russia.[3
     
    Perhap you suffer both kinds? In any event you can get help, so please look into it and don't let this nasty thing fester any more out of control. Trust me, you'll feel much better and you might even begin to appreciate things like a sunny day, the smile of a child, the warm caress of a beautiful woman...

    I think that you suffer from cognitive dissonance in denouncing people as stalinists while endorsing sovok type repression of people who disagree with you (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union).

    Why would I be seen as a Class 1?
    My proposal explicitly states that Russians should adopt parts of regional Ukrainian culture.

    I hold no personal ill-will against Ukrainians, I simply don’t think the Ukraine should be seen as a proper nation. In the same way, I like Austrians and Montenegrines, but that doesn’t mean that they are real countries.

    I think it is interesting how loyal you are to the idea of Ukraine despite living in America. Which generation are you? If you have any children what do they think about Ukraine?

    Usually when I encounter Americans in real life, even by merely the second generation it seems like they have only superficial ties left to their homelands and by the third generation they are completely American.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    In the same way, I like Austrians and Montenegrines, but that doesn’t mean that they are real countries.
     
    You do realize that Ukrainian and Russian are about as different as Dutch and German, and not like Austrian German vs. standard High German?
    , @Mr. Hack

    I think that you suffer from cognitive dissonance in denouncing people as stalinists while endorsing sovok type repression of people who disagree with you
     
    Where have I ever 'denounced' anybody for being a 'Stalinist ' just for disagreeing with me? Your cavalier attitudes in misrepresenting somebody's thoughts are the sign of an overly active imagination.
    In Russian you'd be labeled: фантазёр!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. songbird says:
    @Anon 2
    Here's Europe's tragedy at its starkest:

    Area of Europe (from Portugal to the Urals): 10,180,000 sq km
    Area of China: 9,597,000 sq km

    i.e., Europe and China have basically the same area, about 10 million sq km.

    Now compare the populations:

    Europe 750 million
    China 1.38 billion

    Hence it's reasonable to conclude that Europe is missing at least 630 million people!
    What happened to them? Clearly, it's not Europe's location which is nearly
    perfect (temperate zone, rich soils, etc). I would hypothesize that it's Europe's
    near constant wars (since Charlemagne) that are primarily responsible for the fact that
    Europe is so severely underpopulated. Of course, the bleeding of the populations
    to the colonies has also been a contributing factor. Nevertheless, Europe with
    a population of 1.4 billion would be a superpower to reckon with but it's too
    late for that.

    China is something of an anomaly in that it is a high IQ country with (at least partly) a Southern range of latitudes. Since, it is relatively well-watered, it supported a high population. Meanwhile, rice was not a crop which could do well in Europe. It is an interesting question what would have happened if the potato had been introduced much earlier to Europe, say 1000 AD, or even the founding of Rome.

    As I understand it, the IQ by region in China is relatively homogeneous. Makes me wonder about the fertility – if the fertility is relatively higher in the south.

    It is easy to believe Russia would have had a higher population without communism and the more recent wars, I’m not too sure about the rest of Europe though (maybe more emigration or a drop in fertility) but it is easy to believe the West would have been better off. Imagine if the war dead had only been sent to America or South Africa, or maybe Argentina.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    It is easy to believe Russia would have had a higher population without communism and the more recent wars,
     
    I'd estimate that without Communism and World War II Russia would have at least 225 million people and perhaps 300 million people. Ukraine would have around 70 million people, Poland 60 million.

    I’m not too sure about the rest of Europe though (maybe more emigration or a drop in fertility
     
    No World War II alone would add a couple tens of millions of people plus their children and grandchildren. No Communism, no Nazism and no Nazism no left-wing backlash. Europe might have had an American level of fertility.

    Demographically the 20th century was a lot worse to eastern than ti western Europe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Dmitry says:
    @Mr. Hack
    Since you almost seem to have a direct passageway to the inner workings of Karlin's mind, why not share with us what you consider to be some of Karlin's 'unusual points of view' that he expresses here?
    Would you consider his 'real national ideas worthy of Russian civilization' that includes:

    The regathering of the Russian lands
     
    to be one of his provocative funny bone statements, or more closely resembling something that he indeed holds near and dear to his heart? (I'd ask him to answer for himself, but he avoids any deeper discussion about this topic like the plague).

    Since you almost seem to have a direct passageway to the inner workings of Karlin’s mind, why not share with us what you consider to be some of Karlin’s ‘unusual points of view’ that he expresses here?
    Would you consider his ‘real national ideas worthy of Russian

    The whole thing is an combination of eccentric and unusual, with some comedy mixed. Of course, not only I, but most people in the world, will disagree with every paragraph. But that’s his prerogative – I was not personally offended, or a ‘snowflake’, but just found it an entertaining writing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Mr. Hack says:
    @AP
    So much wishful thinking and optimism.

    Launch a blitzkrieg attack against Maidan government to capture the greater part of Malorussia and Novorussia.
     
    Invade a country with 200,000 well-armed soldiers and about 40 million people. You'll win, but it will cost you. It's not 2014 anymore.

    Leave Greater Galicia as a rump Ukraine.
     
    Why not keep it and add Poland too, since we are in wishful thinking mode.

    Dump the svidomites in Galicia and seal the border (to prevent hit-and-run attacks and American weapons flooding the region).
     
    That would be about 80% of the population in a region with 20 million people (central and parts of eastern Ukraine outside Galicia).

    Station Russian gendarmerie in the regained territories to pacify the region (At worst I think it will be like the North Caucasus insurgency).
     
    After you've deported 16 million people it might be even easier. I don't think Hitler or Stalin even managed to deport 16 million people, but your optimism is noted.

    But if you haven't deported them, keep in mind that Chechnya only had 1.4 million people, the Russia-hating city of Kiev alone has 3 times that many. So you've got about 20 million patriotic Ukrainians living outside western Ukraine, in central and parts of Eastern Ukraine. It's not 2014 anymore. There are plenty of weapons and 100,000s of these people have been through the army and seen some combat. It will be quite an insurgency. Maybe after killing a few 100,000s of people, or a million or two, you will subdue the place, and then you'll be successfully ruling a sullen, occupied place like Poland was during the Cold War. In the mean time you will have lost tens of thousands of people yourself, become North Koreaized, and the next time you are in another war guess which part of "Russia" will stab you in the back?

    Encourage Surzhik-like dialects in former Bielorussia and Ukraine (West Russia) to blur the linguistic distinction between the languages.
     
    Loss of Gaelic turned Irish people into loyal Brits, Englishmen really..

    With the exception of the Scanians of Sweden (who were outnumbered 9:1 by Swedes and whose culture and language were closer to Swedish than Ukrainian is to Russian) no people have as a group switched their fully formed national identity for a new one. But you are in extreme optimism mode.

    I hope you are a bright and enthusiastic teenager.

    Your sarcasm is duly noted and appreciated! :-)

    At least this fellow had the decency to express his thoughts more fully, as Karlin sits meekly by pretending he’s somehow above the fray. They’re both fellow travelers going down the same road, as far as I’m concerned.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. AP says:
    @Hyperborean
    I think that you suffer from cognitive dissonance in denouncing people as stalinists while endorsing sovok type repression of people who disagree with you (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union).

    Why would I be seen as a Class 1?
    My proposal explicitly states that Russians should adopt parts of regional Ukrainian culture.

    I hold no personal ill-will against Ukrainians, I simply don't think the Ukraine should be seen as a proper nation. In the same way, I like Austrians and Montenegrines, but that doesn't mean that they are real countries.

    I think it is interesting how loyal you are to the idea of Ukraine despite living in America. Which generation are you? If you have any children what do they think about Ukraine?

    Usually when I encounter Americans in real life, even by merely the second generation it seems like they have only superficial ties left to their homelands and by the third generation they are completely American.

    In the same way, I like Austrians and Montenegrines, but that doesn’t mean that they are real countries.

    You do realize that Ukrainian and Russian are about as different as Dutch and German, and not like Austrian German vs. standard High German?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    I think that the Netherlands and Scandinavia should be joined together with Germany and I am generally in favour of consolidating European countries so I don't think that distinction matters that much.
    , @Mikhail

    You do realize that Ukrainian and Russian are about as different as Dutch and German, and not like Austrian German vs. standard High German?
     
    So what if true.

    Is Ukrainian and Russian noticeably more different than Han and Mandarin? Never minding the numerous languages making up India.

    Linguistically and ethnically, Russians and Ukrainians aren't more diverse than the Scots and English.

    There's also the matter of modern day Ukrainian differing from what was previously spoken and written - a point relating to the Rusyn language having words more akin to Russian than Ukrainian. The Rusyns are commonly defined as Ukrainians, who didn't buy into having a Ukrainian identity, relating to the effort made to distinguish the developed modern day Ukrainian from Russian.
    , @Bigly
    Using the Russian and Ukrainian languages as a metric to decide whether Ukraine can or cannot be incorporated by Russia is irrelevant when we know that the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians, except in Galicia, speak fluent Russian.

    Ethnically, Ukrainians are closer to Russians than Scots are to Anglos.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Dmitry says:
    @Dmitry
    The rockets initiated the airstrikes, but the airstrikes were probably as pre-planned (Isael already knowing about the rocket attack plans as well).

    Obviously this is the main reason Netanyahu was in Moscow yesterday with the meetings in the Kremlin last afternoon. It seems he had some permission or approval, as airstrikes in response were beginning 20 minutes after he landed.

    Now it’s in the news – Israel says it had told Russia about the airstrikes plan before it began.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail

    Now it’s in the news – Israel says it had told Russia about the airstrikes plan before it began.
     
    Should that really be such a surprise? Standing and sitting with Putin for a good period of time, Netanyahu was a featured guest at the May 9 Victory Day commemoration in Moscow.

    A matter which is disturbing for US neocon, neolib and some more left of center of center types, as well as those that see Russia as a hope in confronting "ZOG".

    Netanyahu and Putin have an understanding:

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/10/09/answering-russia-critics-on-syria.html

    http://theduran.com/israels-netanyahu-to-be-guest-of-honour-at-russias-9th-may-victory-day-celebration/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. AP says:
    @songbird
    China is something of an anomaly in that it is a high IQ country with (at least partly) a Southern range of latitudes. Since, it is relatively well-watered, it supported a high population. Meanwhile, rice was not a crop which could do well in Europe. It is an interesting question what would have happened if the potato had been introduced much earlier to Europe, say 1000 AD, or even the founding of Rome.

    As I understand it, the IQ by region in China is relatively homogeneous. Makes me wonder about the fertility - if the fertility is relatively higher in the south.

    It is easy to believe Russia would have had a higher population without communism and the more recent wars, I'm not too sure about the rest of Europe though (maybe more emigration or a drop in fertility) but it is easy to believe the West would have been better off. Imagine if the war dead had only been sent to America or South Africa, or maybe Argentina.

    It is easy to believe Russia would have had a higher population without communism and the more recent wars,

    I’d estimate that without Communism and World War II Russia would have at least 225 million people and perhaps 300 million people. Ukraine would have around 70 million people, Poland 60 million.

    I’m not too sure about the rest of Europe though (maybe more emigration or a drop in fertility

    No World War II alone would add a couple tens of millions of people plus their children and grandchildren. No Communism, no Nazism and no Nazism no left-wing backlash. Europe might have had an American level of fertility.

    Demographically the 20th century was a lot worse to eastern than ti western Europe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Yevardian says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    “Intelligent people, such as Americans”
     
    Intelligent people, such as Americans, speak only one language and are confident that they must protect the world by threatening Russia(mostly by surrounding it with military bases).

    I also found that sentence to be quite dubious.

    LOL, I cringed reading that. Honestly, even I personally have some distaste for how Victory Day is used, the existence of people like Akarlin arguing against it is a good reason to never voice such objections in public, which is perfectly understandable. If Akarlin was really Russian, he’d know that the USSR that ‘Sovoks’ had nostalgia for has nothing to do with the with state pre-Krushchev. Most serious Communist-era figures (eg. Martyanov, probably) privately agreed that Lenin was mostly a disaster, but it simply wasn’t discussed, everyone knew he was important as a symbol, nothing more. Under the chaotic circumstances Stalin did as well as anyone figure could to stabilise the country and destroy the warring Bolshevik factions, educated Russians appreciate this whilst acknowledging he was a tyrant. But of course growing up in America and the UK Akarlin either doesn’t comprehend his own (alleged) country’s history or deliberately ignores such nuances.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    Most serious Communist-era figures (eg. Martyanov, probably) privately agreed that Lenin was mostly a disaster, but it simply wasn’t discussed, everyone knew he was important as a symbol, nothing more.
     
    72% of Russians believed Lenin to be the "greatest person of all times and places", so that is exceedingly unlikely.

    Martyanov was not a "serious Communist-era figure."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. AP says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    @AP: Is your elderly in-law ethnically Russian or ethnically Ukrainian?

    Also, off-topic, but I can't resist asking--had there been no World War II and Holocaust, what do you think the role of Eastern European Jews (the ones who would have remained there--as opposed to the ones who would have emigrated elsewhere) would have been in the 21st century?

    Would they have largely been pushing for left-wing political causes like U.S. Jews largely do? Or would they have been more nationalistic--similar to how Poles and Hungarians are extremely hostile towards allowing large numbers of Muslims and Africans to move to their countries?

    : Is your elderly in-law ethnically Russian or ethnically Ukrainian?

    Russian, in Moscow. May 9th was always a sacred holiday in that part of the family. But it wasn’t a public event.

    what do you think the role of Eastern European Jews (the ones who would have remained there–as opposed to the ones who would have emigrated elsewhere) would have been in the 21st century?

    There would have been discrete groups: Hasids with large families being a sort of Amish society living apart from others, right-wing Zionists, and left-wing agitators.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mikhail

    There would have been discrete groups: Hasids with large families being a sort of Amish society living apart from others, right-wing Zionists, and left-wing agitators.
     
    Numerous others as well, who don't neatly fit into any of these categories.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @Yevardian
    To be fair, they deserve more credit for continuing the war during the years of 1940-1941, when they were almost completely isolated on the European continent, than the Americans, who only intervened in Europe once the Soviets were already winning.

    The Brits weren’t fighting on the European continent in 1940-41. Name me one British offensive against the Germans on European soil during that time. The Brits decided after Dunkirk that they wanted no part of the German infantry. Yeah, there were some minor skirmishes in Africa — utterly irrelevant in the big picture. (though the Brits make a big deal out of them)

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader

    The Brits weren’t fighting on the European continent in 1940-41
     
    British forces were in mainland Greece and Crete in 1941.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. AP says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    @German_reader: Yeah, I had the impression that the Kerensky Offensive had some initial successes but ultimately petered out and failed.

    Also, the Germans captured Riga in September 1917:

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

    Of course, one could claim that Russia would have performed better in 1917 had it not been for the Petrograd Soviet weakening military discipline with its Order No. 1 and if Bolshevik defeatist propaganda would not have circulated among Russian troops on the front lines.

    Yeah, I had the impression that the Kerensky Offensive had some initial successes but ultimately petered out and failed.

    It was a success until the Russian troops decided to stop fighting and go home, despite having the Germans in retreat. The Germans didn’t beat them, they decided not to fight anymore.

    Riga was captured a few months later. It was over by then.

    Of course, one could claim that Russia would have performed better in 1917 had it not been for the Petrograd Soviet weakening military discipline with its Order No. 1 and if Bolshevik defeatist propaganda would not have circulated among Russian troops on the front lines.

    Of course. This is why Russia fell, it wasn’t beaten, it “beat” itself. As in the Soviet loss in the Cold War.

    Entering the war in 1914 was stupid for Russia to do – it was too early by about 10 years. But it’s performance was by no means disastrous. The British struggled with the Ottomans, losing at Gallipoli – the Russians defeated them in multiple battles and grabbed about 10% of their territory. The Russians crushed the Austro-Hungarians. So if there had been a Russo-Turkish-Austrian war the Russians would have had a spectacular victory against these two powers. What a difference from the loss to Japan just 10 years earlier.

    And although Russia lost territory to Germany they maintained a front with that country, at least until they decided to stop fighting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. Mr. XYZ says:

    : Thanks for your answers here in both of your responses to me.

    Anyway, I agree with most of what you said, but I would like to point out that Germany was fighting Russia with one hand behind its back. Literally–it had a lot of its forces stationed in the West in order to fight Britain and France there. Had Germany crushed France in 1914 and been able to send almost all of its forces to the Eastern Front in World War I, then things would have almost certainly been much, more worse for Russia (militarily, that is; politically, Russia would be luckier since it would be able to avoid Bolshevism).

    Also, in regards to Russia fighting World War I ten years later, please keep in mind that Russia would have been stronger but would have also had a worse situation in regards to its allies. While France would remain a Russian ally, Britain might very well not (due to Britain’s concern about the European balance of power). If Britain remains neutral or–even worse–allies with Germany (which is possible for balance-of-power reasons if Kaiser Bill doesn’t do anything stupid after 1916), then Russia (and France as well) is going to be in a world of hurt if a World War will break out around 1925. Russia will be stronger, but the changing European alliances are going to hurt it.

    In addition to this, off-topic, but I find it rather interesting that Anatoly Karlin laments the collapse of the Soviet Union. After all, he frequently talks about IQ and about the dangers of low-IQ Muslim immigration, and yet a surviving Soviet Union would have ensured that tens of millions of additional Muslims would have remained within (Greater) Russia’s borders. Indeed, the brain drain which Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus endured would have probably paled in comparison to the effect of having tens of millions of additional Muslims (presumably with a relatively low average IQ) within (Greater) Russia’s borders.

    Central Asia was to Russia what northern Algeria appears to have been to France. Initially, due to the overwhelming Russian/French demographic advantage, it seemed like a great idea to annex the place. However, the demographics eventually turned against the Russians/French and thus the value of keeping this territory became less and less. France eventually withdrew from Algeria and, after the Soviet Union collapsed, few voices in Russia appear to have been interested in reacquiring Central Asia (with the exception of Russian-heavy northern Kazakhstan, that is).

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Anyway, I agree with most of what you said, but I would like to point out that Germany was fighting Russia with one hand behind its back. Literally–it had a lot of its forces stationed in the West in order to fight Britain and France there.
     
    OTOH, Russia was also fighting the Ottomans and Austria-Hungary while fighting the Germans.

    However you are right - n 1914 Russia almost certainly would not have won a Germany-Russia war. Just as France + Britain + Belgium would not have won a war against Germany alone. Germany was probably at its peak.

    Also, in regards to Russia fighting World War I ten years later, please keep in mind that Russia would have been stronger but would have also had a worse situation in regards to its allies. While France would remain a Russian ally, Britain might very well not (due to Britain’s concern about the European balance of power). If Britain remains neutral or–even worse–allies with Germany (which is possible for balance-of-power reasons if Kaiser Bill doesn’t do anything stupid after 1916), then Russia (and France as well) is going to be in a world of hurt if a World War will break out around 1925.
     
    Maybe. It's interesting whether France's relative decline would have surpassed Russia's relative growth and/or whether Russia's relative growth would have surpassed the loss of Britain as an ally. OTOH Austria-Hungary may have also declined further or been more subject to nationalistic pressure, especially if it didn't reform.

    Britain supplied 5 million troops in World War I (don't know specifically how many were fighting the Germans). Due to booming population and improved mobilization and capacity to arm people would Russia's military be 5 million larger in 1925-1930?

    I suspect if Britain joined the Axis, Russia would lose but if it were neutral or was Allied Russia would win.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Twinkie says:

    Thanks to Russia’s loser status, its continued association with loser ideologies, and its catastrophic lack of any soft power (RT and Sputnik exist just to troll Westerners), things can hardly be otherwise.

    Wow, that is rough.

    And those Buryats!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  126. Twinkie says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    “Intelligent people, such as Americans”
     
    Intelligent people, such as Americans, speak only one language and are confident that they must protect the world by threatening Russia(mostly by surrounding it with military bases).

    I also found that sentence to be quite dubious.

    Intelligent people, such as Americans, speak only one language and are confident that they must protect the world by threatening Russia(mostly by surrounding it with military bases).

    Do you not get Mr. Karlin’s point? We Americans bled the least and reaped the greatest rewards from World War II. That WAS highly intelligent.

    Personally, I wish we had done more of that in Iraq. Always fight with proxies if you can… they are less dear to us than our brothers, cousins, and friends from home.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mitleser

    That WAS highly intelligent.
     
    And only possible because America was far away from the front lines.
    Britain's case shows what happened if the enemy is much closer.
    , @songbird

    Do you not get Mr. Karlin’s point? We Americans bled the least and reaped the greatest rewards from World War II.
     
    By preference, I will take the rewards of the Japanese. Hiroshima looks pretty nice now, compared to Detroit. Of course, we used to say that Japanese and Germans were lucky to have lost, but Germany certainly was not lucky.
    , @Johann Ricke

    We Americans bled the least and reaped the greatest rewards from World War II. That WAS highly intelligent.
     
    It was highly-fortuitous because we were the furthest away of the major powers from the military threat. Apart from Canada, every other major combatant in ETO participated because it was attacked. The "rewards" we reaped were a consolation prize.

    We lost 400K men fighting and 2 years worth of output fighting WWII. That's $40T. Calculated the way Trump does it, by multiplying the base number 7x to account for follow-on medical care, disability pensions, and so on, the number would be $280T in today's dollars. It was a poisoned chalice, made possible by Russian deceit and collaboration with Hitler, and British and French nonchalance in the face of German rearmament, and well as a supine European reaction to the Japanese invasion of China, despite their extensive holdings in the region.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @AP

    In the same way, I like Austrians and Montenegrines, but that doesn’t mean that they are real countries.
     
    You do realize that Ukrainian and Russian are about as different as Dutch and German, and not like Austrian German vs. standard High German?

    I think that the Netherlands and Scandinavia should be joined together with Germany and I am generally in favour of consolidating European countries so I don’t think that distinction matters that much.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Mr. XYZ
    @Hyperborean: Would a similar strategy work in regards to having the U.S. annex Canada, Australia, and New Zealand?

    Would a similar strategy work in regards to having the U.S. annex Canada, Australia, and New Zealand?

    Why would the U.S. need to annex Australia? We’re already their most faithful most pathetically grovelling lapdog (apart from Britain of course). We’re already part of the American Empire. But as long as it can be pretended that countries like Australia and Britain are independent countries then the U.S. can claim to have allies rather than colonial possessions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    I think the US' relationship with many countries is somewhat akin to feudal vassals during the European middle ages.

    While they are able to express their dissatisfaction with various policies and statements and able to get their will on things that they consider important and Washington doesn't, if Washington really wants something then they either carry it out or meekly stand aside.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. dfordoom says: • Website
    @Hyperborean
    I think Australia and New Zealand are too far away. I am skeptical about the ability of countries with large distances between their territories to hold together.

    Just look at how Russia and America still have large contiguous territories while Britain gave independence to their white dominions.

    Of course, modern developed communications and transport may make it easier to hold far-flung lands together than in the past.

    I think that Québec should be separated from the rest of Canada and made an independent protectorate.

    I think assimilation of Canada, Australia and NZ would fairly easy given that there is no deep history of hostiles between the countries and the widespread influence of American culture worldwide.

    It would probably be better to present the unified Anglosphere as a new country than as simply a takeover by the USA even if that is what it would be de facto. Local peoples, even if they belong to a fake nation, can be very prickly.

    It would probably be better to present the unified Anglosphere as a new country than as simply a takeover by the USA even if that is what it would be de facto.

    We could call it Oceania. Maybe we could call Australia Airstrip One?

    Read More
    • Agree: Talha
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. LondonBob says:
    @random rand

    Also, Mahan and Mackinder can provide an explanation of the geopolitical and military philosophies behind the actions of the British and American elites.

    Basically, the plan of these Anglo/British elites was to establish world hegemony by getting any potential competitors (Germany, Russia, etc.) to fight each other to the death.
     
    This is a very good point. If we follow this strategy, then USG actions actually make much more sense than what Anglo propaganda would have you believe. Didn't Ukraine do a very good job of keeping Germany and Russia apart? What if the actual purpose of withdrawing from the Iranian deal is to fuck with Europe? I highly doubt American geopolitical strategy is as incompetent as what the media would have you believe.

    Increasing tensions with Russia and the arc of instability around Europe in MENA has fucked Europe. German Russian rapprochement is the great fear of US foreign policy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    That map shows it was ethnic German areas most opposed to intervention,

    The Germans may have been the most opposed, but even in the most "interventionist" state there was only 35% support for intervention. Notably, "Anglo" New England was overwhelmingly opposed -- 83% Massachusetts, 79% Maine, etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. LondonBob says:
    @for-the-record
    American isolationists were just plastic Americans with German or Irish roots, not fully assimilated and more concerned with petty ethnic score settling. The proper Anglo-Saxon populace supported intervention.

    Not true, as noted by our distinguished host himself -- according to a 1941 Gallup poll large majorities in all 48 states were against intervention.

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/war-sentiment/

    No one sane enjoys getting involved in a war but the US was a signatory and crafter of the Versailles peace treaty and the US should have signalled they would uphold it.

    That map shows it was ethnic German areas most opposed to intervention, Ben Franklin had them figured right, Palatine Boors.

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

    Actions of Israel in Syria during Netanyahu visit in Moscow for celebration of the V-day are a perfect and telling illustration for A. Karlin’s points. This Moscow celebration of the V-day is just a facade and masquerade. It was meant for ordinary Russian people for whom the theater was created but now even the theater director must have realized that all he has left is a pretense so just as well he will pretend to enjoy the display as if it was meaningful. Just as well this whole V-day pageantry could have been a product of CGI reality and the tanks and rockets just as well could have been props made of cardboard. Poor Putin.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  133. @AP
    So much wishful thinking and optimism.

    Launch a blitzkrieg attack against Maidan government to capture the greater part of Malorussia and Novorussia.
     
    Invade a country with 200,000 well-armed soldiers and about 40 million people. You'll win, but it will cost you. It's not 2014 anymore.

    Leave Greater Galicia as a rump Ukraine.
     
    Why not keep it and add Poland too, since we are in wishful thinking mode.

    Dump the svidomites in Galicia and seal the border (to prevent hit-and-run attacks and American weapons flooding the region).
     
    That would be about 80% of the population in a region with 20 million people (central and parts of eastern Ukraine outside Galicia).

    Station Russian gendarmerie in the regained territories to pacify the region (At worst I think it will be like the North Caucasus insurgency).
     
    After you've deported 16 million people it might be even easier. I don't think Hitler or Stalin even managed to deport 16 million people, but your optimism is noted.

    But if you haven't deported them, keep in mind that Chechnya only had 1.4 million people, the Russia-hating city of Kiev alone has 3 times that many. So you've got about 20 million patriotic Ukrainians living outside western Ukraine, in central and parts of Eastern Ukraine. It's not 2014 anymore. There are plenty of weapons and 100,000s of these people have been through the army and seen some combat. It will be quite an insurgency. Maybe after killing a few 100,000s of people, or a million or two, you will subdue the place, and then you'll be successfully ruling a sullen, occupied place like Poland was during the Cold War. In the mean time you will have lost tens of thousands of people yourself, become North Koreaized, and the next time you are in another war guess which part of "Russia" will stab you in the back?

    Encourage Surzhik-like dialects in former Bielorussia and Ukraine (West Russia) to blur the linguistic distinction between the languages.
     
    Loss of Gaelic turned Irish people into loyal Brits, Englishmen really..

    With the exception of the Scanians of Sweden (who were outnumbered 9:1 by Swedes and whose culture and language were closer to Swedish than Ukrainian is to Russian) no people have as a group switched their fully formed national identity for a new one. But you are in extreme optimism mode.

    I hope you are a bright and enthusiastic teenager.

    While I am aware that the folly of youth is an ancient theme, it seems that many of the older commenters here at Unz often have a defeatist attitude.

    I may be a teenager but I think that the pessimism that many of my elders have is, while understandable (I too have feel this way at times), ultimately the road to oblivion.

    Throughout the world, the most advanced nations whether in North America, Europe, East Asia or elsewhere suffer from old age, both physically and spiritually.

    Their leaders are generally old and barren. They either have no children at all or one or two children to keep as ornaments.

    I like Macron (though he is childless as well) for the fact that he is willing to carry out radical reforms, even if he is still stuck within the mindframe of liberalism and its limitations.

    As Europeans and East Asians seem to be most tired of races, they have no desire or will to do daring anymore.

    The subaltern races of the South despite many being savages or half-savages at best steadily expand their population and the territory they inhabit.

    Russia, like many other countries, needs a youthful leadership not someone who is too worn down and ruined by defeat.

    Ultimately, I don’t think that the path of inaction that the Kremlin is pursuing now will lead to victory.

    When I say Greater Galicia I mean everything left of Right-bank Ukraine. There should be plenty of space for more people there.

    I don’t think that the casualties are that high. Modern people tend to have a strong aversion to what are historically-speaking quite normal casualty levels.

    As for being North Koreaised America is already doing their best to make that a reality already.
    At least with more land and resources Russia will be able to handle it better.

    Perhaps I misunderstood the situation but I always thought the problem with Ireland was that they resented that the protestant English had very anti-Catholic laws in place.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ali Choudhury
    A scheme like this might work perfectly if you were sent to the front line as a soldier. Seriously you would be much better off getting a girlfriend and restricting yourself to playing Warhammer than plotting the death and subjugation of millions from your bedroom. Dreams of imperial conquest are pure folly when the strong nations are the richest and most happiest ones, not the warlike barbaric ones.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Why I am Not Celebrating Victory Day

    Because you’re not Russian and you dislike all things Russian? But we already knew that, no need to write a TL;DR article to remind us again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  135. @dfordoom

    Would a similar strategy work in regards to having the U.S. annex Canada, Australia, and New Zealand?
     
    Why would the U.S. need to annex Australia? We're already their most faithful most pathetically grovelling lapdog (apart from Britain of course). We're already part of the American Empire. But as long as it can be pretended that countries like Australia and Britain are independent countries then the U.S. can claim to have allies rather than colonial possessions.

    I think the US’ relationship with many countries is somewhat akin to feudal vassals during the European middle ages.

    While they are able to express their dissatisfaction with various policies and statements and able to get their will on things that they consider important and Washington doesn’t, if Washington really wants something then they either carry it out or meekly stand aside.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. LondonBob says:
    @dfordoom

    If Germany hadn’t attacked the Soviet Union in 1941, I’d suppose there would have been prolonged stalemate between Germany and the British empire
     
    Not very prolonged. Britain was broke. Britain would have been forced to make peace with Germany. Germany would almost certainly have offered rather attractive terms for such a peace.

    Probably, Japanese entry, or not, in to the war would have been decisive. Would have been BE fighting a two front war.

    The smart move by Hitler would have been a push to take Egypt, the Suez Canal and open up the oil supply of the Middle East rather than invading the SU. Still issues supplying across the Med with British sea and air power interdicting.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    If Hitler had taken he Med via North Africa, not only oil would have his. He would also have had a supply route to South Russia better Than the USSR could provide overland. No more problems using horse carts in the mud.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @Felix Keverich

    What is your stance toward the development of North and Far East as national ideas?
     
    If by 'development' you mean building oil rigs/drilling holes in the ground, then Russia is doing this already. Otherwise, it's really dumb idea, dumping money into territories, where nobody wants to life.

    Do you fancy living beyond the Arctic circle, Mitleser? -50°C winters, eh?

    Otherwise, it’s really dumb idea, dumping money into territories, where nobody wants to life.

    Factually false. Three points:

    a) The Far East has better fertility than European Russia. Despite the lack of infrastructure, it’s a good place to live.

    b) Most of the Far East is warmer than Moscow and certainly warmer than St. Petersburg.

    c) In reality, the cold places in the far north have better population growth than the warm ones. Seems like people actually don’t mind cold weather.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    You, Sir, do not have a slightest clue what you're talking about!

    https://geographyofrussia.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/158_1.jpg

    There is a tiny strip of land in the southern tip of Primorsky Krai, which has temperatures comparable to European Russia. Otherwise this region is ill-suited for human habitation. It's natural resources can be extricated using automation/robots.

    The tentency in post-Soviet Russia has been for ethnic Russians to migrate out of Siberia, out of the Far East, and into Western and Southern parts of the Russian Federation. It's perfectly natural when you look at the map of average temperatures. The government shouldn't fight this.

    Leave Siberia to miners and herders, at least until global warming comes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Mikhail says: • Website
    @AP

    In the same way, I like Austrians and Montenegrines, but that doesn’t mean that they are real countries.
     
    You do realize that Ukrainian and Russian are about as different as Dutch and German, and not like Austrian German vs. standard High German?

    You do realize that Ukrainian and Russian are about as different as Dutch and German, and not like Austrian German vs. standard High German?

    So what if true.

    Is Ukrainian and Russian noticeably more different than Han and Mandarin? Never minding the numerous languages making up India.

    Linguistically and ethnically, Russians and Ukrainians aren’t more diverse than the Scots and English.

    There’s also the matter of modern day Ukrainian differing from what was previously spoken and written – a point relating to the Rusyn language having words more akin to Russian than Ukrainian. The Rusyns are commonly defined as Ukrainians, who didn’t buy into having a Ukrainian identity, relating to the effort made to distinguish the developed modern day Ukrainian from Russian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    Linguistically and ethnically, Russians and Ukrainians aren’t more diverse than the Scots and English.
     
    This is ridiculous; the English spoken by Modern Scots is obviously more similar to the English spoken in England than Ukrainian and Russian are. Maybe Scots wasn't, but that hasn't been the dominant language for hundreds of years.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Mitleser

    There’s no reason to believe American strategists are fundamentally less competent than Europeans or Russians.
     
    They are not less competent.
    But they are not more competent, either.

    Note how they handle the rise of the PRC as an emerging superpower.
    Some competence like the recent tech restrictions, but also a lot of incompetence which makes countries like India and Japan not rely too much on America in order to deal with China.

    They are not less competent.
    But they are not more competent, either.

    I agree but the important point is that the US only needs to be as competent as Europeans and Russians to stay far ahead of them. Americans don’t need to be more competent because they already have control over the global financial system, the strongest military, military bases everywhere, and Europe as their semi-vassal. The playing field is so uneven that the USG doesn’t need to be overly competent to beat everyone else. Everyone else needs to be vastly more competent than the Americans to catch up with them. Even if China was the most competent geopolitical player in the past few decades, they’re still 7 years behind in high tech manufacturing and ZTE effectively seized operations due to the chip ban.

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

    Now, this is not very representative, but it just came in my feed:

    The poll on Polish history forum: who contributed the most to defeating of the Nazis:

    48%: USSR

    Aaand… 13% Poland 8-|

    I really think large percentage of my beloved compatriots are overzelous sometimes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yevardian
    Lol... nearly 5x more than the UK. Honestly, if the Germans hadn't idiotically invaded the USSR and declared war on the US, I doubt Americans would have entered Europe at all.
    , @AP
    The overzealous may be factually wrong, but it is a good sign about Poles.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Interesting stats, thanks.

    I think this confirms that my intuition that historiographic trends would favor the Hollywood narrative.

    History forum = people who are unusually interested in history, enough to look at the statistics, and the statistics clearly indicate the correct answer is the USSR. (Without disparaging the critical importance of the British/American contribution). Moreover, Poland was itself liberated/occupied by the USSR. Even so, percentage voting for the US is still remarkably high.

    I suspect more Poles already think the US contributed the most (outside history forums), and if not today, then surely it will be true in another couple of decades.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    Even without nukes, why doesn’t Russia launch a manned mission to Mars? The hardest part of that is getting out of Earth’s gravity well, which Russia is already the best at. Getting back would be a challenge, but that’s doable as well.

    Maybe that would get America off of its ass. Another space race would be fun.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    Even without nukes, why doesn’t Russia launch a manned mission to Mars?
     
    For the same reasons why the USA faked the Apollo landings.

    There's a huge chance that any such mission would be a suicide mission; it's highly likely that the spacecraft might crash into Mars or fail to launch or dock on the return liftoff.

    There political and prestige fallout from such a failure would negate any positive effects of a successful mission. No politician would ever authorize such a mission.

    Before we launched a man into orbit we made damn sure it was safe by practicing on dogs, chimps and other assorted animals.

    So landing on the Moon or Mars will only happen once computer technology improves enough to first conduct a test with dogs and chimps, and only then humans.
    , @Philip Owen
    The hard part is recycling the crew's waste into food. I've worked with ESA and Russian space scientists on the problem. Biosphere Two, with a large amount of space did not end well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Dmitry
    Now it's in the news - Israel says it had told Russia about the airstrikes plan before it began.

    Now it’s in the news – Israel says it had told Russia about the airstrikes plan before it began.

    Should that really be such a surprise? Standing and sitting with Putin for a good period of time, Netanyahu was a featured guest at the May 9 Victory Day commemoration in Moscow.

    A matter which is disturbing for US neocon, neolib and some more left of center of center types, as well as those that see Russia as a hope in confronting “ZOG”.

    Netanyahu and Putin have an understanding:

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/10/09/answering-russia-critics-on-syria.html

    http://theduran.com/israels-netanyahu-to-be-guest-of-honour-at-russias-9th-may-victory-day-celebration/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Mikhail says: • Website
    @AP

    : Is your elderly in-law ethnically Russian or ethnically Ukrainian?
     
    Russian, in Moscow. May 9th was always a sacred holiday in that part of the family. But it wasn't a public event.

    what do you think the role of Eastern European Jews (the ones who would have remained there–as opposed to the ones who would have emigrated elsewhere) would have been in the 21st century?
     
    There would have been discrete groups: Hasids with large families being a sort of Amish society living apart from others, right-wing Zionists, and left-wing agitators.

    There would have been discrete groups: Hasids with large families being a sort of Amish society living apart from others, right-wing Zionists, and left-wing agitators.

    Numerous others as well, who don’t neatly fit into any of these categories.

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

    Who doesn’t love a woman with a permanent frown?
     
    ....you must be confusing Russian women with angry ,sad Polish women stuck in loveless marriages with some fat oaf who she doesn't actually have sexual relations with( as evidenced by the very small sized families in Poland despite the lack of belief in contraception and the supposedly longer marriages) whilst living in a cultural dump with next to nought tourists , like Warsaw?.....and with the husband or son away more than half the time in Germany or the UK?

    Russian women have great humour and ability to enjoy themselves at any age
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Seraphim says:

    Perhaps the real significance of the day is given by the ‘Immortals’ marches. It became a ‘Remembrance Day’. It is a duty to remember your ancestors, to sing their “Eternal memory” (Vechnaya Pamiat).

    “People stuck in the past have no future”.
    But it is equally true that “a nation that forgets its past has no future”.
    There is an other reason to that:
    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” (George Santayana).

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  146. @Daniel Chieh
    This reminds me of the "seasteading" dreams which came very, very close to fruition in 2017 and then failed again:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/french-polynesia-ends-agreement-with-peter-thiel-seasteading-institute-2018-3

    From a technological perspective, I think its fascinating and its disappointing that it can never seem to find its legs to exist.

    It was tried in the Bioshock videogame and did not work out very well there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    The relevance of Bioshock to real-life seasteading is shockingly minimal.

    However, the story of how Bioshock Infinite's effective failure(and the end of Ken Levine's dreams) in spite of its critical acclaim is an excellent tale of how aesthetic quality and storytelling in video games can mean very little, while a billion clones of Candy Crush overrun your smartphone.

    I suppose one could blame women for that. I think I'll do that.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. DFH says:
    @Mikhail

    You do realize that Ukrainian and Russian are about as different as Dutch and German, and not like Austrian German vs. standard High German?
     
    So what if true.

    Is Ukrainian and Russian noticeably more different than Han and Mandarin? Never minding the numerous languages making up India.

    Linguistically and ethnically, Russians and Ukrainians aren't more diverse than the Scots and English.

    There's also the matter of modern day Ukrainian differing from what was previously spoken and written - a point relating to the Rusyn language having words more akin to Russian than Ukrainian. The Rusyns are commonly defined as Ukrainians, who didn't buy into having a Ukrainian identity, relating to the effort made to distinguish the developed modern day Ukrainian from Russian.

    Linguistically and ethnically, Russians and Ukrainians aren’t more diverse than the Scots and English.

    This is ridiculous; the English spoken by Modern Scots is obviously more similar to the English spoken in England than Ukrainian and Russian are. Maybe Scots wasn’t, but that hasn’t been the dominant language for hundreds of years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    Maybe Scots wasn’t, but that hasn’t been the dominant language for hundreds of years.
     
    Neither has the so-called "Ukrainian" language. Nobody speaks it willingly (i.e., without monetary incentives) in 2018.

    Imagine if Scotland paid (or forced) its people to speak a heavily de-Englishized patois. It's possible and very doable. (Just not a thing that sane first-world countries would spend effort on, but the so-called "Ukraine" is not a sane first-world country.)
    , @Mikhail
    If anything, you're being ridiculous. Without apparently knowing it, you're acknowledging that the Anglicization of Scotland is a greater reality than the Russification of the recent (in historical terms) national entity known as Ukraine. That aspect doesn't disprove what I said.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @Hyperborean
    While I am aware that the folly of youth is an ancient theme, it seems that many of the older commenters here at Unz often have a defeatist attitude.

    I may be a teenager but I think that the pessimism that many of my elders have is, while understandable (I too have feel this way at times), ultimately the road to oblivion.

    Throughout the world, the most advanced nations whether in North America, Europe, East Asia or elsewhere suffer from old age, both physically and spiritually.

    Their leaders are generally old and barren. They either have no children at all or one or two children to keep as ornaments.

    I like Macron (though he is childless as well) for the fact that he is willing to carry out radical reforms, even if he is still stuck within the mindframe of liberalism and its limitations.

    As Europeans and East Asians seem to be most tired of races, they have no desire or will to do daring anymore.

    The subaltern races of the South despite many being savages or half-savages at best steadily expand their population and the territory they inhabit.

    Russia, like many other countries, needs a youthful leadership not someone who is too worn down and ruined by defeat.

    Ultimately, I don't think that the path of inaction that the Kremlin is pursuing now will lead to victory.

    When I say Greater Galicia I mean everything left of Right-bank Ukraine. There should be plenty of space for more people there.

    I don't think that the casualties are that high. Modern people tend to have a strong aversion to what are historically-speaking quite normal casualty levels.

    As for being North Koreaised America is already doing their best to make that a reality already.
    At least with more land and resources Russia will be able to handle it better.

    Perhaps I misunderstood the situation but I always thought the problem with Ireland was that they resented that the protestant English had very anti-Catholic laws in place.

    A scheme like this might work perfectly if you were sent to the front line as a soldier. Seriously you would be much better off getting a girlfriend and restricting yourself to playing Warhammer than plotting the death and subjugation of millions from your bedroom. Dreams of imperial conquest are pure folly when the strong nations are the richest and most happiest ones, not the warlike barbaric ones.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    the strong nations are the richest and most happiest ones, not the warlike barbaric ones.
     
    What are you talking about? Have you not heard of the exceptional United States?
    , @French Basque

    Dreams of imperial conquest are pure folly when the strong nations are the richest and most happiest ones, not the warlike barbaric ones
     
    The US of A comes to mind.
    , @Hyperborean
    I don't know, Israel seems to be doing quite well...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. LH says:
    @Silva
    Why'd there be a pro-Russian Bohemian kingdom instead of Czechoslovakia?

    One of the ideas of Czech anti-Austrian opposition was to create independent kingdom ruled by some Romanov. This kingdom would naturally include more than Bohemia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Silva
    Thanks.
    , @Seraphim
    These ideas have been put forward in 1869 by Nikolai Danilevsky in a famous book "Russia and Europe". Discussing the possible political combinations which would occur after the dissolution of the Austrian and Ottoman Empires he suggested the creation of a Confederation directed by Rusia from Constantinople comprising:
    1. A Bohemian Kingdom, including Moravia and the 'north-western part of Hungary (Slovakia) with 9 million inhabitants.
    2. A Serbo-Croat Kingdom including Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Herzegovina, North Albania, the Banat, Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia, Carintia,, Styria up to the Drava, with 8 million inhabitants.
    3. A Kingdom of Bulgaria.
    4. A Kingdom of Romania, including the south of Bukovina, Transylvania up to the river Mures, parts of Bassarabia (today's Republic of Moldova). Russia would have taken in compensation the Danube Delta and Dobroudja.
    5. A Kingdom of Greece, including Tessalia, Epiros, the south-west of Macedonia, the islands of the Aegean, the shores of Asia, Crete, Rhodos and Cyprus.
    6. A Magyar Kingdom, comprising the parts of Hungary and Transylvania inhabited by Hungarians
    7. The territory of Tsargrad (Constantinople), with parts of Rumelia, the Asiatic shore of the Bosphorus, Marmara and the Dardanelles, Gallipoli Peninsula and the island of Tenedos.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @Dave Pinsen
    Even without nukes, why doesn't Russia launch a manned mission to Mars? The hardest part of that is getting out of Earth's gravity well, which Russia is already the best at. Getting back would be a challenge, but that's doable as well.

    Maybe that would get America off of its ass. Another space race would be fun.

    Even without nukes, why doesn’t Russia launch a manned mission to Mars?

    For the same reasons why the USA faked the Apollo landings.

    There’s a huge chance that any such mission would be a suicide mission; it’s highly likely that the spacecraft might crash into Mars or fail to launch or dock on the return liftoff.

    There political and prestige fallout from such a failure would negate any positive effects of a successful mission. No politician would ever authorize such a mission.

    Before we launched a man into orbit we made damn sure it was safe by practicing on dogs, chimps and other assorted animals.

    So landing on the Moon or Mars will only happen once computer technology improves enough to first conduct a test with dogs and chimps, and only then humans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @DFH

    Linguistically and ethnically, Russians and Ukrainians aren’t more diverse than the Scots and English.
     
    This is ridiculous; the English spoken by Modern Scots is obviously more similar to the English spoken in England than Ukrainian and Russian are. Maybe Scots wasn't, but that hasn't been the dominant language for hundreds of years.

    Maybe Scots wasn’t, but that hasn’t been the dominant language for hundreds of years.

    Neither has the so-called “Ukrainian” language. Nobody speaks it willingly (i.e., without monetary incentives) in 2018.

    Imagine if Scotland paid (or forced) its people to speak a heavily de-Englishized patois. It’s possible and very doable. (Just not a thing that sane first-world countries would spend effort on, but the so-called “Ukraine” is not a sane first-world country.)

    Read More
    • LOL: AP
    • Replies: @Yevardian
    Ukrainian isn't widely spoken in the cities, but don't go and spout bullshit like nobody speaks it without monetary incentives, go west and you find plenty. Ukrainian isn't Belorussian.
    Personally I think the Ukraine would be much better off as an autonomous entity within Russia, but I get tired of all these people denying its existence. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. It's a least as different as Danish from Norwegian, the basic words all have different forms, not just an extensive series of slang words like in Scots.
    , @Mr. Hack

    The “Ukrainian” spoken in the villages is just an accented Russian with some cute regionalisms. It’s not at all like the official artificial language that was designed to be as incomprehensible as possible to literate Russian-speakers.
     
    More of your same fantasy laden BS? Where do you come up with this crock of BS anyway?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Yevardian says:
    @szopen
    Now, this is not very representative, but it just came in my feed:

    The poll on Polish history forum: who contributed the most to defeating of the Nazis:

    https://histmag.org/grafika/2018_news_i_redakcyjne/sondy/SondaktorykrajwygralwIIWS.jpg

    48%: USSR

    Aaand... 13% Poland 8-|

    I really think large percentage of my beloved compatriots are overzelous sometimes.

    Lol… nearly 5x more than the UK. Honestly, if the Germans hadn’t idiotically invaded the USSR and declared war on the US, I doubt Americans would have entered Europe at all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. Yevardian says:
    @anonymous coward

    Maybe Scots wasn’t, but that hasn’t been the dominant language for hundreds of years.
     
    Neither has the so-called "Ukrainian" language. Nobody speaks it willingly (i.e., without monetary incentives) in 2018.

    Imagine if Scotland paid (or forced) its people to speak a heavily de-Englishized patois. It's possible and very doable. (Just not a thing that sane first-world countries would spend effort on, but the so-called "Ukraine" is not a sane first-world country.)

    Ukrainian isn’t widely spoken in the cities, but don’t go and spout bullshit like nobody speaks it without monetary incentives, go west and you find plenty. Ukrainian isn’t Belorussian.
    Personally I think the Ukraine would be much better off as an autonomous entity within Russia, but I get tired of all these people denying its existence. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. It’s a least as different as Danish from Norwegian, the basic words all have different forms, not just an extensive series of slang words like in Scots.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich

    Personally I think the Ukraine would be much better off as an autonomous entity within Russia, but I get tired of all these people denying its existence.
     
    The biggest mistake that people make when talking about the Ukraine is treating it as a single, relatively monogenous entity, as if it was, you know, an actual nation. It's anything but. There are greater linguistic differences between the Ukrainians in Lvov and Kharkov, than between the people of Kharkov and the Russian city of Vladivostok.

    Which "Ukraine" you are talking about exactly? If you mean Galicia, the only solution for it is be completely eradicated, the way Eastern Prussia was eradicated. It would save us a lot of trouble. The rest of the country already has Russian as its primary language: the мова will die as soon as official requirement to use it everywhere is dropped.
    , @anonymous coward
    The "Ukrainian" spoken in the villages is just an accented Russian with some cute regionalisms. It's not at all like the official artificial language that was designed to be as incomprehensible as possible to literate Russian-speakers.

    (My parents and grandparents are, or rather were, native speakers of the "Ukrainian" you talk about, this is first-hand info.)
    , @Gerard2

    go west and you find plenty
     
    ...the west...the least populated, poorest and most stupid part of Ukraine you dimwit. Ukrainian isn't a language, it's a dialect you idiot. Even the non-modernculture or non-tech-words that Russians now anglicize stupidly......Ukrainians follow identically

    people denying its existence
     

    25-30% of it are gifts from Lenin and Stalin, Kiev is the most Russian city of all, the fact that a country of "Ukraine" never, ever existed, the fact that it's only Bandera-Shukhevich-Nazi animal-rapist scum who escaped like cowards in the 40's and the 50's courtesy of UK and US intelligence who fund and promote that "Ukrainian" myth , otherwise the whole country would be at least 92% pro-Russian.

    Ukraine is an artificial country that never existed and doesn't exist because it cant govern itself...and it has an illegal government

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @LondonBob
    Increasing tensions with Russia and the arc of instability around Europe in MENA has fucked Europe. German Russian rapprochement is the great fear of US foreign policy.

    That map shows it was ethnic German areas most opposed to intervention,

    The Germans may have been the most opposed, but even in the most “interventionist” state there was only 35% support for intervention. Notably, “Anglo” New England was overwhelmingly opposed — 83% Massachusetts, 79% Maine, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Depends on how many said don't know, how many said actively opposed, oppose but accept need to etc. I actually think 30 percent is pretty high.

    Pre war Florida really was Southern. Anyway a lot of Irish in Massachusetts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. LondonBob says:
    @for-the-record
    That map shows it was ethnic German areas most opposed to intervention,

    The Germans may have been the most opposed, but even in the most "interventionist" state there was only 35% support for intervention. Notably, "Anglo" New England was overwhelmingly opposed -- 83% Massachusetts, 79% Maine, etc.

    Depends on how many said don’t know, how many said actively opposed, oppose but accept need to etc. I actually think 30 percent is pretty high.

    Pre war Florida really was Southern. Anyway a lot of Irish in Massachusetts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @anonymous coward

    Otherwise, it’s really dumb idea, dumping money into territories, where nobody wants to life.
     
    Factually false. Three points:

    a) The Far East has better fertility than European Russia. Despite the lack of infrastructure, it's a good place to live.

    b) Most of the Far East is warmer than Moscow and certainly warmer than St. Petersburg.

    c) In reality, the cold places in the far north have better population growth than the warm ones. Seems like people actually don't mind cold weather.

    You, Sir, do not have a slightest clue what you’re talking about!

    There is a tiny strip of land in the southern tip of Primorsky Krai, which has temperatures comparable to European Russia. Otherwise this region is ill-suited for human habitation. It’s natural resources can be extricated using automation/robots.

    The tentency in post-Soviet Russia has been for ethnic Russians to migrate out of Siberia, out of the Far East, and into Western and Southern parts of the Russian Federation. It’s perfectly natural when you look at the map of average temperatures. The government shouldn’t fight this.

    Leave Siberia to miners and herders, at least until global warming comes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    There is a tiny strip of land in the southern tip of Primorsky Krai, which has temperatures comparable to European Russia
     
    This "tiny strip" (along with Kamchatka, another place with mild climate) is basically the whole of the Russian Far East. The rest is mountains.

    Leave Siberia to miners and herders, at least until global warming comes.
     
    Siberia is not the Far East. The two regions are thousands of kilometers apart. You're pretending like you're some sort of expert, but yet you fail at even basic grade-school geography.

    Moreover, you missed my third point: the empiric fact is that the colder places in the Russian Far East have better population growth. It's 2018, we finally invented warm clothes and climate doesn't matter. (Infrastructure does.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Silva says:

    British Empire a bunch of very stable saints: http://exiledonline.com/wn-day-25-monty-python-burning-kikuyu-skit/ .

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH
    Of course it's by the anti-British Irish communist, John Dolan, crying about the poor Africans and repeating atrocity stories. They only raped, murdered and tortured 33 British, so I guess they should probably have just been given a free pass?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Silva says:
    @LH
    One of the ideas of Czech anti-Austrian opposition was to create independent kingdom ruled by some Romanov. This kingdom would naturally include more than Bohemia.

    Thanks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @Yevardian
    Ukrainian isn't widely spoken in the cities, but don't go and spout bullshit like nobody speaks it without monetary incentives, go west and you find plenty. Ukrainian isn't Belorussian.
    Personally I think the Ukraine would be much better off as an autonomous entity within Russia, but I get tired of all these people denying its existence. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. It's a least as different as Danish from Norwegian, the basic words all have different forms, not just an extensive series of slang words like in Scots.

    Personally I think the Ukraine would be much better off as an autonomous entity within Russia, but I get tired of all these people denying its existence.

    The biggest mistake that people make when talking about the Ukraine is treating it as a single, relatively monogenous entity, as if it was, you know, an actual nation. It’s anything but. There are greater linguistic differences between the Ukrainians in Lvov and Kharkov, than between the people of Kharkov and the Russian city of Vladivostok.

    Which “Ukraine” you are talking about exactly? If you mean Galicia, the only solution for it is be completely eradicated, the way Eastern Prussia was eradicated. It would save us a lot of trouble. The rest of the country already has Russian as its primary language: the мова will die as soon as official requirement to use it everywhere is dropped.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yevardian
    I am already agreed with you on the first point. Note I prefixed the Ukraine with an article. If you think the eradication of local languages and cultures is worthy goal, good for you I guess. Are suppose you support the sort of "nationalist" scums beating up kids in Udmurtia for not speaking their own language in public. Somehow people like you and our dear author manage to combine a liberast mindset with the worst aspects of Great Russian chauvinism.
    , @Mr. Hack

    Which “Ukraine” you are talking about exactly? If you mean Galicia, the only solution for it is be completely eradicated, the way Eastern Prussia was eradicated.
     
    You'll need to 'eradicate'a lot more than just Galicia. This is a complete misnomer that the Ukrainian language and pride in Ukrainianess is limited to Galicia. Looks like you'll have to reestablish the gulag system, in order to 'eradicate' the millions of people that you're talking about, Mr. Ukrainophobe. Even Stalin saw the folly in trying to do something as stupid as that, tovarishch!
    , @AP

    Which “Ukraine” you are talking about exactly? If you mean Galicia, the only solution for it is be completely eradicated, the way Eastern Prussia was eradicated.
     
    East Prussia had about 2.5 million people when it was eradicated. This eradication was tolerated because the Germans had genocided tens of millions of people.

    Galicia itself has 4.5 million people. The fully (urban + rural) Ukrainian-speaking regions of Ukraine (Galicia plus Volhynia plus Bukovyna and Trtanscarpathia) have about 10 million people. Eradicating a region of 10 million people would be quite a groundbreaking "accomplishment." Done because, I don't know - Russia wants Kiev? Of course Kiev despite being Russian-speaking is as nationalistic as Galicia. You'd have to eradicate at least 3 million or so of its 4 million people too.

    Of course, outside this region there are another 15 million or so Ukrainian-speakers, living in rural areas and raion centers.

    I hope you don't complain about Ukrainian extremists who want to eradicate Donbas or Crimea. you are their twin.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. DFH says:
    @Silva
    British Empire a bunch of very stable saints: http://exiledonline.com/wn-day-25-monty-python-burning-kikuyu-skit/ .

    Of course it’s by the anti-British Irish communist, John Dolan, crying about the poor Africans and repeating atrocity stories. They only raped, murdered and tortured 33 British, so I guess they should probably have just been given a free pass?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Silva
    Let me guess: if you hear that English raped, tortured, and killed 33 Pakistanis, you aren't going to consider it wrong. Right?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @Yevardian
    Ukrainian isn't widely spoken in the cities, but don't go and spout bullshit like nobody speaks it without monetary incentives, go west and you find plenty. Ukrainian isn't Belorussian.
    Personally I think the Ukraine would be much better off as an autonomous entity within Russia, but I get tired of all these people denying its existence. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. It's a least as different as Danish from Norwegian, the basic words all have different forms, not just an extensive series of slang words like in Scots.

    The “Ukrainian” spoken in the villages is just an accented Russian with some cute regionalisms. It’s not at all like the official artificial language that was designed to be as incomprehensible as possible to literate Russian-speakers.

    (My parents and grandparents are, or rather were, native speakers of the “Ukrainian” you talk about, this is first-hand info.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    The “Ukrainian” spoken in the villages is just an accented Russian with some cute regionalisms. It’s not at all like the official artificial language that was designed to be as incomprehensible as possible to literate Russian-speakers.
     
    How would you know? Are you qualified to make such off the wall pronouncements? Sure, your grandparents usage of a local village dialect was probably somewhat different than the standard literary language,but we're talking about how many yearssince that time has passed? The school systems have insured that young people are all on the same page and understand and communicate in the national language. This process is normal and seen throughout the world.
    , @AP

    The “Ukrainian” spoken in the villages is just an accented Russian with some cute regionalisms
     
    No, it's normal Ukrainian.

    It’s not at all like the official artificial language that was designed to be as incomprehensible as possible to literate Russian-speakers.

     

    Official language was based on village speech of Poltava oblast, which was the ethnically purest part of Ukraine in the late 19th century when the language was standardized.

    For this reason, villagers a couple hours from Kiev speak closer to standard Ukrainian than do villagers in isolated parts of western Ukraine.

    You family probably spoke surzhik and falsely labeled it Ukrainian.

    My parents and grandparents are, or rather were, native speakers of the “Ukrainian” you talk about, this is first-hand info
     
    Your claims here are as nonsensical as your claim that Kamchatka has a similar climate to Seattle.

    Remember, you said you were in Kamchatka and claimed that it's climate was similar to that of Seattle. We know exactly what your "first hand info" is worth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @Felix Keverich
    You, Sir, do not have a slightest clue what you're talking about!

    https://geographyofrussia.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/158_1.jpg

    There is a tiny strip of land in the southern tip of Primorsky Krai, which has temperatures comparable to European Russia. Otherwise this region is ill-suited for human habitation. It's natural resources can be extricated using automation/robots.

    The tentency in post-Soviet Russia has been for ethnic Russians to migrate out of Siberia, out of the Far East, and into Western and Southern parts of the Russian Federation. It's perfectly natural when you look at the map of average temperatures. The government shouldn't fight this.

    Leave Siberia to miners and herders, at least until global warming comes.

    There is a tiny strip of land in the southern tip of Primorsky Krai, which has temperatures comparable to European Russia

    This “tiny strip” (along with Kamchatka, another place with mild climate) is basically the whole of the Russian Far East. The rest is mountains.

    Leave Siberia to miners and herders, at least until global warming comes.

    Siberia is not the Far East. The two regions are thousands of kilometers apart. You’re pretending like you’re some sort of expert, but yet you fail at even basic grade-school geography.

    Moreover, you missed my third point: the empiric fact is that the colder places in the Russian Far East have better population growth. It’s 2018, we finally invented warm clothes and climate doesn’t matter. (Infrastructure does.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    I'm no expert, but I'm clearly smarter and better educated than you're. What kind of clown calls Kamchatka a "place with mild climate"? You might want to visit it during winter. lol
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Yevardian says:
    @Felix Keverich

    Personally I think the Ukraine would be much better off as an autonomous entity within Russia, but I get tired of all these people denying its existence.
     
    The biggest mistake that people make when talking about the Ukraine is treating it as a single, relatively monogenous entity, as if it was, you know, an actual nation. It's anything but. There are greater linguistic differences between the Ukrainians in Lvov and Kharkov, than between the people of Kharkov and the Russian city of Vladivostok.

    Which "Ukraine" you are talking about exactly? If you mean Galicia, the only solution for it is be completely eradicated, the way Eastern Prussia was eradicated. It would save us a lot of trouble. The rest of the country already has Russian as its primary language: the мова will die as soon as official requirement to use it everywhere is dropped.

    I am already agreed with you on the first point. Note I prefixed the Ukraine with an article. If you think the eradication of local languages and cultures is worthy goal, good for you I guess. Are suppose you support the sort of “nationalist” scums beating up kids in Udmurtia for not speaking their own language in public. Somehow people like you and our dear author manage to combine a liberast mindset with the worst aspects of Great Russian chauvinism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yevardian
    When blood rushes to the head and you commit a dozen typos.
    , @Felix Keverich

    If you think the eradication of local languages and cultures is worthy goal, good for you I guess.
     
    I see no value in preserving local languages and dialects. None at all. Particularly when it keeps minority groups from assimilating. There is a natural tendency for the minor languages to disappear. The мова in the Ukraine is being kept alive by the copious amount of government regulations demanding its use everywhere.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. Silva says:
    @DFH
    Of course it's by the anti-British Irish communist, John Dolan, crying about the poor Africans and repeating atrocity stories. They only raped, murdered and tortured 33 British, so I guess they should probably have just been given a free pass?

    Let me guess: if you hear that English raped, tortured, and killed 33 Pakistanis, you aren’t going to consider it wrong. Right?

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH
    Well no-one really cares about Pakistanis raping and torturing tens of thousands of British girls. John Dolan's certainly never mentioned it, despite having the time to dig through everything the British empire ever did.
    , @Philip Owen
    The Kikuyu killed many thousands of Luo and other tribes. It was not a liberation struggle. Like most such, t was a struggle for post colonial power. The Luo are still attacked.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Mr. Hack says:
    @Hyperborean
    I think that you suffer from cognitive dissonance in denouncing people as stalinists while endorsing sovok type repression of people who disagree with you (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union).

    Why would I be seen as a Class 1?
    My proposal explicitly states that Russians should adopt parts of regional Ukrainian culture.

    I hold no personal ill-will against Ukrainians, I simply don't think the Ukraine should be seen as a proper nation. In the same way, I like Austrians and Montenegrines, but that doesn't mean that they are real countries.

    I think it is interesting how loyal you are to the idea of Ukraine despite living in America. Which generation are you? If you have any children what do they think about Ukraine?

    Usually when I encounter Americans in real life, even by merely the second generation it seems like they have only superficial ties left to their homelands and by the third generation they are completely American.

    I think that you suffer from cognitive dissonance in denouncing people as stalinists while endorsing sovok type repression of people who disagree with you

    Where have I ever ‘denounced’ anybody for being a ‘Stalinist ‘ just for disagreeing with me? Your cavalier attitudes in misrepresenting somebody’s thoughts are the sign of an overly active imagination.
    In Russian you’d be labeled: фантазёр!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    I didn't say that you call people Stalinists 'just for disagreeing with you'.

    I said that your usage of the word 'Stalinist' has a negative connotation - yet you share the same eerie obsession with punitive mental hospitals as the Soviets did. You don't find this odd?

    I would assume these tendencies to be contradictory. This is what I meant. Perhaps I should formulate my sentences better but it would also behoove you to read other people's comments from different angles to better understand their intentions.

    While I don't agree with Keverich's comments about eradicating Galicia - unlike the rest of the Ukraine I think that Galicia and the surrounding areas have a genuine identity and should be allowed to develop in their own way - I don't think that he is a Stalinist and that that is an inaccurate moniker for him.

    If you called him a Great Russian chauvinist or imperialist or other similar words then I could see your point of view.

    I think linguistic accuracy is an important thing to aim for, particularly in this era where words are frequently disconnected from what they have traditionally and commonly meant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. DFH says:
    @Silva
    Let me guess: if you hear that English raped, tortured, and killed 33 Pakistanis, you aren't going to consider it wrong. Right?

    Well no-one really cares about Pakistanis raping and torturing tens of thousands of British girls. John Dolan’s certainly never mentioned it, despite having the time to dig through everything the British empire ever did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Silva
    Just like you don't care what the British did before the Gikuyu "murdered" 33 invaders. So what's your complaint?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Mr. Hack says:
    @anonymous coward
    The "Ukrainian" spoken in the villages is just an accented Russian with some cute regionalisms. It's not at all like the official artificial language that was designed to be as incomprehensible as possible to literate Russian-speakers.

    (My parents and grandparents are, or rather were, native speakers of the "Ukrainian" you talk about, this is first-hand info.)

    The “Ukrainian” spoken in the villages is just an accented Russian with some cute regionalisms. It’s not at all like the official artificial language that was designed to be as incomprehensible as possible to literate Russian-speakers.

    How would you know? Are you qualified to make such off the wall pronouncements? Sure, your grandparents usage of a local village dialect was probably somewhat different than the standard literary language,but we’re talking about how many yearssince that time has passed? The school systems have insured that young people are all on the same page and understand and communicate in the national language. This process is normal and seen throughout the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yevardian
    He doesn't. He's confusing popular inter-regional slang such as Transyanka and the like, which the uneducated take for the actual language.
    , @Gerard2

    How would you know? Are you qualified to make such off the wall pronouncements? Sure, your grandparents usage of a local village dialect was probably somewhat different than the standard literary language,but we’re talking about how many yearssince that time has passed? The school systems have insured that young people are all on the same page and understand and communicate in the national language. This process is normal and seen throughout the world.
     
    We've gone through this already with the Yushchenko recordings, you dumb prick.

    This fictitious language is basically an operation fueled by US/Canadian children of rapist Nazi-Bandera scum. Despite that, Russian is still far more spoken in the fake country of Ukraine
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Yevardian says:
    @Yevardian
    I am already agreed with you on the first point. Note I prefixed the Ukraine with an article. If you think the eradication of local languages and cultures is worthy goal, good for you I guess. Are suppose you support the sort of "nationalist" scums beating up kids in Udmurtia for not speaking their own language in public. Somehow people like you and our dear author manage to combine a liberast mindset with the worst aspects of Great Russian chauvinism.

    When blood rushes to the head and you commit a dozen typos.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Silva says:
    @DFH
    Well no-one really cares about Pakistanis raping and torturing tens of thousands of British girls. John Dolan's certainly never mentioned it, despite having the time to dig through everything the British empire ever did.

    Just like you don’t care what the British did before the Gikuyu “murdered” 33 invaders. So what’s your complaint?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Yevardian says:
    @Mr. Hack

    The “Ukrainian” spoken in the villages is just an accented Russian with some cute regionalisms. It’s not at all like the official artificial language that was designed to be as incomprehensible as possible to literate Russian-speakers.
     
    How would you know? Are you qualified to make such off the wall pronouncements? Sure, your grandparents usage of a local village dialect was probably somewhat different than the standard literary language,but we're talking about how many yearssince that time has passed? The school systems have insured that young people are all on the same page and understand and communicate in the national language. This process is normal and seen throughout the world.

    He doesn’t. He’s confusing popular inter-regional slang such as Transyanka and the like, which the uneducated take for the actual language.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. Mr. Hack says:
    @anonymous coward

    Maybe Scots wasn’t, but that hasn’t been the dominant language for hundreds of years.
     
    Neither has the so-called "Ukrainian" language. Nobody speaks it willingly (i.e., without monetary incentives) in 2018.

    Imagine if Scotland paid (or forced) its people to speak a heavily de-Englishized patois. It's possible and very doable. (Just not a thing that sane first-world countries would spend effort on, but the so-called "Ukraine" is not a sane first-world country.)

    The “Ukrainian” spoken in the villages is just an accented Russian with some cute regionalisms. It’s not at all like the official artificial language that was designed to be as incomprehensible as possible to literate Russian-speakers.

    More of your same fantasy laden BS? Where do you come up with this crock of BS anyway?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    Where do you come up with this crock of BS anyway?
     
    Personal experience, mate. Unlike you, I'm an actual ethnic "Ukrainian".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Mikhail says: • Website
    @DFH

    Linguistically and ethnically, Russians and Ukrainians aren’t more diverse than the Scots and English.
     
    This is ridiculous; the English spoken by Modern Scots is obviously more similar to the English spoken in England than Ukrainian and Russian are. Maybe Scots wasn't, but that hasn't been the dominant language for hundreds of years.

    If anything, you’re being ridiculous. Without apparently knowing it, you’re acknowledging that the Anglicization of Scotland is a greater reality than the Russification of the recent (in historical terms) national entity known as Ukraine. That aspect doesn’t disprove what I said.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. Mr. Hack says:
    @Felix Keverich

    Personally I think the Ukraine would be much better off as an autonomous entity within Russia, but I get tired of all these people denying its existence.
     
    The biggest mistake that people make when talking about the Ukraine is treating it as a single, relatively monogenous entity, as if it was, you know, an actual nation. It's anything but. There are greater linguistic differences between the Ukrainians in Lvov and Kharkov, than between the people of Kharkov and the Russian city of Vladivostok.

    Which "Ukraine" you are talking about exactly? If you mean Galicia, the only solution for it is be completely eradicated, the way Eastern Prussia was eradicated. It would save us a lot of trouble. The rest of the country already has Russian as its primary language: the мова will die as soon as official requirement to use it everywhere is dropped.

    Which “Ukraine” you are talking about exactly? If you mean Galicia, the only solution for it is be completely eradicated, the way Eastern Prussia was eradicated.

    You’ll need to ‘eradicate’a lot more than just Galicia. This is a complete misnomer that the Ukrainian language and pride in Ukrainianess is limited to Galicia. Looks like you’ll have to reestablish the gulag system, in order to ‘eradicate’ the millions of people that you’re talking about, Mr. Ukrainophobe. Even Stalin saw the folly in trying to do something as stupid as that, tovarishch!

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

    The “Ukrainian” spoken in the villages is just an accented Russian with some cute regionalisms. It’s not at all like the official artificial language that was designed to be as incomprehensible as possible to literate Russian-speakers.
     
    More of your same fantasy laden BS? Where do you come up with this crock of BS anyway?

    Where do you come up with this crock of BS anyway?

    Personal experience, mate. Unlike you, I’m an actual ethnic “Ukrainian”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Since you're not a Ukrainian, but a self professing 'Ukrainian', I find anything you say to be suspect. My mother (a real Ukrainian) told me about people like you, 'Ukrainian' turncoats and traitors, slimy people that were in the employ of Russian fifth columnists in Ukraine. She even had a word for such people, so you no longer need to be 'ananymous':

    хрунь
     
    *Хрунь — лайливе прізвисько підлої, продажної людини, запроданця. У Галичині використовується щодо виборних осіб, які зрадили своїх виборців.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. iffen says:

    If a Russian can’t celebrate the defeat of Nazism and Hitler then he doesn’t need to celebrate anything at all.

    If Belorussians and Ukrainians don’t celebrate Victory Day, I would take that as a serious clue that they don’t want to be or think of themselves as Russians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    I don't get it: a Russian is obligated celebrate "the defeat of Fascism"*, but no such obligation exists for Belorussian? Why is that? Last time I checked WW2 was more than just a Russo-German affair. Explain your thinking here.

    Is "Victory Day" a core part of Russian identity or something? I personally don't want to see Russian identity reduced to bunch of Soviet era platitudes. The Russians are bigger than the fucking "Victory Day".

    PS: it was always "Fascism", never Nazism in official Soviet propaganda, because the phrase 'National-Socialism' could create uncomfortable associations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @AP

    That’s a bit like saying Germany wasn’t defeated in 1918, it just went down because of internal revolution.
     
    At the time that Germany surrendered it was being thrown back at various points:

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

    It’s news to me that Kerensky offensive is now supposed to have been a success.
     
    Kerensky offensive successfully drove the Germans and Austro-Hungarian back and ended not because of German victory on the battlefield but by mutiny and desertion by the Russian troops. Only after the Russian troops mutinied first, were the Germans able to advance later. It was an internal issue, not forced upon Russia by the Germans.

    If in World War II, 1945, the Soviet soldiers decided to stop fighting and went home, enabling the Germans to later retake their country, would this mean Germany had beaten the Soviet Union?

    Kerensky offensive successfully drove the Germans and Austro-Hungarian back and ended not because of German victory on the battlefield but by mutiny and desertion by the Russian troops

    When morale in your army is so low that soldiers start mutinying and deserting during an offensive (and iirc they started doing that already after only a few days/weeks), that’s a pretty strong sign imo that, contrary to your assertion, the Russian army in 1917 wasn’t capable of winning anything. Morale and willingness to fight must surely rank as one of the most crucial aspects of any fighting force.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    Kerensky's offensive was doomed to failure because of the breakdown of discipline brought about by the "Petrograd Soviet's* 'Order Number 1' which tremendously weakened the power of officers, giving an over-riding mandate to 'soldier committees'. The abolition of the death penalty was another contributing factor, as was the high presence of revolutionary agitators at the front including Bolshevik agitators, who promoted a defeatist agenda (and whom Kerensky tolerated considerably more than conservative agitators). Riots and mutineering at the front became common, officers were often the victims of soldier harassment and even murder. Furthermore, the policy of the new government towards the war effort was one of fulfilling obligations towards Russia's allies, as opposed to fighting for the sake of total victory, thus giving soldiers a less credible motivation to fight" (Wikipedia).
    It was German defeatist propaganda served by its agents the Bolsheviks which won the day.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    1. Morale was low during the periods when Kerensky was allowing Bolshevik agitation in the ranks. When he clamped down on it - for instance, from the July Days to the Kornilov Affair - desertion plummeted and discipline was restored.

    2. By the same standard, the French Army wasn't capable of winning anything after the Nivelle Offensive in April 1917.

    In reality, what happened in both cases was that the capacity to mount offensives was temporarily broken, but not the capacity to hold a line. A crucial distinction from November 1917, when the Bolsheviks intentionally dismantled the Russian Army and left the way open for the Germans to swoosh in (Trotsky's "pedagogical demonstration" of winning through defeat).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @Mr. Hack

    I think that you suffer from cognitive dissonance in denouncing people as stalinists while endorsing sovok type repression of people who disagree with you
     
    Where have I ever 'denounced' anybody for being a 'Stalinist ' just for disagreeing with me? Your cavalier attitudes in misrepresenting somebody's thoughts are the sign of an overly active imagination.
    In Russian you'd be labeled: фантазёр!

    I didn’t say that you call people Stalinists ‘just for disagreeing with you’.

    I said that your usage of the word ‘Stalinist’ has a negative connotation – yet you share the same eerie obsession with punitive mental hospitals as the Soviets did. You don’t find this odd?

    I would assume these tendencies to be contradictory. This is what I meant. Perhaps I should formulate my sentences better but it would also behoove you to read other people’s comments from different angles to better understand their intentions.

    While I don’t agree with Keverich’s comments about eradicating Galicia – unlike the rest of the Ukraine I think that Galicia and the surrounding areas have a genuine identity and should be allowed to develop in their own way – I don’t think that he is a Stalinist and that that is an inaccurate moniker for him.

    If you called him a Great Russian chauvinist or imperialist or other similar words then I could see your point of view.

    I think linguistic accuracy is an important thing to aim for, particularly in this era where words are frequently disconnected from what they have traditionally and commonly meant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack

    I didn’t say that you call people Stalinists ‘just for disagreeing with you’.

     

    Well, let's just take another look at the sentence that got me to believe that you were criticizing me for calling anybody who disagreed with me a Stalinist:

    I think that you suffer from cognitive dissonance in denouncing people as stalinists while endorsing sovok type repression of people who disagree with you
     
    In this somewhat truncated sentence, I do see the word 'Stalinist' and 'people who disagree with you'. I guess it's altogether possible that you mean something else? :-)
    , @AP

    While I don’t agree with Keverich’s comments about eradicating Galicia – unlike the rest of the Ukraine I think that Galicia and the surrounding areas have a genuine identity and should be allowed to develop in their own way
     
    Galicia and the Right Bank (including most of Kiev oblast) were the same until the late 18th century, when Galicia joined Austria and the Right Bank joined Russia. I have relatives in a village a couple hours drive from Kiev - they are as Ukrainian-speaking as Galicians.

    Austrian rule meant the Galicians lost serfdom earlier and became literate* a generation earlier than their brothers on the other side of the border. They participated in parliamentary democracy and did other things central Europeans did. This made them more "normal" central Europeans in terms of politics and lifestyle. It also set the stage for a Ukrainian-speaking urban culture. But culturally there were no huge differences.

    *Literacy was accompanied by nationalism. The nationalism taught in Galicia was mostly the work of Ukrainian exiles from the Russian Empire, such as Hrushevsky, who settled in Lviv. It was a nationalism developed in Kiev and Kharkiv by descendants of Ukrainian Cossack officers lamenting the loss of independence/autonomy and Russian rule.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. @Bragadocious
    The Brits weren't fighting on the European continent in 1940-41. Name me one British offensive against the Germans on European soil during that time. The Brits decided after Dunkirk that they wanted no part of the German infantry. Yeah, there were some minor skirmishes in Africa -- utterly irrelevant in the big picture. (though the Brits make a big deal out of them)

    The Brits weren’t fighting on the European continent in 1940-41

    British forces were in mainland Greece and Crete in 1941.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. @anonymous coward

    There is a tiny strip of land in the southern tip of Primorsky Krai, which has temperatures comparable to European Russia
     
    This "tiny strip" (along with Kamchatka, another place with mild climate) is basically the whole of the Russian Far East. The rest is mountains.

    Leave Siberia to miners and herders, at least until global warming comes.
     
    Siberia is not the Far East. The two regions are thousands of kilometers apart. You're pretending like you're some sort of expert, but yet you fail at even basic grade-school geography.

    Moreover, you missed my third point: the empiric fact is that the colder places in the Russian Far East have better population growth. It's 2018, we finally invented warm clothes and climate doesn't matter. (Infrastructure does.)

    I’m no expert, but I’m clearly smarter and better educated than you’re. What kind of clown calls Kamchatka a “place with mild climate”? You might want to visit it during winter. lol

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    I’m no expert, but I’m clearly smarter and better educated than you’re. What kind of clown calls Kamchatka a “place with mild climate”?
     
    The kind of clown who has actually been there. Kamchatka has a mild, atlantic climate. Very wet and foggy without serious temperature extremes. (Think Seattle.) The average January temperature there is -7 degrees, only one degree colder than Moscow.

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA-%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9#%D0%9A%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B2%D1%8B#%D0%9A%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BC%D0%B0

    Their problem is heavy snowfalls, not cold.

    Moreover, the Russian Far East is a very mountainous place: http://rfmaps.ru/images/fizicheskaja-karta-rossii.jpg

    A valley might have a different climate than the next one over.

    (BTW, Siberia is the green flat part between the Ural and the Altai mountains. Siberia indeed does have a cold climate, and also three times the population. Again, cold doesn't correlate with low population density.)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. Seraphim says:
    @LH
    One of the ideas of Czech anti-Austrian opposition was to create independent kingdom ruled by some Romanov. This kingdom would naturally include more than Bohemia.

    These ideas have been put forward in 1869 by Nikolai Danilevsky in a famous book “Russia and Europe”. Discussing the possible political combinations which would occur after the dissolution of the Austrian and Ottoman Empires he suggested the creation of a Confederation directed by Rusia from Constantinople comprising:
    1. A Bohemian Kingdom, including Moravia and the ‘north-western part of Hungary (Slovakia) with 9 million inhabitants.
    2. A Serbo-Croat Kingdom including Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Herzegovina, North Albania, the Banat, Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia, Carintia,, Styria up to the Drava, with 8 million inhabitants.
    3. A Kingdom of Bulgaria.
    4. A Kingdom of Romania, including the south of Bukovina, Transylvania up to the river Mures, parts of Bassarabia (today’s Republic of Moldova). Russia would have taken in compensation the Danube Delta and Dobroudja.
    5. A Kingdom of Greece, including Tessalia, Epiros, the south-west of Macedonia, the islands of the Aegean, the shores of Asia, Crete, Rhodos and Cyprus.
    6. A Magyar Kingdom, comprising the parts of Hungary and Transylvania inhabited by Hungarians
    7. The territory of Tsargrad (Constantinople), with parts of Rumelia, the Asiatic shore of the Bosphorus, Marmara and the Dardanelles, Gallipoli Peninsula and the island of Tenedos.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. @iffen
    If a Russian can't celebrate the defeat of Nazism and Hitler then he doesn't need to celebrate anything at all.

    If Belorussians and Ukrainians don't celebrate Victory Day, I would take that as a serious clue that they don't want to be or think of themselves as Russians.

    I don’t get it: a Russian is obligated celebrate “the defeat of Fascism”*, but no such obligation exists for Belorussian? Why is that? Last time I checked WW2 was more than just a Russo-German affair. Explain your thinking here.

    Is “Victory Day” a core part of Russian identity or something? I personally don’t want to see Russian identity reduced to bunch of Soviet era platitudes. The Russians are bigger than the fucking “Victory Day”.

    PS: it was always “Fascism”, never Nazism in official Soviet propaganda, because the phrase ‘National-Socialism’ could create uncomfortable associations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Explain your thinking here.

    I can't understand a "Russian" who does not have an emotional attachment to something like the Battle of Stalingrad and the WWII victory in general. By extension, if one is a "Ukrainian" and wishes to deny any Russian identity as a part of that identity, then rejection of the WWII victory is logical.

    Y'all just go ahead and sort it out as you wish, just my opinion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. @Yevardian
    I am already agreed with you on the first point. Note I prefixed the Ukraine with an article. If you think the eradication of local languages and cultures is worthy goal, good for you I guess. Are suppose you support the sort of "nationalist" scums beating up kids in Udmurtia for not speaking their own language in public. Somehow people like you and our dear author manage to combine a liberast mindset with the worst aspects of Great Russian chauvinism.

    If you think the eradication of local languages and cultures is worthy goal, good for you I guess.

    I see no value in preserving local languages and dialects. None at all. Particularly when it keeps minority groups from assimilating. There is a natural tendency for the minor languages to disappear. The мова in the Ukraine is being kept alive by the copious amount of government regulations demanding its use everywhere.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. Seraphim says:
    @German_reader

    Kerensky offensive successfully drove the Germans and Austro-Hungarian back and ended not because of German victory on the battlefield but by mutiny and desertion by the Russian troops
     
    When morale in your army is so low that soldiers start mutinying and deserting during an offensive (and iirc they started doing that already after only a few days/weeks), that's a pretty strong sign imo that, contrary to your assertion, the Russian army in 1917 wasn't capable of winning anything. Morale and willingness to fight must surely rank as one of the most crucial aspects of any fighting force.

    Kerensky’s offensive was doomed to failure because of the breakdown of discipline brought about by the “Petrograd Soviet’s* ‘Order Number 1′ which tremendously weakened the power of officers, giving an over-riding mandate to ‘soldier committees’. The abolition of the death penalty was another contributing factor, as was the high presence of revolutionary agitators at the front including Bolshevik agitators, who promoted a defeatist agenda (and whom Kerensky tolerated considerably more than conservative agitators). Riots and mutineering at the front became common, officers were often the victims of soldier harassment and even murder. Furthermore, the policy of the new government towards the war effort was one of fulfilling obligations towards Russia’s allies, as opposed to fighting for the sake of total victory, thus giving soldiers a less credible motivation to fight” (Wikipedia).
    It was German defeatist propaganda served by its agents the Bolsheviks which won the day.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @Felix Keverich
    I'm no expert, but I'm clearly smarter and better educated than you're. What kind of clown calls Kamchatka a "place with mild climate"? You might want to visit it during winter. lol

    I’m no expert, but I’m clearly smarter and better educated than you’re. What kind of clown calls Kamchatka a “place with mild climate”?

    The kind of clown who has actually been there. Kamchatka has a mild, atlantic climate. Very wet and foggy without serious temperature extremes. (Think Seattle.) The average January temperature there is -7 degrees, only one degree colder than Moscow.

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA-%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9#%D0%9A%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B2%D1%8B#%D0%9A%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BC%D0%B0

    Their problem is heavy snowfalls, not cold.

    Moreover, the Russian Far East is a very mountainous place:
    A valley might have a different climate than the next one over.

    (BTW, Siberia is the green flat part between the Ural and the Altai mountains. Siberia indeed does have a cold climate, and also three times the population. Again, cold doesn’t correlate with low population density.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    Kamchatka has a mild, atlantic climate.
     
    On Pacific.
    , @AP

    The kind of clown who has actually been there. Kamchatka has a mild, atlantic climate. Very wet and foggy without serious temperature extremes. (Think Seattle.)
     
    It's interesting that almost everything you write is complete nonsense. Felix's nonsense is mostly limited to anything to do with Ukraine, in your case it is a universal problem. Your existence supports the argument that some people should not have been taught how to read and write.

    The climate of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, in the mildest Pacific shore region of Kamchatka, has an average high temperature of only -5 c (23 F) and average low of -10 c (14 F) in January and an average 12.5 C (54.5 F) in August.

    In Seattle January average high temperature is 13.5 C (56.5 F).

    Summer in the warmest part of Kamchatka is colder than winter in Seattle!

    Seattle summer has an average high temperature of 24.5 C (76 F).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. Mr. Hack says:
    @anonymous coward

    Where do you come up with this crock of BS anyway?
     
    Personal experience, mate. Unlike you, I'm an actual ethnic "Ukrainian".

    Since you’re not a Ukrainian, but a self professing ‘Ukrainian’, I find anything you say to be suspect. My mother (a real Ukrainian) told me about people like you, ‘Ukrainian’ turncoats and traitors, slimy people that were in the employ of Russian fifth columnists in Ukraine. She even had a word for such people, so you no longer need to be ‘ananymous’:

    хрунь

    *Хрунь — лайливе прізвисько підлої, продажної людини, запроданця. У Галичині використовується щодо виборних осіб, які зрадили своїх виборців.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    У Галичині
     
    Galicians aren't Ukrainian.

    Now back to the topic: every Ukrainian patriot is either Jewish, Russian (from central Russia) or Galician.

    Real Ukrainians know their history and heritage, and are well aware that Ukraine is a failed state and always was. (And always will be. Sad, but simple geography will probably make sure this never changes.)
    , @Mikhail

    Since you’re not a Ukrainian, but a self professing ‘Ukrainian’, I find anything you say to be suspect. My mother (a real Ukrainian) told me about people like you, ‘Ukrainian’ turncoats and traitors, slimy people that were in the employ of Russian fifth columnists in Ukraine. She even had a word for such people, so you no longer need to be ‘ananymous’:
     
    \\

    That attitude explains the predicament evident in some areas making up the former Ukrainian SSR, as well as the kind of censoring/persecution that has gone in within Kiev regime controlled Ukraine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. utu says:
    @anonymous coward

    I’m no expert, but I’m clearly smarter and better educated than you’re. What kind of clown calls Kamchatka a “place with mild climate”?
     
    The kind of clown who has actually been there. Kamchatka has a mild, atlantic climate. Very wet and foggy without serious temperature extremes. (Think Seattle.) The average January temperature there is -7 degrees, only one degree colder than Moscow.

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA-%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9#%D0%9A%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B2%D1%8B#%D0%9A%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BC%D0%B0

    Their problem is heavy snowfalls, not cold.

    Moreover, the Russian Far East is a very mountainous place: http://rfmaps.ru/images/fizicheskaja-karta-rossii.jpg

    A valley might have a different climate than the next one over.

    (BTW, Siberia is the green flat part between the Ural and the Altai mountains. Siberia indeed does have a cold climate, and also three times the population. Again, cold doesn't correlate with low population density.)

    Kamchatka has a mild, atlantic climate.

    On Pacific.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward
    I permit you to also use the phrases "oceanic climate" and/or "maritime climate", if that makes you feel better.

    Do you actually have any real objections?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. Mr. Hack says:
    @Hyperborean
    I didn't say that you call people Stalinists 'just for disagreeing with you'.

    I said that your usage of the word 'Stalinist' has a negative connotation - yet you share the same eerie obsession with punitive mental hospitals as the Soviets did. You don't find this odd?

    I would assume these tendencies to be contradictory. This is what I meant. Perhaps I should formulate my sentences better but it would also behoove you to read other people's comments from different angles to better understand their intentions.

    While I don't agree with Keverich's comments about eradicating Galicia - unlike the rest of the Ukraine I think that Galicia and the surrounding areas have a genuine identity and should be allowed to develop in their own way - I don't think that he is a Stalinist and that that is an inaccurate moniker for him.

    If you called him a Great Russian chauvinist or imperialist or other similar words then I could see your point of view.

    I think linguistic accuracy is an important thing to aim for, particularly in this era where words are frequently disconnected from what they have traditionally and commonly meant.

    I didn’t say that you call people Stalinists ‘just for disagreeing with you’.

    Well, let’s just take another look at the sentence that got me to believe that you were criticizing me for calling anybody who disagreed with me a Stalinist:

    I think that you suffer from cognitive dissonance in denouncing people as stalinists while endorsing sovok type repression of people who disagree with you

    In this somewhat truncated sentence, I do see the word ‘Stalinist’ and ‘people who disagree with you’. I guess it’s altogether possible that you mean something else? :-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    I'll use plain language since my meaning apparently isn't getting across:

    Why do you like to put people in punitive mental hospitals for political purposes? Especially since you have expressed support for Liberal ideals previously. This seems contradictory and not very liberal to me. Does this seem contradictory to you? Yes or no?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @German_reader

    Kerensky offensive successfully drove the Germans and Austro-Hungarian back and ended not because of German victory on the battlefield but by mutiny and desertion by the Russian troops
     
    When morale in your army is so low that soldiers start mutinying and deserting during an offensive (and iirc they started doing that already after only a few days/weeks), that's a pretty strong sign imo that, contrary to your assertion, the Russian army in 1917 wasn't capable of winning anything. Morale and willingness to fight must surely rank as one of the most crucial aspects of any fighting force.

    1. Morale was low during the periods when Kerensky was allowing Bolshevik agitation in the ranks. When he clamped down on it – for instance, from the July Days to the Kornilov Affair – desertion plummeted and discipline was restored.

    2. By the same standard, the French Army wasn’t capable of winning anything after the Nivelle Offensive in April 1917.

    In reality, what happened in both cases was that the capacity to mount offensives was temporarily broken, but not the capacity to hold a line. A crucial distinction from November 1917, when the Bolsheviks intentionally dismantled the Russian Army and left the way open for the Germans to swoosh in (Trotsky’s “pedagogical demonstration” of winning through defeat).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Mr. Hack says:
    @AP
    So much wishful thinking and optimism.

    Launch a blitzkrieg attack against Maidan government to capture the greater part of Malorussia and Novorussia.
     
    Invade a country with 200,000 well-armed soldiers and about 40 million people. You'll win, but it will cost you. It's not 2014 anymore.

    Leave Greater Galicia as a rump Ukraine.
     
    Why not keep it and add Poland too, since we are in wishful thinking mode.

    Dump the svidomites in Galicia and seal the border (to prevent hit-and-run attacks and American weapons flooding the region).
     
    That would be about 80% of the population in a region with 20 million people (central and parts of eastern Ukraine outside Galicia).

    Station Russian gendarmerie in the regained territories to pacify the region (At worst I think it will be like the North Caucasus insurgency).
     
    After you've deported 16 million people it might be even easier. I don't think Hitler or Stalin even managed to deport 16 million people, but your optimism is noted.

    But if you haven't deported them, keep in mind that Chechnya only had 1.4 million people, the Russia-hating city of Kiev alone has 3 times that many. So you've got about 20 million patriotic Ukrainians living outside western Ukraine, in central and parts of Eastern Ukraine. It's not 2014 anymore. There are plenty of weapons and 100,000s of these people have been through the army and seen some combat. It will be quite an insurgency. Maybe after killing a few 100,000s of people, or a million or two, you will subdue the place, and then you'll be successfully ruling a sullen, occupied place like Poland was during the Cold War. In the mean time you will have lost tens of thousands of people yourself, become North Koreaized, and the next time you are in another war guess which part of "Russia" will stab you in the back?

    Encourage Surzhik-like dialects in former Bielorussia and Ukraine (West Russia) to blur the linguistic distinction between the languages.
     
    Loss of Gaelic turned Irish people into loyal Brits, Englishmen really..

    With the exception of the Scanians of Sweden (who were outnumbered 9:1 by Swedes and whose culture and language were closer to Swedish than Ukrainian is to Russian) no people have as a group switched their fully formed national identity for a new one. But you are in extreme optimism mode.

    I hope you are a bright and enthusiastic teenager.

    I wanted to return to this topic, of ‘regathering of Russian lands’ with you. It’s really an important one, and underlies and is used as a propaganda tool for Russia’s Ukrainian land grab in 2014 and the continuing Russian supported war in Ukraine to this day. Although we can all agree that Karlin is a proponent of this idea, and frequently likes to bring it up as something worthy to pursue, yet he never goes the extra step to explain how exactly he forsees this policy being put into action? This, as you know, really interests me, for it would more clearly indicate what type of person Karlin really is. Perhaps, his own vision of this process isn’t really very much different than the crude remarks made by Hyperborean, that you’re so adept at analyzing and discrediting? Aren’t you at all concerned about Karlin’s own deeper thought process surrounding ‘the regathering of Russian lands’?

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver

    Aren’t you at all concerned about Karlin’s own deeper thought process surrounding ‘the regathering of Russian lands’?
     
    See, the beauty of being a chauvinistic ethnonationalist expansionist is that you don't have to concern yourself with the details. After all, it's not as if the people who you intend to 'regather' (conquer, vanquish, devastate, etc) actually matter in any real sense. The only pertinent consideration is whether you have the power to realize your designs; if you do, you're a fool not to do it. So I'm not really too interested in their 'deeper thought processes' because, if their plans were carried out, none of them would make any real difference to the people on the receiving end.

    I think a more interesting question to put to them is how they would regard an attempt to 'regather the German lands' (eg East Prussia)?
    , @Mikhail

    It’s really an important one, and underlies and is used as a propaganda tool for Russia’s Ukrainian land grab in 2014 and the continuing Russian supported war in Ukraine to this day.
     
    Crimea has a pro-Russian majority that includes the majority of ethnic Ukrainians in that area. The manner following the coup against Yanukovch is responsible for what transpired thereafter, along with the Western support/downplaying of that Kiev regime culpability.

    Russia has behaved within ethical reasoning:

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/01/06/croatian-scenario-shortcomings-for-ending-donbass-conflict.html

    https://www.eurasiareview.com/03032014-humanitarian-intervention-undertaken-in-crimea-analysis/

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/twisted-history-against-russia-and-serbia/5390154
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Gerard2 says:
    @Mr. Hack

    The “Ukrainian” spoken in the villages is just an accented Russian with some cute regionalisms. It’s not at all like the official artificial language that was designed to be as incomprehensible as possible to literate Russian-speakers.
     
    How would you know? Are you qualified to make such off the wall pronouncements? Sure, your grandparents usage of a local village dialect was probably somewhat different than the standard literary language,but we're talking about how many yearssince that time has passed? The school systems have insured that young people are all on the same page and understand and communicate in the national language. This process is normal and seen throughout the world.

    How would you know? Are you qualified to make such off the wall pronouncements? Sure, your grandparents usage of a local village dialect was probably somewhat different than the standard literary language,but we’re talking about how many yearssince that time has passed? The school systems have insured that young people are all on the same page and understand and communicate in the national language. This process is normal and seen throughout the world.

    We’ve gone through this already with the Yushchenko recordings, you dumb prick.

    This fictitious language is basically an operation fueled by US/Canadian children of rapist Nazi-Bandera scum. Despite that, Russian is still far more spoken in the fake country of Ukraine

    Read More
    • LOL: Mr. Hack
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. Mitleser says:
    @Twinkie

    Intelligent people, such as Americans, speak only one language and are confident that they must protect the world by threatening Russia(mostly by surrounding it with military bases).
     
    Do you not get Mr. Karlin's point? We Americans bled the least and reaped the greatest rewards from World War II. That WAS highly intelligent.

    Personally, I wish we had done more of that in Iraq. Always fight with proxies if you can... they are less dear to us than our brothers, cousins, and friends from home.

    That WAS highly intelligent.

    And only possible because America was far away from the front lines.
    Britain’s case shows what happened if the enemy is much closer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    And only possible because America was far away from the front lines.
    Britain’s case shows what happened if the enemy is much closer.
     
    That's partly luck, but also partly intentional. Humorously enough, during the 20's and 30's, the US Navy was wargaming a potential naval war with the Royal Navy!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. AP says:
    @Mr. XYZ
    @AP: Thanks for your answers here in both of your responses to me.

    Anyway, I agree with most of what you said, but I would like to point out that Germany was fighting Russia with one hand behind its back. Literally--it had a lot of its forces stationed in the West in order to fight Britain and France there. Had Germany crushed France in 1914 and been able to send almost all of its forces to the Eastern Front in World War I, then things would have almost certainly been much, more worse for Russia (militarily, that is; politically, Russia would be luckier since it would be able to avoid Bolshevism).

    Also, in regards to Russia fighting World War I ten years later, please keep in mind that Russia would have been stronger but would have also had a worse situation in regards to its allies. While France would remain a Russian ally, Britain might very well not (due to Britain's concern about the European balance of power). If Britain remains neutral or--even worse--allies with Germany (which is possible for balance-of-power reasons if Kaiser Bill doesn't do anything stupid after 1916), then Russia (and France as well) is going to be in a world of hurt if a World War will break out around 1925. Russia will be stronger, but the changing European alliances are going to hurt it.

    In addition to this, off-topic, but I find it rather interesting that Anatoly Karlin laments the collapse of the Soviet Union. After all, he frequently talks about IQ and about the dangers of low-IQ Muslim immigration, and yet a surviving Soviet Union would have ensured that tens of millions of additional Muslims would have remained within (Greater) Russia's borders. Indeed, the brain drain which Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus endured would have probably paled in comparison to the effect of having tens of millions of additional Muslims (presumably with a relatively low average IQ) within (Greater) Russia's borders.

    Central Asia was to Russia what northern Algeria appears to have been to France. Initially, due to the overwhelming Russian/French demographic advantage, it seemed like a great idea to annex the place. However, the demographics eventually turned against the Russians/French and thus the value of keeping this territory became less and less. France eventually withdrew from Algeria and, after the Soviet Union collapsed, few voices in Russia appear to have been interested in reacquiring Central Asia (with the exception of Russian-heavy northern Kazakhstan, that is).

    Anyway, I agree with most of what you said, but I would like to point out that Germany was fighting Russia with one hand behind its back. Literally–it had a lot of its forces stationed in the West in order to fight Britain and France there.

    OTOH, Russia was also fighting the Ottomans and Austria-Hungary while fighting the Germans.

    However you are right – n 1914 Russia almost certainly would not have won a Germany-Russia war. Just as France + Britain + Belgium would not have won a war against Germany alone. Germany was probably at its peak.

    Also, in regards to Russia fighting World War I ten years later, please keep in mind that Russia would have been stronger but would have also had a worse situation in regards to its allies. While France would remain a Russian ally, Britain might very well not (due to Britain’s concern about the European balance of power). If Britain remains neutral or–even worse–allies with Germany (which is possible for balance-of-power reasons if Kaiser Bill doesn’t do anything stupid after 1916), then Russia (and France as well) is going to be in a world of hurt if a World War will break out around 1925.

    Maybe. It’s interesting whether France’s relative decline would have surpassed Russia’s relative growth and/or whether Russia’s relative growth would have surpassed the loss of Britain as an ally. OTOH Austria-Hungary may have also declined further or been more subject to nationalistic pressure, especially if it didn’t reform.

    Britain supplied 5 million troops in World War I (don’t know specifically how many were fighting the Germans). Due to booming population and improved mobilization and capacity to arm people would Russia’s military be 5 million larger in 1925-1930?

    I suspect if Britain joined the Axis, Russia would lose but if it were neutral or was Allied Russia would win.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    The RE mobilized 15 million during three years of war; the USSR mobilized around 35 million during four years of war.

    Extrapolating, an RE that wouldn't have been interrupted in its economic development, but without the totalitarian leeway of the USSR, might have managed to mobilize 25 million around 1925-30 during an analogous period of war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. Iran is fighting back! Thank you Iran! Even though we are enemies, I will never forget this.

    I owe the Iranians a partial apology. I wish the Arabs had the same sense of honor that the Iranians do.

    Read More
    • Troll: utu
    • Replies: @iffen
    I heard that if Trump bombs Iran before he croaks, McCain will send him an embossed invitation to his funeral and demand that he be the main speaker as the greatest Prez of all times.
    , @Talha

    Iran is fighting back!
     
    They can't do much - they only have a small expeditionary force in Syria with only the air cover that Russia feels like providing. They'll bide their time until it makes sense to do something (if anything). At the end of the day, Israel has deemed it very important to control any threats to itself across the border in Syria. Though I don't agree with them violating Syrian airspace, they have a serious dog in the fight. From Iran's perspective; Syria is good to have as an ally in the region so they will help the regime stay alive - however, that doesn't necessarily mean it is worth it for them to have a military satellite presence in the area unless it helps in achieving the first goal.

    I wish the Arabs had the same sense of honor
     
    They should outsource their defense to the Turks. Let the Turks have command & control and run it with sizeable Turkish garrisons backed by local forces that pulled from soldiers that can make the cut, not village conscripts. Yeah it's neo-Ottomanism, but current state of affairs sure isn't working. Turks will do a better job and it'll be cheaper.

    Then they might even get pseudo-NATO protection.

    Second; plenty of the Arab elites would love to pal around with the Israelis, it's the Arab street that keeps them from doing so. Don't expect anything from the Arab nations until their leadership reflects more of what the street sentiment is. The elite know that any war with the Israelis means a possible decapitation of their government. Furthermore, even if they are able to start winning, Israel will simply deploy nukes over multiple major Arab cities; it'll be the worst victory in history.

    This is one of those fights that is won over centuries. And the win is not necessarily through any battle.

    it effects my peace plan
     
    LOOOOL! That made my day!

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @Yevardian
    LOL, I cringed reading that. Honestly, even I personally have some distaste for how Victory Day is used, the existence of people like Akarlin arguing against it is a good reason to never voice such objections in public, which is perfectly understandable. If Akarlin was really Russian, he'd know that the USSR that 'Sovoks' had nostalgia for has nothing to do with the with state pre-Krushchev. Most serious Communist-era figures (eg. Martyanov, probably) privately agreed that Lenin was mostly a disaster, but it simply wasn't discussed, everyone knew he was important as a symbol, nothing more. Under the chaotic circumstances Stalin did as well as anyone figure could to stabilise the country and destroy the warring Bolshevik factions, educated Russians appreciate this whilst acknowledging he was a tyrant. But of course growing up in America and the UK Akarlin either doesn't comprehend his own (alleged) country's history or deliberately ignores such nuances.

    Most serious Communist-era figures (eg. Martyanov, probably) privately agreed that Lenin was mostly a disaster, but it simply wasn’t discussed, everyone knew he was important as a symbol, nothing more.

    72% of Russians believed Lenin to be the “greatest person of all times and places”, so that is exceedingly unlikely.

    Martyanov was not a “serious Communist-era figure.”

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

    Intelligent people, such as Americans, speak only one language and are confident that they must protect the world by threatening Russia(mostly by surrounding it with military bases).
     
    Do you not get Mr. Karlin's point? We Americans bled the least and reaped the greatest rewards from World War II. That WAS highly intelligent.

    Personally, I wish we had done more of that in Iraq. Always fight with proxies if you can... they are less dear to us than our brothers, cousins, and friends from home.

    Do you not get Mr. Karlin’s point? We Americans bled the least and reaped the greatest rewards from World War II.

    By preference, I will take the rewards of the Japanese. Hiroshima looks pretty nice now, compared to Detroit. Of course, we used to say that Japanese and Germans were lucky to have lost, but Germany certainly was not lucky.

    Read More
    • Replies: @random rand
    Not that Detroit isn't complete shit, but I highly doubt Japan's reward is all that great. Spandrell is basically right about Japan. The whole place is in a death spiral and in reality it is a USG puppet. Japan is completely non-competitive in the long run. Japan's true interests lie in sticking with other East Asian countries, China and South Korea. Unfortunately, it just so happens that South Korea and Japan are both USG vassals. I think the reason Shinzo Abe constantly LARPs about the return of the Imperial Japanese Empire is because in reality he knows he's USG's little bitch and he LARPs to make himself feel better.
    , @Twinkie

    By preference, I will take the rewards of the Japanese. Hiroshima looks pretty nice now, compared to Detroit. Of course, we used to say that Japanese and Germans were lucky to have lost, but Germany certainly was not lucky.
     
    Yes, but Hiroshima would have looked just as nice (or nicer) without all the deaths and destruction.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. AP says:
    @szopen
    Now, this is not very representative, but it just came in my feed:

    The poll on Polish history forum: who contributed the most to defeating of the Nazis:

    https://histmag.org/grafika/2018_news_i_redakcyjne/sondy/SondaktorykrajwygralwIIWS.jpg

    48%: USSR

    Aaand... 13% Poland 8-|

    I really think large percentage of my beloved compatriots are overzelous sometimes.

    The overzealous may be factually wrong, but it is a good sign about Poles.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. Gerard2 says:
    @Yevardian
    Ukrainian isn't widely spoken in the cities, but don't go and spout bullshit like nobody speaks it without monetary incentives, go west and you find plenty. Ukrainian isn't Belorussian.
    Personally I think the Ukraine would be much better off as an autonomous entity within Russia, but I get tired of all these people denying its existence. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. It's a least as different as Danish from Norwegian, the basic words all have different forms, not just an extensive series of slang words like in Scots.

    go west and you find plenty

    …the west…the least populated, poorest and most stupid part of Ukraine you dimwit. Ukrainian isn’t a language, it’s a dialect you idiot. Even the non-modernculture or non-tech-words that Russians now anglicize stupidly……Ukrainians follow identically

    people denying its existence

    25-30% of it are gifts from Lenin and Stalin, Kiev is the most Russian city of all, the fact that a country of “Ukraine” never, ever existed, the fact that it’s only Bandera-Shukhevich-Nazi animal-rapist scum who escaped like cowards in the 40′s and the 50′s courtesy of UK and US intelligence who fund and promote that “Ukrainian” myth , otherwise the whole country would be at least 92% pro-Russian.

    Ukraine is an artificial country that never existed and doesn’t exist because it cant govern itself…and it has an illegal government

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    25-30% of it are gifts from Lenin and Stalin, Kiev is the most Russian city of all, the fact that a country of “Ukraine” never, ever existed, the fact that it’s only Bandera-Shukhevich-Nazi animal-rapist scum who escaped like cowards in the 40′s and the 50′s
     
    Forgot to take meds, eh ....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. @Mr. Hack

    I didn’t say that you call people Stalinists ‘just for disagreeing with you’.

     

    Well, let's just take another look at the sentence that got me to believe that you were criticizing me for calling anybody who disagreed with me a Stalinist:

    I think that you suffer from cognitive dissonance in denouncing people as stalinists while endorsing sovok type repression of people who disagree with you
     
    In this somewhat truncated sentence, I do see the word 'Stalinist' and 'people who disagree with you'. I guess it's altogether possible that you mean something else? :-)

    I’ll use plain language since my meaning apparently isn’t getting across:

    Why do you like to put people in punitive mental hospitals for political purposes? Especially since you have expressed support for Liberal ideals previously. This seems contradictory and not very liberal to me. Does this seem contradictory to you? Yes or no?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Quite simply, I find that people who suffer from Ukrainophobia or any other form of xenophobia should seek out treatment for these sorts of disorders. Although xenophobia is not in itself defined as a psychotic disorder, manifestations of its wholesale embrace often points to deeper psychological problems:

    To continue perceiving extreme racism as normative and not pathologic is to lend it legitimacy. Clearly, anyone who scapegoats a whole group of people and seeks to eliminate them to resolve his or her internal conflicts meets criteria for a delusional disorder, a major psychiatric illness.
     
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071634/

    I'm no medical doctor (just another hack with an opinion), however am pleased to see that my somewhat jaundiced and extravagant prescriptions for treating Ukrainophobia have left an indelible imprint with some of the readers at this blog.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. To the Russians here: Do you want to fully absorb the Ukraine or are you willing to accept a nominally independent Ukraine under Russian dominance? (open borders, common currency, all Ukrainian weaponry comes from Russia, Russian must be taught in all Ukrainian schools and used as the official language)

    It is important that you respond because it effects my peace plan.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    Do you want to fully absorb the Ukraine or are you willing to accept a nominally independent Ukraine under Russian dominance?
     
    The clay itself is not really needed now in 2018. Just wait for things to deteriorate according to the usual historical Ukrainian custom, and let the smart fraction gradually move east.
    , @iffen
    It is important that you respond because it effects my peace plan.

    Since you are working on the Ukrainian problem, I will work on the ME.

    1) Every advocate of the two-state solution should be denounced as a war monger.
    2) The West Bank and Lebanon should be divided among Israel, Syria and Jordan with consideration given to appropriate post WWII style population exchanges and forced resettlements.
    3) Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem should be accepted, but they should be forced to “lease” the appropriate religious areas to the UN as an international open and neutral religious site.
    4) The Saudis should be forced to pay Egypt to take Gaza.

    The only part that I worry about is #4. I’m not sure the Saudis have enough money to get Egypt to take Gaza.

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

    Anyway, I agree with most of what you said, but I would like to point out that Germany was fighting Russia with one hand behind its back. Literally–it had a lot of its forces stationed in the West in order to fight Britain and France there.
     
    OTOH, Russia was also fighting the Ottomans and Austria-Hungary while fighting the Germans.

    However you are right - n 1914 Russia almost certainly would not have won a Germany-Russia war. Just as France + Britain + Belgium would not have won a war against Germany alone. Germany was probably at its peak.

    Also, in regards to Russia fighting World War I ten years later, please keep in mind that Russia would have been stronger but would have also had a worse situation in regards to its allies. While France would remain a Russian ally, Britain might very well not (due to Britain’s concern about the European balance of power). If Britain remains neutral or–even worse–allies with Germany (which is possible for balance-of-power reasons if Kaiser Bill doesn’t do anything stupid after 1916), then Russia (and France as well) is going to be in a world of hurt if a World War will break out around 1925.
     
    Maybe. It's interesting whether France's relative decline would have surpassed Russia's relative growth and/or whether Russia's relative growth would have surpassed the loss of Britain as an ally. OTOH Austria-Hungary may have also declined further or been more subject to nationalistic pressure, especially if it didn't reform.

    Britain supplied 5 million troops in World War I (don't know specifically how many were fighting the Germans). Due to booming population and improved mobilization and capacity to arm people would Russia's military be 5 million larger in 1925-1930?

    I suspect if Britain joined the Axis, Russia would lose but if it were neutral or was Allied Russia would win.

    The RE mobilized 15 million during three years of war; the USSR mobilized around 35 million during four years of war.

    Extrapolating, an RE that wouldn’t have been interrupted in its economic development, but without the totalitarian leeway of the USSR, might have managed to mobilize 25 million around 1925-30 during an analogous period of war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Which would have more than compensated for the potential loss of Britain as an ally. Russia would likely win such a war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. @szopen
    Now, this is not very representative, but it just came in my feed:

    The poll on Polish history forum: who contributed the most to defeating of the Nazis:

    https://histmag.org/grafika/2018_news_i_redakcyjne/sondy/SondaktorykrajwygralwIIWS.jpg

    48%: USSR

    Aaand... 13% Poland 8-|

    I really think large percentage of my beloved compatriots are overzelous sometimes.

    Interesting stats, thanks.

    I think this confirms that my intuition that historiographic trends would favor the Hollywood narrative.

    History forum = people who are unusually interested in history, enough to look at the statistics, and the statistics clearly indicate the correct answer is the USSR. (Without disparaging the critical importance of the British/American contribution). Moreover, Poland was itself liberated/occupied by the USSR. Even so, percentage voting for the US is still remarkably high.

    I suspect more Poles already think the US contributed the most (outside history forums), and if not today, then surely it will be true in another couple of decades.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. AP says:
    @Felix Keverich

    Personally I think the Ukraine would be much better off as an autonomous entity within Russia, but I get tired of all these people denying its existence.
     
    The biggest mistake that people make when talking about the Ukraine is treating it as a single, relatively monogenous entity, as if it was, you know, an actual nation. It's anything but. There are greater linguistic differences between the Ukrainians in Lvov and Kharkov, than between the people of Kharkov and the Russian city of Vladivostok.

    Which "Ukraine" you are talking about exactly? If you mean Galicia, the only solution for it is be completely eradicated, the way Eastern Prussia was eradicated. It would save us a lot of trouble. The rest of the country already has Russian as its primary language: the мова will die as soon as official requirement to use it everywhere is dropped.

    Which “Ukraine” you are talking about exactly? If you mean Galicia, the only solution for it is be completely eradicated, the way Eastern Prussia was eradicated.

    East Prussia had about 2.5 million people when it was eradicated. This eradication was tolerated because the Germans had genocided tens of millions of people.

    Galicia itself has 4.5 million people. The fully (urban + rural) Ukrainian-speaking regions of Ukraine (Galicia plus Volhynia plus Bukovyna and Trtanscarpathia) have about 10 million people. Eradicating a region of 10 million people would be quite a groundbreaking “accomplishment.” Done because, I don’t know – Russia wants Kiev? Of course Kiev despite being Russian-speaking is as nationalistic as Galicia. You’d have to eradicate at least 3 million or so of its 4 million people too.

    Of course, outside this region there are another 15 million or so Ukrainian-speakers, living in rural areas and raion centers.

    I hope you don’t complain about Ukrainian extremists who want to eradicate Donbas or Crimea. you are their twin.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. @Mr. Hack
    Since you're not a Ukrainian, but a self professing 'Ukrainian', I find anything you say to be suspect. My mother (a real Ukrainian) told me about people like you, 'Ukrainian' turncoats and traitors, slimy people that were in the employ of Russian fifth columnists in Ukraine. She even had a word for such people, so you no longer need to be 'ananymous':

    хрунь
     
    *Хрунь — лайливе прізвисько підлої, продажної людини, запроданця. У Галичині використовується щодо виборних осіб, які зрадили своїх виборців.

    У Галичині

    Galicians aren’t Ukrainian.

    Now back to the topic: every Ukrainian patriot is either Jewish, Russian (from central Russia) or Galician.

    Real Ukrainians know their history and heritage, and are well aware that Ukraine is a failed state and always was. (And always will be. Sad, but simple geography will probably make sure this never changes.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. AP says:
    @Anatoly Karlin
    The RE mobilized 15 million during three years of war; the USSR mobilized around 35 million during four years of war.

    Extrapolating, an RE that wouldn't have been interrupted in its economic development, but without the totalitarian leeway of the USSR, might have managed to mobilize 25 million around 1925-30 during an analogous period of war.

    Which would have more than compensated for the potential loss of Britain as an ally. Russia would likely win such a war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    It's an interesting what if.

    The main loss represented by Britain will not be so much its Army - though it played a critical role in denting the Schlieffen Plan sufficiently hard to prevent an initial German knockout of France - as its Navy, which was by far the world's most powerful and kept the Kaiserliche Marine safely bottled up throughout the entire war. This had very bad, demoralizing effects on the German home front - for instance, German soldiers were worse fed than Russian ones in 1917. This would not have been the case without Britain.

    The British and French also played a helpful role in providing munitions to Russia, which was a fairly important contribution, especially during its shells shortage in 1915.

    If the Germans were to knock out France quickly in WW1 1925, I think they would still beat Russia then with high confidence (though not by 1935). France itself would be weaker relative to Germany, and no Britain would make the differential all the more severe; however, Russia would be able to mount a much more powerful push into Prussia by then, which will draw attention from France to a great extent than in 1914, and perhaps even make the Schlieffen Plan unrealizable in principle. If France does weather the initial months, I'd put chances of victory at 50/50 either side.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. @utu

    Kamchatka has a mild, atlantic climate.
     
    On Pacific.

    I permit you to also use the phrases “oceanic climate” and/or “maritime climate”, if that makes you feel better.

    Do you actually have any real objections?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Yes, I do. To your physical existence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. @Greasy William
    To the Russians here: Do you want to fully absorb the Ukraine or are you willing to accept a nominally independent Ukraine under Russian dominance? (open borders, common currency, all Ukrainian weaponry comes from Russia, Russian must be taught in all Ukrainian schools and used as the official language)

    It is important that you respond because it effects my peace plan.

    Do you want to fully absorb the Ukraine or are you willing to accept a nominally independent Ukraine under Russian dominance?

    The clay itself is not really needed now in 2018. Just wait for things to deteriorate according to the usual historical Ukrainian custom, and let the smart fraction gradually move east.

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

    [fedorashrek.jpg]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  208. for treating Ukrainophobia have left an indelible imprint with some of the readers at this blog

    Well at least Anatoly thinks that the Ukrainians are fellow Russians and has condemned the Soviet crimes against them. But some of the other Russians here really sound like they want Ukrainians to just disappear.

    I think that Ukrainians and Russians should work out a solution that makes both sides happy. No need to bring Europe or the US into it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  209. Mr. Hack says:
    @Hyperborean
    I'll use plain language since my meaning apparently isn't getting across:

    Why do you like to put people in punitive mental hospitals for political purposes? Especially since you have expressed support for Liberal ideals previously. This seems contradictory and not very liberal to me. Does this seem contradictory to you? Yes or no?

    Quite simply, I find that people who suffer from Ukrainophobia or any other form of xenophobia should seek out treatment for these sorts of disorders. Although xenophobia is not in itself defined as a psychotic disorder, manifestations of its wholesale embrace often points to deeper psychological problems:

    To continue perceiving extreme racism as normative and not pathologic is to lend it legitimacy. Clearly, anyone who scapegoats a whole group of people and seeks to eliminate them to resolve his or her internal conflicts meets criteria for a delusional disorder, a major psychiatric illness.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071634/

    I’m no medical doctor (just another hack with an opinion), however am pleased to see that my somewhat jaundiced and extravagant prescriptions for treating Ukrainophobia have left an indelible imprint with some of the readers at this blog.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    Hostility towards out-groups are a fairly normal pattern of human behaviour through time.

    I am rather suspicious of these people considering that they are made from the same mold as the people who come up with experiments like this (link at the bottom)

    It also seems to deny that people could ever have a justifiable problem with other ethnic groups.

    If millions of say, gypsies or Afghans settled in the Ukraine and began behaving in their typical awful ways should Ukrainians simply be quiet and endure it in a masochistic manner - or would they have legitimate cause to resent the newcomers?

    (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2017/11/22/at-yale-we-conducted-an-experiment-to-turn-conservatives-into-liberals-the-results-say-a-lot-about-our-political-divisions/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e250f766279c)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. AP says:
    @anonymous coward

    I’m no expert, but I’m clearly smarter and better educated than you’re. What kind of clown calls Kamchatka a “place with mild climate”?
     
    The kind of clown who has actually been there. Kamchatka has a mild, atlantic climate. Very wet and foggy without serious temperature extremes. (Think Seattle.) The average January temperature there is -7 degrees, only one degree colder than Moscow.

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA-%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BC%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9#%D0%9A%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82_%D0%9C%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B2%D1%8B#%D0%9A%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BC%D0%B0

    Their problem is heavy snowfalls, not cold.

    Moreover, the Russian Far East is a very mountainous place: http://rfmaps.ru/images/fizicheskaja-karta-rossii.jpg

    A valley might have a different climate than the next one over.

    (BTW, Siberia is the green flat part between the Ural and the Altai mountains. Siberia indeed does have a cold climate, and also three times the population. Again, cold doesn't correlate with low population density.)

    The kind of clown who has actually been there. Kamchatka has a mild, atlantic climate. Very wet and foggy without serious temperature extremes. (Think Seattle.)

    It’s interesting that almost everything you write is complete nonsense. Felix’s nonsense is mostly limited to anything to do with Ukraine, in your case it is a universal problem. Your existence supports the argument that some people should not have been taught how to read and write.

    The climate of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, in the mildest Pacific shore region of Kamchatka, has an average high temperature of only -5 c (23 F) and average low of -10 c (14 F) in January and an average 12.5 C (54.5 F) in August.

    In Seattle January average high temperature is 13.5 C (56.5 F).

    Summer in the warmest part of Kamchatka is colder than winter in Seattle!

    Seattle summer has an average high temperature of 24.5 C (76 F).

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous coward

    The climate of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, in the mildest Pacific shore region of Kamchatka, has an average high temperature of only -5 c (23 F) and average low of -10 c (14 F) in January and an average 12.5 C (54.5 F) in August.
     
    Yes, that's the definition of a mild, oceanic climate -- very wet and with few temperature swings.

    Summer in the warmest part of Kamchatka is colder than winter in Seattle!
     
    Of course Seattle is much further to the south and much warmer than Kamchatka, despite having a very similar oceanic climate.
    , @Gerard2

    The climate of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, in the mildest Pacific shore region of Kamchatka, has an average high temperature of only -5 c (23 F) and average low of -10 c (14 F) in January and an average 12.5 C (54.5 F) in August.
     
    -10 is far from the lowest winter average in a region of Russia you demented dumb prick.
    +12 is not that big a deviation compared to others. That's before we get into daylight extremes ( or rather, lack of them)

    Seattle , I would say he's obviously making a comparison in relative terms to how an American feels about it's climate, not a literal comparison with Russias coldest regions you imbecile. Cape Town in South Africa is the same

    Too thick to know about a simple concept like temperature range and a million other issues
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. @AP
    Which would have more than compensated for the potential loss of Britain as an ally. Russia would likely win such a war.

    It’s an interesting what if.

    The main loss represented by Britain will not be so much its Army – though it played a critical role in denting the Schlieffen Plan sufficiently hard to prevent an initial German knockout of France – as its Navy, which was by far the world’s most powerful and kept the Kaiserliche Marine safely bottled up throughout the entire war. This had very bad, demoralizing effects on the German home front – for instance, German soldiers were worse fed than Russian ones in 1917. This would not have been the case without Britain.

    The British and French also played a helpful role in providing munitions to Russia, which was a fairly important contribution, especially during its shells shortage in 1915.

    If the Germans were to knock out France quickly in WW1 1925, I think they would still beat Russia then with high confidence (though not by 1935). France itself would be weaker relative to Germany, and no Britain would make the differential all the more severe; however, Russia would be able to mount a much more powerful push into Prussia by then, which will draw attention from France to a great extent than in 1914, and perhaps even make the Schlieffen Plan unrealizable in principle. If France does weather the initial months, I’d put chances of victory at 50/50 either side.

    Read More
    • Replies: @French Basque
    [Reposting my earlier response as this is my first comment on this site, and I had not noticed the "REPLY" button -- my apologies to all readers for the duplicate entry with #191]

    Anatoly, excellent article, thank you.

    I have myself made a similar argument for many years now to my French compatriots, as to why I refuse to celebrate May 8th, and make a point to work as much as possible on that day (it is a legal holiday here).

    In the specific case of France, if they were serious about celebrating victory over Germany, it would be done on May 7th which is the day when the Germans surrendered in Reims (northeastern France) for the entirety of the Western Front. The May 8th date was a post-war concession to the communists — one of the many such concessions that continue to haunt the country to this very day.

    As a side note and still in the case of France, the main culprit of this concession was the colonel de Gaulle (he never was a real general, having been appointed “à titre provisoire” in 1940 to represent the Reynaud government during a mission to London), who wanted also to create a false sense of “sobornost” in order to make it easier to (1) keep Anglo-American control of France at bay and (2) allow for the massive post-war “Épuration” where communists and gaullists together murdered many thousands of people including many innocent ones.

    Down with May 8th!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. utu says:
    @anonymous coward
    I permit you to also use the phrases "oceanic climate" and/or "maritime climate", if that makes you feel better.

    Do you actually have any real objections?

    Yes, I do. To your physical existence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. AP says:
    @Hyperborean
    I didn't say that you call people Stalinists 'just for disagreeing with you'.

    I said that your usage of the word 'Stalinist' has a negative connotation - yet you share the same eerie obsession with punitive mental hospitals as the Soviets did. You don't find this odd?

    I would assume these tendencies to be contradictory. This is what I meant. Perhaps I should formulate my sentences better but it would also behoove you to read other people's comments from different angles to better understand their intentions.

    While I don't agree with Keverich's comments about eradicating Galicia - unlike the rest of the Ukraine I think that Galicia and the surrounding areas have a genuine identity and should be allowed to develop in their own way - I don't think that he is a Stalinist and that that is an inaccurate moniker for him.

    If you called him a Great Russian chauvinist or imperialist or other similar words then I could see your point of view.

    I think linguistic accuracy is an important thing to aim for, particularly in this era where words are frequently disconnected from what they have traditionally and commonly meant.

    While I don’t agree with Keverich’s comments about eradicating Galicia – unlike the rest of the Ukraine I think that Galicia and the surrounding areas have a genuine identity and should be allowed to develop in their own way

    Galicia and the Right Bank (including most of Kiev oblast) were the same until the late 18th century, when Galicia joined Austria and the Right Bank joined Russia. I have relatives in a village a couple hours drive from Kiev – they are as Ukrainian-speaking as Galicians.

    Austrian rule meant the Galicians lost serfdom earlier and became literate* a generation earlier than their brothers on the other side of the border. They participated in parliamentary democracy and did other things central Europeans did. This made them more “normal” central Europeans in terms of politics and lifestyle. It also set the stage for a Ukrainian-speaking urban culture. But culturally there were no huge differences.

    *Literacy was accompanied by nationalism. The nationalism taught in Galicia was mostly the work of Ukrainian exiles from the Russian Empire, such as Hrushevsky, who settled in Lviv. It was a nationalism developed in Kiev and Kharkiv by descendants of Ukrainian Cossack officers lamenting the loss of independence/autonomy and Russian rule.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. @AP

    The kind of clown who has actually been there. Kamchatka has a mild, atlantic climate. Very wet and foggy without serious temperature extremes. (Think Seattle.)
     
    It's interesting that almost everything you write is complete nonsense. Felix's nonsense is mostly limited to anything to do with Ukraine, in your case it is a universal problem. Your existence supports the argument that some people should not have been taught how to read and write.

    The climate of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, in the mildest Pacific shore region of Kamchatka, has an average high temperature of only -5 c (23 F) and average low of -10 c (14 F) in January and an average 12.5 C (54.5 F) in August.

    In Seattle January average high temperature is 13.5 C (56.5 F).

    Summer in the warmest part of Kamchatka is colder than winter in Seattle!

    Seattle summer has an average high temperature of 24.5 C (76 F).

    The climate of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, in the mildest Pacific shore region of Kamchatka, has an average high temperature of only -5 c (23 F) and average low of -10 c (14 F) in January and an average 12.5 C (54.5 F) in August.

    Yes, that’s the definition of a mild, oceanic climate — very wet and with few temperature swings.

    Summer in the warmest part of Kamchatka is colder than winter in Seattle!

    Of course Seattle is much further to the south and much warmer than Kamchatka, despite having a very similar oceanic climate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Yes, that’s the definition of a mild, oceanic climate — very wet and with few temperature swings.
     
    More nonsense as usual. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky's climate is classified not as oceanic but as subarctic or boreal:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Koppen_World_Map_Dfc_Dwc_Dsc_Dfd_Dwd_Dsd.png/800px-Koppen_World_Map_Dfc_Dwc_Dsc_Dfd_Dwd_Dsd.png

    It's like northern Norway (not even like St. Petersburg).

    Oceanic climates are defined as having a monthly mean temperature below 22 °C (72 °F) in the warmest month, and above 0 °C (32 °F) in the coldest month. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky has a mean temperature below zero C 6 months a year.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. AP says:
    @anonymous coward
    The "Ukrainian" spoken in the villages is just an accented Russian with some cute regionalisms. It's not at all like the official artificial language that was designed to be as incomprehensible as possible to literate Russian-speakers.

    (My parents and grandparents are, or rather were, native speakers of the "Ukrainian" you talk about, this is first-hand info.)

    The “Ukrainian” spoken in the villages is just an accented Russian with some cute regionalisms

    No, it’s normal Ukrainian.

    It’s not at all like the official artificial language that was designed to be as incomprehensible as possible to literate Russian-speakers.

    Official language was based on village speech of Poltava oblast, which was the ethnically purest part of Ukraine in the late 19th century when the language was standardized.

    For this reason, villagers a couple hours from Kiev speak closer to standard Ukrainian than do villagers in isolated parts of western Ukraine.

    You family probably spoke surzhik and falsely labeled it Ukrainian.

    My parents and grandparents are, or rather were, native speakers of the “Ukrainian” you talk about, this is first-hand info

    Your claims here are as nonsensical as your claim that Kamchatka has a similar climate to Seattle.

    Remember, you said you were in Kamchatka and claimed that it’s climate was similar to that of Seattle. We know exactly what your “first hand info” is worth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Hack
    Please don't overlook comment #189. Thanks!
    , @Gerard2

    No, it’s normal Ukrainian.
     
    errmm.no. It's a dialect of Russian. The discussion is irrelevant anyway seeing a a fuckwit as yourself cant actually speak it anyway

    Official language was based on village speech of Poltava oblast, which was the ethnically purest part of Ukraine in the late 19th century when the language was standardized.
     
    ...another straightforward lie.

    Incidentally not only is it a dialect, it's a dialect that's mainly separate by virtue of it eliminating the 'aristocratic" French-derived words in culture and science, time, dates et cetera that infiltrated the Russian language in the 18th century...hence the pseudo-rural "identity" that translates into these backwards morons in the ( least populated and least wealthy) western part of the country.

    Also incidentally....these lies are only propagated by fucked in the head suicidal spambot troll freaks, who fled in the 40's and 40's in disgrace to America and Canada...where they are currently the WORST white immigrant group by some distance, by pay and by achievements

    Kamchatka has a similar climate to Seattle.
     
    Climate range is what he was talking about you moronic idiot
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. donnyess says: • Website

    I would prefer Russia to be run by a biker gang like the Night Wolves with ‘The Surgeon’ as president. A celebration of Russia as an English speaking Arctic Circle nation…people running around with hockey sticks flicking balls. Certainly would be more interesting than seeing nuclear missile monuments which Putin will never have the guts to use, or soldiers with guns marching down the street which will never be deployed in time to avert a NATO carve-up of Russian eastern territory.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  217. Gerard2 says:
    @AP

    The kind of clown who has actually been there. Kamchatka has a mild, atlantic climate. Very wet and foggy without serious temperature extremes. (Think Seattle.)
     
    It's interesting that almost everything you write is complete nonsense. Felix's nonsense is mostly limited to anything to do with Ukraine, in your case it is a universal problem. Your existence supports the argument that some people should not have been taught how to read and write.

    The climate of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, in the mildest Pacific shore region of Kamchatka, has an average high temperature of only -5 c (23 F) and average low of -10 c (14 F) in January and an average 12.5 C (54.5 F) in August.

    In Seattle January average high temperature is 13.5 C (56.5 F).

    Summer in the warmest part of Kamchatka is colder than winter in Seattle!

    Seattle summer has an average high temperature of 24.5 C (76 F).

    The climate of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, in the mildest Pacific shore region of Kamchatka, has an average high temperature of only -5 c (23 F) and average low of -10 c (14 F) in January and an average 12.5 C (54.5 F) in August.

    -10 is far from the lowest winter average in a region of Russia you demented dumb prick.
    +12 is not that big a deviation compared to others. That’s before we get into daylight extremes ( or rather, lack of them)

    Seattle , I would say he’s obviously making a comparison in relative terms to how an American feels about it’s climate, not a literal comparison with Russias coldest regions you imbecile. Cape Town in South Africa is the same

    Too thick to know about a simple concept like temperature range and a million other issues

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. AP says:
    @anonymous coward

    The climate of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, in the mildest Pacific shore region of Kamchatka, has an average high temperature of only -5 c (23 F) and average low of -10 c (14 F) in January and an average 12.5 C (54.5 F) in August.
     
    Yes, that's the definition of a mild, oceanic climate -- very wet and with few temperature swings.

    Summer in the warmest part of Kamchatka is colder than winter in Seattle!
     
    Of course Seattle is much further to the south and much warmer than Kamchatka, despite having a very similar oceanic climate.

    Yes, that’s the definition of a mild, oceanic climate — very wet and with few temperature swings.

    More nonsense as usual. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky’s climate is classified not as oceanic but as subarctic or boreal:

    It’s like northern Norway (not even like St. Petersburg).

    Oceanic climates are defined as having a monthly mean temperature below 22 °C (72 °F) in the warmest month, and above 0 °C (32 °F) in the coldest month. Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky has a mean temperature below zero C 6 months a year.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. Mr. Hack says:
    @AP

    The “Ukrainian” spoken in the villages is just an accented Russian with some cute regionalisms
     
    No, it's normal Ukrainian.

    It’s not at all like the official artificial language that was designed to be as incomprehensible as possible to literate Russian-speakers.

     

    Official language was based on village speech of Poltava oblast, which was the ethnically purest part of Ukraine in the late 19th century when the language was standardized.

    For this reason, villagers a couple hours from Kiev speak closer to standard Ukrainian than do villagers in isolated parts of western Ukraine.

    You family probably spoke surzhik and falsely labeled it Ukrainian.

    My parents and grandparents are, or rather were, native speakers of the “Ukrainian” you talk about, this is first-hand info
     
    Your claims here are as nonsensical as your claim that Kamchatka has a similar climate to Seattle.

    Remember, you said you were in Kamchatka and claimed that it's climate was similar to that of Seattle. We know exactly what your "first hand info" is worth.

    Please don’t overlook comment #189. Thanks!

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    I'm not AK so I can't speculate on his opinion. As someone else noted, he thinks Ukrainians are Russians and does not want to genocide them, his own people. The Triune Theory hopes that Ukrainians and Russians would have their own pecularities but adopt the same overarching identity - as do Mandarin and Cantonese Chinese. Ironically the Soviets sort of approximated this situation.

    I think his position was very tenable in the 19th century but is too late today.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. AP says:
    @Mr. Hack
    Please don't overlook comment #189. Thanks!

    I’m not AK so I can’t speculate on his opinion. As someone else noted, he thinks Ukrainians are Russians and does not want to genocide them, his own people. The Triune Theory hopes that Ukrainians and Russians would have their own pecularities but adopt the same overarching identity – as do Mandarin and Cantonese Chinese. Ironically the Soviets sort of approximated this situation.

    I think his position was very tenable in the 19th century but is too late today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. @Ali Choudhury
    A scheme like this might work perfectly if you were sent to the front line as a soldier. Seriously you would be much better off getting a girlfriend and restricting yourself to playing Warhammer than plotting the death and subjugation of millions from your bedroom. Dreams of imperial conquest are pure folly when the strong nations are the richest and most happiest ones, not the warlike barbaric ones.

    the strong nations are the richest and most happiest ones, not the warlike barbaric ones.

    What are you talking about? Have you not heard of the exceptional United States?

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

    The “Ukrainian” spoken in the villages is just an accented Russian with some cute regionalisms
     
    No, it's normal Ukrainian.

    It’s not at all like the official artificial language that was designed to be as incomprehensible as possible to literate Russian-speakers.

     

    Official language was based on village speech of Poltava oblast, which was the ethnically purest part of Ukraine in the late 19th century when the language was standardized.

    For this reason, villagers a couple hours from Kiev speak closer to standard Ukrainian than do villagers in isolated parts of western Ukraine.

    You family probably spoke surzhik and falsely labeled it Ukrainian.

    My parents and grandparents are, or rather were, native speakers of the “Ukrainian” you talk about, this is first-hand info
     
    Your claims here are as nonsensical as your claim that Kamchatka has a similar climate to Seattle.

    Remember, you said you were in Kamchatka and claimed that it's climate was similar to that of Seattle. We know exactly what your "first hand info" is worth.

    [MORE]

    No, it’s normal Ukrainian.

    errmm.no. It’s a dialect of Russian. The discussion is irrelevant anyway seeing a a fuckwit as yourself cant actually speak it anyway

    Official language was based on village speech of Poltava oblast, which was the ethnically purest part of Ukraine in the late 19th century when the language was standardized.

    …another straightforward lie.

    Incidentally not only is it a dialect, it’s a dialect that’s mainly separate by virtue of it eliminating the ‘aristocratic” French-derived words in culture and science, time, dates et cetera that infiltrated the Russian language in the 18th century…hence the pseudo-rural “identity” that translates into these backwards morons in the ( least populated and least wealthy) western part of the country.

    Also incidentally….these lies are only propagated by fucked in the head suicidal spambot troll freaks, who fled in the 40′s and 40′s in disgrace to America and Canada…where they are currently the WORST white immigrant group by some distance, by pay and by achievements

    Kamchatka has a similar climate to Seattle.

    Climate range is what he was talking about you moronic idiot

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Climate range is what he was talking about
     
    Difference between average August high and January high in Seattle is 29 degrees F. In Kamchatka it is 38 degrees, similar to St. Petersburg's 42 degree difference.

    Maybe in your world St. Petersburg also has the same climate as Seattle?

    Incidentally not only is it a dialect, it’s a dialect that’s mainly separate by virtue of it eliminating the ‘aristocratic” French-derived words in culture and science, time, dates
     
    So it's more Slavic than is Russian.

    Ukrainian has fewer French words than does Russian but it has many Polish words and perhaps more Latin words (centuries of Jesuit education) such as raptom (suddenly).



    There is a reason why you are retard2.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. anon[241] • Disclaimer says:

    “Russia was slated to be on the winning side of World War I. The Bolsheviks, and especially Lenin, need to take the credit from grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory. Conversely, Germany’s defeat would have been all the more comprehensive, making its future resurgence – with pro-Russian kingdoms installed in Bohemia and Poland – all the more improbable.”

    So absurd in these prognoses that it is difficult to know where to begin the challenge. Does the author really believe that Russia could achieve such extensive territorial gains? Install a Romanov as King of Bohemia? No matter the content of the secret treaties with the British and French, they obviously made absurd promises to get allies. Such promises became unreachable in the course of the war. How many Russians would need to die so some Romanov could reign over the Josefs Schweiks? Why should Russian peasants sacrifice their lives for this? Did the Czechs want to have a Russian sovereign rather than an Austrian? Such imperialist daydreams were rendered unfeasible by the prolongation of the war, and were incompatible with the Allied propaganda that presented the war as a “struggle for the freedom of the peoples.” The Romanovs themselves became victims of anti-imperialist and anti-German allied propaganda, which led the Russians to treat Czarina Alessandra as a German spy. The entry of the United States into the war, based on the Wilsonian idea of ​​’self-determination of peoples’, meant the end of many imperialist fantasies, and led the Russian generals to depose the Tsar because Woodrow Wilson did not extend his hands of purebred WASP to a ‘Asian despot’.
    It must be understood that World War I was a monumental stupidity that was absolutely bad for all the countries that participated in it, except to a lesser degree for the United States, which only entered into the struggle in 1917, and had the advantage of having a between them and Europe. With the revolution of February / March of 1917, the imperial projects finished definitively delegitimized. The New Statestman reproduced an article published by The Nation in 1917, which clearly shows the liberal left’s view of war and its unfolding:

    https://www.newstatesman.com/1917/2017/03/1917-revolution-archive-russias-new-holy-alliance

    By the way, around 1917, all armies seemed to be quite exhausted, and there was evidence of widespread dissatisfaction everywhere, even in the United Kingdom. It was the entry of the United States into the war that saved the Allied cause and the Western rulers. But the Americans obviously could not afford to dump huge numbers of soldiers on the Russian front to save Kerensky.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LH

    Install a Romanov as King of Bohemia?

     

    This was seriously considered as an option by some Czech political parties, up to 1917. Notably the National Social Party, whose leader offered to turn the party into spying organisation for Russia before the war (this was politely refused), or the big Russophile Karel Kramář.

    Obviously, they looked for a constitutional head of state, not an autocrat.


    Did the Czechs want to have a Russian sovereign rather than an Austrian?

     

    This is pure guess, but they probably wouldn't mind. Head of state isn't dictator, and if the other options are Germanic prince or republican experiment, then it doesn't look that bad.


    Interestingly, the pro-Austrian side wasn't just the usual mix of reactionaries (catholic parties, big landowners), but also social-democrats, who saw Austria-Hungary as convenient vehicle for revolutionary changes, and petty nationalism as obstacle to this dream.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. AK, despite the daft reasoning this article is riddled with, if you’re pissing off “real Russian nationalists”, I’d say you have to be doing something right, so keep it up.

    Also, the great pity of WWI is that the central powers lost. That would, no doubt, have created numerous problems of its own. But it would have afforded a much better chance of avoiding WWII, which makes it all worth it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich

    AK, despite the daft reasoning this article is riddled with, if you’re pissing off “real Russian nationalists”, I’d say you have to be doing something right, so keep it up.
     
    To my knowledge, the only Russian nationalists on this website are me and Karlin. And maybe Spisarevski. The cult of "Great Victory" is a mainstream phenomenon in Russia, but Russian nationalists are not particularly enthusiastic about it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. AP says:
    @Gerard2

    No, it’s normal Ukrainian.
     
    errmm.no. It's a dialect of Russian. The discussion is irrelevant anyway seeing a a fuckwit as yourself cant actually speak it anyway

    Official language was based on village speech of Poltava oblast, which was the ethnically purest part of Ukraine in the late 19th century when the language was standardized.
     
    ...another straightforward lie.

    Incidentally not only is it a dialect, it's a dialect that's mainly separate by virtue of it eliminating the 'aristocratic" French-derived words in culture and science, time, dates et cetera that infiltrated the Russian language in the 18th century...hence the pseudo-rural "identity" that translates into these backwards morons in the ( least populated and least wealthy) western part of the country.

    Also incidentally....these lies are only propagated by fucked in the head suicidal spambot troll freaks, who fled in the 40's and 40's in disgrace to America and Canada...where they are currently the WORST white immigrant group by some distance, by pay and by achievements

    Kamchatka has a similar climate to Seattle.
     
    Climate range is what he was talking about you moronic idiot

    Climate range is what he was talking about

    Difference between average August high and January high in Seattle is 29 degrees F. In Kamchatka it is 38 degrees, similar to St. Petersburg’s 42 degree difference.

    Maybe in your world St. Petersburg also has the same climate as Seattle?

    Incidentally not only is it a dialect, it’s a dialect that’s mainly separate by virtue of it eliminating the ‘aristocratic” French-derived words in culture and science, time, dates

    So it’s more Slavic than is Russian.

    Ukrainian has fewer French words than does Russian but it has many Polish words and perhaps more Latin words (centuries of Jesuit education) such as raptom (suddenly).

    [MORE]

    There is a reason why you are retard2.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. @Ali Choudhury
    It was tried in the Bioshock videogame and did not work out very well there.

    The relevance of Bioshock to real-life seasteading is shockingly minimal.

    However, the story of how Bioshock Infinite’s effective failure(and the end of Ken Levine’s dreams) in spite of its critical acclaim is an excellent tale of how aesthetic quality and storytelling in video games can mean very little, while a billion clones of Candy Crush overrun your smartphone.

    I suppose one could blame women for that. I think I’ll do that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. @Mr. Hack
    I wanted to return to this topic, of 'regathering of Russian lands' with you. It's really an important one, and underlies and is used as a propaganda tool for Russia's Ukrainian land grab in 2014 and the continuing Russian supported war in Ukraine to this day. Although we can all agree that Karlin is a proponent of this idea, and frequently likes to bring it up as something worthy to pursue, yet he never goes the extra step to explain how exactly he forsees this policy being put into action? This, as you know, really interests me, for it would more clearly indicate what type of person Karlin really is. Perhaps, his own vision of this process isn't really very much different than the crude remarks made by Hyperborean, that you're so adept at analyzing and discrediting? Aren't you at all concerned about Karlin's own deeper thought process surrounding 'the regathering of Russian lands'?

    Aren’t you at all concerned about Karlin’s own deeper thought process surrounding ‘the regathering of Russian lands’?

    See, the beauty of being a chauvinistic ethnonationalist expansionist is that you don’t have to concern yourself with the details. After all, it’s not as if the people who you intend to ‘regather’ (conquer, vanquish, devastate, etc) actually matter in any real sense. The only pertinent consideration is whether you have the power to realize your designs; if you do, you’re a fool not to do it. So I’m not really too interested in their ‘deeper thought processes’ because, if their plans were carried out, none of them would make any real difference to the people on the receiving end.

    I think a more interesting question to put to them is how they would regard an attempt to ‘regather the German lands’ (eg East Prussia)?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hyperborean
    'I think a more interesting question to put to them is how they would regard an attempt to ‘regather the German lands’ (eg East Prussia)?'

    Wouldn't most of this come at the expense of Poland and Czechia? Aside from Kaliningrad I don't think there are many German irredentist aims against Russia. I don't think the loss of Kaliningrad would be that great.

    I think Germany would be too busy in Poland anyway to do anything else for many years if they tried.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. @Mr. Hack
    Quite simply, I find that people who suffer from Ukrainophobia or any other form of xenophobia should seek out treatment for these sorts of disorders. Although xenophobia is not in itself defined as a psychotic disorder, manifestations of its wholesale embrace often points to deeper psychological problems:

    To continue perceiving extreme racism as normative and not pathologic is to lend it legitimacy. Clearly, anyone who scapegoats a whole group of people and seeks to eliminate them to resolve his or her internal conflicts meets criteria for a delusional disorder, a major psychiatric illness.
     
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071634/

    I'm no medical doctor (just another hack with an opinion), however am pleased to see that my somewhat jaundiced and extravagant prescriptions for treating Ukrainophobia have left an indelible imprint with some of the readers at this blog.

    Hostility towards out-groups are a fairly normal pattern of human behaviour through time.

    I am rather suspicious of these people considering that they are made from the same mold as the people who come up with experiments like this (link at the bottom)

    It also seems to deny that people could ever have a justifiable problem with other ethnic groups.

    If millions of say, gypsies or Afghans settled in the Ukraine and began behaving in their typical awful ways should Ukrainians simply be quiet and endure it in a masochistic manner – or would they have legitimate cause to resent the newcomers?

    (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2017/11/22/at-yale-we-conducted-an-experiment-to-turn-conservatives-into-liberals-the-results-say-a-lot-about-our-political-divisions/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e250f766279c)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    I also believe that a persistent belief in imaginary things(animals, voices, countries) is a serious case of delusional schizophrenia; but fortunately Mr. Hack can be cured of such maladies quite well through the regular administration of Thorazine. The chemical lobotomy might have some side effects such as cognitive fog and increased periods of silence, but I am sure that is only an unexpected benefit for him.
    , @Mr. Hack

    If millions of say, gypsies or Afghans settled in the Ukraine and began behaving in their typical awful ways should Ukrainians simply be quiet and endure it in a masochistic manner – or would they have legitimate cause to resent the newcomers?
     
    A poor analogy when comparing the Ukrainophobic slant of many (not all) of the commenters at this blog. What have the Ukrainians done to the Russians to elicit such hateful opinions? Rebelling against their former imperial masters should be taken in stride. Other empires have fallen apart and the resulting nationalities have gone their own ways amicably. Why can't the Russians grow up and stop trying to play 'Big Brother' to the Ukrainians? First it was the empire builders, then the commies and now we have the nationalists, different masks hiding the same hateful faces.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. @Hyperborean
    Hostility towards out-groups are a fairly normal pattern of human behaviour through time.

    I am rather suspicious of these people considering that they are made from the same mold as the people who come up with experiments like this (link at the bottom)

    It also seems to deny that people could ever have a justifiable problem with other ethnic groups.

    If millions of say, gypsies or Afghans settled in the Ukraine and began behaving in their typical awful ways should Ukrainians simply be quiet and endure it in a masochistic manner - or would they have legitimate cause to resent the newcomers?

    (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2017/11/22/at-yale-we-conducted-an-experiment-to-turn-conservatives-into-liberals-the-results-say-a-lot-about-our-political-divisions/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e250f766279c)

    I also believe that a persistent belief in imaginary things(animals, voices, countries) is a serious case of delusional schizophrenia; but fortunately Mr. Hack can be cured of such maladies quite well through the regular administration of Thorazine. The chemical lobotomy might have some side effects such as cognitive fog and increased periods of silence, but I am sure that is only an unexpected benefit for him.

    Read More
    • LOL: Greasy William
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. iffen says:
    @Felix Keverich
    I don't get it: a Russian is obligated celebrate "the defeat of Fascism"*, but no such obligation exists for Belorussian? Why is that? Last time I checked WW2 was more than just a Russo-German affair. Explain your thinking here.

    Is "Victory Day" a core part of Russian identity or something? I personally don't want to see Russian identity reduced to bunch of Soviet era platitudes. The Russians are bigger than the fucking "Victory Day".

    PS: it was always "Fascism", never Nazism in official Soviet propaganda, because the phrase 'National-Socialism' could create uncomfortable associations.

    Explain your thinking here.

    I can’t understand a “Russian” who does not have an emotional attachment to something like the Battle of Stalingrad and the WWII victory in general. By extension, if one is a “Ukrainian” and wishes to deny any Russian identity as a part of that identity, then rejection of the WWII victory is logical.

    Y’all just go ahead and sort it out as you wish, just my opinion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich

    I can’t understand a “Russian” who does not have an emotional attachment to something like the Battle of Stalingrad and the WWII victory in general.
     
    I was born long after the war was over, and emotional attachment to WW2 doesn't come naturally to me. I know that too many people died - it was worse than a tragedy, unprecendented national catastrophy, so what exactly are we celebrating here?

    I can honestly tell you that I don't get the Victory Day. This holiday is one of the more obnoxious elements of Soviet legacy, that I would love to go away.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  231. @silviosilver

    Aren’t you at all concerned about Karlin’s own deeper thought process surrounding ‘the regathering of Russian lands’?
     
    See, the beauty of being a chauvinistic ethnonationalist expansionist is that you don't have to concern yourself with the details. After all, it's not as if the people who you intend to 'regather' (conquer, vanquish, devastate, etc) actually matter in any real sense. The only pertinent consideration is whether you have the power to realize your designs; if you do, you're a fool not to do it. So I'm not really too interested in their 'deeper thought processes' because, if their plans were carried out, none of them would make any real difference to the people on the receiving end.

    I think a more interesting question to put to them is how they would regard an attempt to 'regather the German lands' (eg East Prussia)?

    ‘I think a more interesting question to put to them is how they would regard an attempt to ‘regather the German lands’ (eg East Prussia)?’

    Wouldn’t most of this come at the expense of Poland and Czechia? Aside from Kaliningrad I don’t think there are many German irredentist aims against Russia. I don’t think the loss of Kaliningrad would be that great.

    I think Germany would be too busy in Poland anyway to do anything else for many years if they tried.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  232. @silviosilver
    AK, despite the daft reasoning this article is riddled with, if you're pissing off "real Russian nationalists", I'd say you have to be doing something right, so keep it up.

    Also, the great pity of WWI is that the central powers lost. That would, no doubt, have created numerous problems of its own. But it would have afforded a much better chance of avoiding WWII, which makes it all worth it.

    AK, despite the daft reasoning this article is riddled with, if you’re pissing off “real Russian nationalists”, I’d say you have to be doing something right, so keep it up.

    To my knowledge, the only Russian nationalists on this website are me and Karlin. And maybe Spisarevski. The cult of “Great Victory” is a mainstream phenomenon in Russia, but Russian nationalists are not particularly enthusiastic about it.

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

    “Intelligent people, such as Americans”
     
    Intelligent people, such as Americans, speak only one language and are confident that they must protect the world by threatening Russia(mostly by surrounding it with military bases).

    I also found that sentence to be quite dubious.

    Intelligent people, such as Americans, speak only one language and are confident that they must protect the world by threatening Russia(mostly by surrounding it with military bases).

    We build alliances – they build empires. That’s the difference between Americans and Russians. And that’s why Russia is bigger than the next two biggest countries combined. It’s also why China is bigger than all of its neighbors combined, with the exception of Russia, another empire with world-conquering ambitions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DFH

    We build alliances – they build empires. That’s the difference between Americans and Russians. And that’s why Russia is bigger than the next two biggest countries combined.
     
    Have you ever heard of something called 'the Mexican-American war'?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  234. DFH says:
    @Johann Ricke

    Intelligent people, such as Americans, speak only one language and are confident that they must protect the world by threatening Russia(mostly by surrounding it with military bases).
     
    We build alliances - they build empires. That's the difference between Americans and Russians. And that's why Russia is bigger than the next two biggest countries combined. It's also why China is bigger than all of its neighbors combined, with the exception of Russia, another empire with world-conquering ambitions.

    We build alliances – they build empires. That’s the difference between Americans and Russians. And that’s why Russia is bigger than the next two biggest countries combined.

    Have you ever heard of something called ‘the Mexican-American war’?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Two countries fighting over mostly uninhabited territory to decide who will eventually settle it.
    , @Gerard2

    Have you ever heard of something called ‘the Mexican-American war’?
     
    The cretin you are replying to must have thought the Panama Canal wasn't man-made but natural due to plate tectonics...and the administration for it was because Americans "build alliances"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  235. @Twinkie

    Intelligent people, such as Americans, speak only one language and are confident that they must protect the world by threatening Russia(mostly by surrounding it with military bases).
     
    Do you not get Mr. Karlin's point? We Americans bled the least and reaped the greatest rewards from World War II. That WAS highly intelligent.

    Personally, I wish we had done more of that in Iraq. Always fight with proxies if you can... they are less dear to us than our brothers, cousins, and friends from home.

    We Americans bled the least and reaped the greatest rewards from World War II. That WAS highly intelligent.

    It was highly-fortuitous because we were the furthest away of the major powers from the military threat. Apart from Canada, every other major combatant in ETO participated because it was attacked. The “rewards” we reaped were a consolation prize.

    We lost 400K men fighting and 2 years worth of output fighting WWII. That’s $40T. Calculated the way Trump does it, by multiplying the base number 7x to account for follow-on medical care, disability pensions, and so on, the number would be $280T in today’s dollars. It was a poisoned chalice, made possible by Russian deceit and collaboration with Hitler, and British and French nonchalance in the face of German rearmament, and well as a supine European reaction to the Japanese invasion of China, despite their extensive holdings in the region.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    It was highly-fortuitous because we were the furthest away of the major powers from the military threat.
     
    That's arguable, though the residents of Hawaii and California probably thought otherwise at the time of the beginning of official hostilities.

    Apart from Canada, every other major combatant in ETO participated because it was attacked.
     
    The US was attacked, too, and rather spectacularly... but pursued the right strategy of eliminating the more dangerous foe first (but only after two allies bled to near extinction to damage that foe). It seems pretty intelligent to me.

    The “rewards” we reaped were a consolation prize.
     
    The US became the preeminent world power which accounted fully 50% of the world's GNP in 1945. Think about that for the moment - half of the world's GNP. Americans became the best-fed, the wealthiest, and the most powerful (and in many ways the most admired, respected, liked, and imitated) people in the world after bleeding the least among the major powers in the titanic, global struggle. That's not intelligent - that's genius! And of course as with any victory, there is always the element of luck. But no amount of luck can salvage one's nation from poor national strategy.

    Not bad at all for people whose soldiers were dismissed as "our Italians" by a British army officer who was captured and interrogated by the Germans (about Americans) in North Africa c. early 1943 (probably in the aftermath of Kesserine Pass).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  236. AP says:
    @DFH

    We build alliances – they build empires. That’s the difference between Americans and Russians. And that’s why Russia is bigger than the next two biggest countries combined.
     
    Have you ever heard of something called 'the Mexican-American war'?

    Two countries fighting over mostly uninhabited territory to decide who will eventually settle it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @German_reader
    It was clearly a war of aggression by the US though which was deliberately engineered by president Polk. Even at the time many (e.g. Henry Clay, Ulysses S. Grant) regarded it as a dubious or downright immoral venture.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  237. iffen says:
    @Greasy William
    Iran is fighting back! Thank you Iran! Even though we are enemies, I will never forget this.

    I owe the Iranians a partial apology. I wish the Arabs had the same sense of honor that the Iranians do.

    I heard that if Trump bombs Iran before he croaks, McCain will send him an embossed invitation to his funeral and demand that he be the main speaker as the greatest Prez of all times.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    I always said that Trump would attack Iran no matter what. Hopefully now German_reader, Reiner and Randal will admit that I was right and they were wrong to subject us to long winded posts about the US would never leave the nuclear agreement or attack Iran.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  238. @iffen
    I heard that if Trump bombs Iran before he croaks, McCain will send him an embossed invitation to his funeral and demand that he be the main speaker as the greatest Prez of all times.

    I always said that Trump would attack Iran no matter what. Hopefully now German_reader, Reiner and Randal will admit that I was right and they were wrong to subject us to long winded posts about the US would never leave the nuclear agreement or attack Iran.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    At least this year, I don't think Trump will attack Iran. They will start with America unilaterally imposing their economic sanctions on Iran, although it is some months away (in the Autumn).

    They may pressure oil customers to reduce purchases of Iranian oil, using a quota system like last time - gradually taking oil off the market, and possibly raising the price of oil in 2019, other things equal. The losers will be mainly oil importing countries - including the EU.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  239. @AP
    Two countries fighting over mostly uninhabited territory to decide who will eventually settle it.

    It was clearly a war of aggression by the US though which was deliberately engineered by president Polk. Even at the time many (e.g. Henry Clay, Ulysses S. Grant) regarded it as a dubious or downright immoral venture.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Correct, but it was fighting over claimed but largely uninhabited territory. At the time of the American conquest, California had only about 8,000 Mexicans/Spaniards, there were basically zero Mexicans/Spaniards in Nevada and Utah (in that case, it was like fighting over who owns parts of Antarctica).

    New Mexico had a small but significant Spanish population (47,000 people) but these people were different from Mexicans and not entirely fond of them either:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt_of_1837_(New_Mexico)

    Indians seemed to like neither Mexicans/Spaniards nor Americans.
    , @random rand
    And lets not forget Hawaii. China should list Hawaii as a separate territory for their airlines. I honestly don't understand people who go on about how US isn't an empire and forms alliances instead. Apparently they don't grasp the fact that the USG's idea of alliance is the US doing whatever it wants while telling their "allies" to go fuck themselves and toe the line. France and Germany have businesses in Iran? Too bad. Unfortunately Europe will probably cave.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  240. @iffen
    Explain your thinking here.

    I can't understand a "Russian" who does not have an emotional attachment to something like the Battle of Stalingrad and the WWII victory in general. By extension, if one is a "Ukrainian" and wishes to deny any Russian identity as a part of that identity, then rejection of the WWII victory is logical.

    Y'all just go ahead and sort it out as you wish, just my opinion.

    I can’t understand a “Russian” who does not have an emotional attachment to something like the Battle of Stalingrad and the WWII victory in general.

    I was born long after the war was over, and emotional attachment to WW2 doesn’t come naturally to me. I know that too many people died – it was worse than a tragedy, unprecendented national catastrophy, so what exactly are we celebrating here?

    I can honestly tell you that I don’t get the Victory Day. This holiday is one of the more obnoxious elements of Soviet legacy, that I would love to go away.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pavlo

    I would love to go away
     
    Do it.

    Since you can't seem to produce or convincingly imitate human emotions and attachments, you should probably give California a shot.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  241. AP says:
    @German_reader
    It was clearly a war of aggression by the US though which was deliberately engineered by president Polk. Even at the time many (e.g. Henry Clay, Ulysses S. Grant) regarded it as a dubious or downright immoral venture.

    Correct, but it was fighting over claimed but largely uninhabited territory. At the time of the American conquest, California had only about 8,000 Mexicans/Spaniards, there were basically zero Mexicans/Spaniards in Nevada and Utah (in that case, it was like fighting over who owns parts of Antarctica).

    New Mexico had a small but significant Spanish population (47,000 people) but these people were different from Mexicans and not entirely fond of them either:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt_of_1837_(New_Mexico)

    Indians seemed to like neither Mexicans/Spaniards nor Americans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  242. Talha says:
    @Greasy William
    Iran is fighting back! Thank you Iran! Even though we are enemies, I will never forget this.

    I owe the Iranians a partial apology. I wish the Arabs had the same sense of honor that the Iranians do.

    Iran is fighting back!

    They can’t do much – they only have a small expeditionary force in Syria with only the air cover that Russia feels like providing. They’ll bide their time until it makes sense to do something (if anything). At the end of the day, Israel has deemed it very important to control any threats to itself across the border in Syria. Though I don’t agree with them violating Syrian airspace, they have a serious dog in the fight. From Iran’s perspective; Syria is good to have as an ally in the region so they will help the regime stay alive – however, that doesn’t necessarily mean it is worth it for them to have a military satellite presence in the area unless it helps in achieving the first goal.

    I wish the Arabs had the same sense of honor

    They should outsource their defense to the Turks. Let the Turks have command & control and run it with sizeable Turkish garrisons backed by local forces that pulled from soldiers that can make the cut, not village conscripts. Yeah it’s neo-Ottomanism, but current state of affairs sure isn’t working. Turks will do a better job and it’ll be cheaper.

    Then they might even get pseudo-NATO protection.

    Second; plenty of the Arab elites would love to pal around with the Israelis, it’s the Arab street that keeps them from doing so. Don’t expect anything from the Arab nations until their leadership reflects more of what the street sentiment is. The elite know that any war with the Israelis means a possible decapitation of their government. Furthermore, even if they are able to start winning, Israel will simply deploy nukes over multiple major Arab cities; it’ll be the worst victory in history.

    This is one of those fights that is won over centuries. And the win is not necessarily through any battle.

    it effects my peace plan

    LOOOOL! That made my day!

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Somewhat related; Mahathir Mohammad is prime minister of Malaysia again. That has the potential of being big news since he has always had international Muslim cooperation as a hallmark of his policies. We'll see how things play out.
    , @iffen
    however, that doesn’t necessarily mean it is worth it for them to have a military satellite presence in the area

    We can count on Talha to remain partisan with regards to Islam, but to also look at the "big picture" in an even handed manner. I like it. I want to be this way when I grow up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  243. Talha says:
    @Talha

    Iran is fighting back!
     
    They can't do much - they only have a small expeditionary force in Syria with only the air cover that Russia feels like providing. They'll bide their time until it makes sense to do something (if anything). At the end of the day, Israel has deemed it very important to control any threats to itself across the border in Syria. Though I don't agree with them violating Syrian airspace, they have a serious dog in the fight. From Iran's perspective; Syria is good to have as an ally in the region so they will help the regime stay alive - however, that doesn't necessarily mean it is worth it for them to have a military satellite presence in the area unless it helps in achieving the first goal.

    I wish the Arabs had the same sense of honor
     
    They should outsource their defense to the Turks. Let the Turks have command & control and run it with sizeable Turkish garrisons backed by local forces that pulled from soldiers that can make the cut, not village conscripts. Yeah it's neo-Ottomanism, but current state of affairs sure isn't working. Turks will do a better job and it'll be cheaper.

    Then they might even get pseudo-NATO protection.

    Second; plenty of the Arab elites would love to pal around with the Israelis, it's the Arab street that keeps them from doing so. Don't expect anything from the Arab nations until their leadership reflects more of what the street sentiment is. The elite know that any war with the Israelis means a possible decapitation of their government. Furthermore, even if they are able to start winning, Israel will simply deploy nukes over multiple major Arab cities; it'll be the worst victory in history.

    This is one of those fights that is won over centuries. And the win is not necessarily through any battle.

    it effects my peace plan
     
    LOOOOL! That made my day!

    Peace.

    Somewhat related; Mahathir Mohammad is prime minister of Malaysia again. That has the potential of being big news since he has always had international Muslim cooperation as a hallmark of his policies. We’ll see how things play out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  244. Netanyahoo was Putin’s guest of honor at the Victory parade!
    He was wearing St. George’s ribbon!!
    He was marching in the Immortal Regiment!!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    It does look like is it. A question is is this destroyed equipment a paid for system (as in received money in the bank, by Syria through using aid from Iran?), or was it given for free?
    , @French Basque
    Interesting video. Do we know what piece of hardware took down the Pantsir system?

    That does not bode well for the alleged superiority of Russian AA/AD systems.

    A quarter of century ago while doing my military service in an anti-tank unit of the French military, I several times felt how our lives would be at the mercy of a minor technical advantage of our opponents, in the case of a real conflict, and that one's chances of staying alive would be to stay clear of the most technologically-advanced assets -- as opposed to close or inside them, because they would most likely be the prime targets of the technologically superior adversary. And that was even before the advent of fully-integrated systems.
    , @LondonBob
    https://youtu.be/DfHJDLoGInM
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  245. Dmitry says:
    @Felix Keverich
    https://twitter.com/Joyce_Karam/status/994632002400866304

    Netanyahoo was Putin's guest of honor at the Victory parade!
    He was wearing St. George's ribbon!!
    He was marching in the Immortal Regiment!!!

    It does look like is it. A question is is this destroyed equipment a paid for system (as in received money in the bank, by Syria through using aid from Iran?), or was it given for free?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    Of course it was given for free! It costs $15 million a piece, it's not like Syria could pay for it.

    My question is what was the point of hosting Netanyahoo in Moscow, and treating him as a guest of honor?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  246. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Mr. Hack
    Since you're not a Ukrainian, but a self professing 'Ukrainian', I find anything you say to be suspect. My mother (a real Ukrainian) told me about people like you, 'Ukrainian' turncoats and traitors, slimy people that were in the employ of Russian fifth columnists in Ukraine. She even had a word for such people, so you no longer need to be 'ananymous':

    хрунь
     
    *Хрунь — лайливе прізвисько підлої, продажної людини, запроданця. У Галичині використовується щодо виборних осіб, які зрадили своїх виборців.

    Since you’re not a Ukrainian, but a self professing ‘Ukrainian’, I find anything you say to be suspect. My mother (a real Ukrainian) told me about people like you, ‘Ukrainian’ turncoats and traitors, slimy people that were in the employ of Russian fifth columnists in Ukraine. She even had a word for such people, so you no longer need to be ‘ananymous’:

    \\

    That attitude explains the predicament evident in some areas making up the former Ukrainian SSR, as well as the kind of censoring/persecution that has gone in within Kiev regime controlled Ukraine.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  247. Mikhail says: • Website
    @Mr. Hack
    I wanted to return to this topic, of 'regathering of Russian lands' with you. It's really an important one, and underlies and is used as a propaganda tool for Russia's Ukrainian land grab in 2014 and the continuing Russian supported war in Ukraine to this day. Although we can all agree that Karlin is a proponent of this idea, and frequently likes to bring it up as something worthy to pursue, yet he never goes the extra step to explain how exactly he forsees this policy being put into action? This, as you know, really interests me, for it would more clearly indicate what type of person Karlin really is. Perhaps, his own vision of this process isn't really very much different than the crude remarks made by Hyperborean, that you're so adept at analyzing and discrediting? Aren't you at all concerned about Karlin's own deeper thought process surrounding 'the regathering of Russian lands'?

    It’s really an important one, and underlies and is used as a propaganda tool for Russia’s Ukrainian land grab in 2014 and the continuing Russian supported war in Ukraine to this day.

    Crimea has a pro-Russian majority that includes the majority of ethnic Ukrainians in that area. The manner following the coup against Yanukovch is responsible for what transpired thereafter, along with the Western support/downplaying of that Kiev regime culpability.

    Russia has behaved within ethical reasoning:

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/01/06/croatian-scenario-shortcomings-for-ending-donbass-conflict.html

    https://www.eurasiareview.com/03032014-humanitarian-intervention-undertaken-in-crimea-analysis/

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/twisted-history-against-russia-and-serbia/5390154

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  248. @Anatoly Karlin
    It's an interesting what if.

    The main loss represented by Britain will not be so much its Army - though it played a critical role in denting the Schlieffen Plan sufficiently hard to prevent an initial German knockout of France - as its Navy, which was by far the world's most powerful and kept the Kaiserliche Marine safely bottled up throughout the entire war. This had very bad, demoralizing effects on the German home front - for instance, German soldiers were worse fed than Russian ones in 1917. This would not have been the case without Britain.

    The British and French also played a helpful role in providing munitions to Russia, which was a fairly important contribution, especially during its shells shortage in 1915.

    If the Germans were to knock out France quickly in WW1 1925, I think they would still beat Russia then with high confidence (though not by 1935). France itself would be weaker relative to Germany, and no Britain would make the differential all the more severe; however, Russia would be able to mount a much more powerful push into Prussia by then, which will draw attention from France to a great extent than in 1914, and perhaps even make the Schlieffen Plan unrealizable in principle. If France does weather the initial months, I'd put chances of victory at 50/50 either side.

    [Reposting my earlier response as this is my first comment on this site, and I had not noticed the "REPLY" button -- my apologies to all readers for the duplicate entry with #191]

    Anatoly, excellent article, thank you.

    I have myself made a similar argument for many years now to my French compatriots, as to why I refuse to celebrate May 8th, and make a point to work as much as possible on that day (it is a legal holiday here).

    In the specific case of France, if they were serious about celebrating victory over Germany, it would be done on May 7th which is the day when the Germans surrendered in Reims (northeastern France) for the entirety of the Western Front. The May 8th date was a post-war concession to the communists — one of the many such concessions that continue to haunt the country to this very day.

    As a side note and still in the case of France, the main culprit of this concession was the colonel de Gaulle (he never was a real general, having been appointed “à titre provisoire” in 1940 to represent the Reynaud government during a mission to London), who wanted also to create a false sense of “sobornost” in order to make it easier to (1) keep Anglo-American control of France at bay and (2) allow for the massive post-war “Épuration” where communists and gaullists together murdered many thousands of people including many innocent ones.

    Down with May 8th!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  249. Dmitry says:
    @Greasy William
    I always said that Trump would attack Iran no matter what. Hopefully now German_reader, Reiner and Randal will admit that I was right and they were wrong to subject us to long winded posts about the US would never leave the nuclear agreement or attack Iran.

    At least this year, I don’t think Trump will attack Iran. They will start with America unilaterally imposing their economic sanctions on Iran, although it is some months away (in the Autumn).

    They may pressure oil customers to reduce purchases of Iranian oil, using a quota system like last time – gradually taking oil off the market, and possibly raising the price of oil in 2019, other things equal. The losers will be mainly oil importing countries – including the EU.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greasy William
    Trump will never attack Iran. But I certainly blew a lot of credibility on the nuke deal which I promised Trump would never leave.

    I'm not disappointed in Trump who we've always known was a loose cannon and a shallow thinker. I'm disappointed in myself for believing what I wanted to believe in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I am now basically just a Jewish version of Elijah Magnier.

    ...

    which leads to an important question: If you score of triumph but in doing so become the very thing you were fighting against, have you really won anything at all?

    I say "yes". A win is a win.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  250. @Felix Keverich
    https://twitter.com/Joyce_Karam/status/994632002400866304

    Netanyahoo was Putin's guest of honor at the Victory parade!
    He was wearing St. George's ribbon!!
    He was marching in the Immortal Regiment!!!

    Interesting video. Do we know what piece of hardware took down the Pantsir system?

    That does not bode well for the alleged superiority of Russian AA/AD systems.

    A quarter of century ago while doing my military service in an anti-tank unit of the French military, I several times felt how our lives would be at the mercy of a minor technical advantage of our opponents, in the case of a real conflict, and that one’s chances of staying alive would be to stay clear of the most technologically-advanced assets — as opposed to close or inside them, because they would most likely be the prime targets of the technologically superior adversary. And that was even before the advent of fully-integrated systems.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Bound to lose some.

    https://twitter.com/WaelAlRussi/status/994534377219678208
    , @Dmitry

    That does not bode well for the alleged superiority of Russian AA/AD systems.

     

    Not necessarily. Because the air-defense network is more than an addition of its parts.

    When a particular system is used by a country with a lower GDP per capita than Sudan, and with a lower average IQ than Nigeria - it is not a fair comparison of its abilities integrated inside the air-defense network of the military country that built it.

    , @Felix Keverich

    Interesting video. Do we know what piece of hardware took down the Pantsir system?

    That does not bode well for the alleged superiority of Russian AA/AD systems.
     
    You see, that's the advantage of fighting a war of conquest against the Ukraine as opposed to "fighting terrorists" in Syria. There is absolutely no way Ukrainians could take down a Pansir system. Israelis, on the other hand, have all the best American stuff, and their high IQ soldiers know how to make the best use of it.

    God, how did the Kremlin get into this?! They deserved to be inside that machine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  251. LondonBob says:
    @French Basque
    Interesting video. Do we know what piece of hardware took down the Pantsir system?

    That does not bode well for the alleged superiority of Russian AA/AD systems.

    A quarter of century ago while doing my military service in an anti-tank unit of the French military, I several times felt how our lives would be at the mercy of a minor technical advantage of our opponents, in the case of a real conflict, and that one's chances of staying alive would be to stay clear of the most technologically-advanced assets -- as opposed to close or inside them, because they would most likely be the prime targets of the technologically superior adversary. And that was even before the advent of fully-integrated systems.

    Bound to lose some.

    Read More
    • Replies: @French Basque
    Thank you for the additional details. Ah! The eternal problem of running out of stones/arrows/bullets/missiles!

    By the way please note the order in which my nationalities are ordered. Clearly, one has precedence over the other -- this is by design ("grande patrie/petite patrie" in the federalist tradition of Charles Maurras). One does not exclude the other. I do speak both languages (in addition to my broken English -- please excuse it).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  252. LondonBob says:
    @Felix Keverich
    https://twitter.com/Joyce_Karam/status/994632002400866304

    Netanyahoo was Putin's guest of honor at the Victory parade!
    He was wearing St. George's ribbon!!
    He was marching in the Immortal Regiment!!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  253. @LondonBob
    Bound to lose some.

    https://twitter.com/WaelAlRussi/status/994534377219678208

    Thank you for the additional details. Ah! The eternal problem of running out of stones/arrows/bullets/missiles!

    By the way please note the order in which my nationalities are ordered. Clearly, one has precedence over the other — this is by design (“grande patrie/petite patrie” in the federalist tradition of Charles Maurras). One does not exclude the other. I do speak both languages (in addition to my broken English — please excuse it).

    Read More
    • Replies: @for-the-record
    please note the order in which my nationalities are ordered

    Vincent Lizarazu?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  254. @Dmitry
    It does look like is it. A question is is this destroyed equipment a paid for system (as in received money in the bank, by Syria through using aid from Iran?), or was it given for free?

    Of course it was given for free! It costs $15 million a piece, it’s not like Syria could pay for it.

    My question is what was the point of hosting Netanyahoo in Moscow, and treating him as a guest of honor?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry

    Of course it was given for free! It costs $15 million a piece, it’s not like Syria could pay for it.
     
    Do you have a source? Hopefully this is not true.

    Because with the purchase of the S-300 complexes, I have read discussions that Syria planned to pay for it (through Iranian funding). And other discussions about whether it will be given for free or not.*

    *(Total cost of the S-300 transfer is described as $900 million).

    My question is what was the point of hosting Netanyahoo in Moscow, and treating him as a guest of honor?

     

    Netanyahu was discussing his plans for this airstrike. He didn't come because of a ceremony.

    In the same afternoon (yesterday) he said that Putin would not probably limit them.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-israel-russia/russia-unlikely-to-limit-israeli-actions-in-syria-netanyahu-idUSKBN1IA2UA

    And airstrikes started 20 minutes after Netanyahu's plane landed in Israel from the airport.

    The question is what is Putin's rationales.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  255. Dmitry says:
    @French Basque
    Interesting video. Do we know what piece of hardware took down the Pantsir system?

    That does not bode well for the alleged superiority of Russian AA/AD systems.

    A quarter of century ago while doing my military service in an anti-tank unit of the French military, I several times felt how our lives would be at the mercy of a minor technical advantage of our opponents, in the case of a real conflict, and that one's chances of staying alive would be to stay clear of the most technologically-advanced assets -- as opposed to close or inside them, because they would most likely be the prime targets of the technologically superior adversary. And that was even before the advent of fully-integrated systems.

    That does not bode well for the alleged superiority of Russian AA/AD systems.

    Not necessarily. Because the air-defense network is more than an addition of its parts.

    When a particular system is used by a country with a lower GDP per capita than Sudan, and with a lower average IQ than Nigeria – it is not a fair comparison of its abilities integrated inside the air-defense network of the military country that built it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @French Basque
    I certainly do not disagree with you.

    However I want to bring some nuance regarding IQ and weapons systems: the company in which I did the initial part of my military service (what I think would be called "bootcamp" in the Anglo world) comprised only 23-24 year-olds just out of the university/college like me at the time (because as students we could get a deferment from age 20 to age 24 and even 27 for medical students). The NCOs commanding us during that phase certainly had lower IQs than most if not all of us. And yet, they never ceased to be appalled -- sometimes amused -- by the sheer incompetence demonstrated by many amongst us, at performing the simplest non-intellectual tasks. For example, lighting a fire in the forest with wet wood under the rain, a task that a career sergeant could complete in a matter of a few minutes, whereas us graduate engineers/lawyers/architects etc. were totally incapable of doing in several hours.

    If a real war had been in the cards I would have felt much safer with any of these working-class type career NCOs than with my fellow graduate soldiers...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  256. Dmitry says:
    @Felix Keverich
    Of course it was given for free! It costs $15 million a piece, it's not like Syria could pay for it.

    My question is what was the point of hosting Netanyahoo in Moscow, and treating him as a guest of honor?

    Of course it was given for free! It costs $15 million a piece, it’s not like Syria could pay for it.

    Do you have a source? Hopefully this is not true.

    Because with the purchase of the S-300 complexes, I have read discussions that Syria planned to pay for it (through Iranian funding). And other discussions about whether it will be given for free or not.*

    *(Total cost of the S-300 transfer is described as $900 million).

    My question is what was the point of hosting Netanyahoo in Moscow, and treating him as a guest of honor?

    Netanyahu was discussing his plans for this airstrike. He didn’t come because of a ceremony.

    In the same afternoon (yesterday) he said that Putin would not probably limit them.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-israel-russia/russia-unlikely-to-limit-israeli-actions-in-syria-netanyahu-idUSKBN1IA2UA

    And airstrikes started 20 minutes after Netanyahu’s plane landed in Israel from the airport.

    The question is what is Putin’s rationales.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    To gain some legitimacy by standing next to an actual international statestman? Whatever it was, it had nothing to do with protecting Russian investments in Syria.
    , @Druid

    And airstrikes started 20 minutes after Netanyahu’s plane landed in Israel from the airport.

    The question is what is Putin’s rationales.
     
    He's using Israel to cut Iran's influence in Syria down to size. Russia and Iran are allies (by definition, of convenience), not friends. There are plenty of background differences between Russia and Iran, including on territorial issues, with Iran probably harboring a mess of resentments re the excision of the Caucasian parts of the Persian empire by Russia, with pieces currently in Russia itself, and other parts (like Armenia and Azerbaijan) currently independent of Iran. According to Lieberman, Iran has spent $13b in Syria, an amount that should buy Teheran an outsized role in Syria. By vaporizing a good number of Iranian installations, Israel has just increased Russia's influence in Syria. Once the danger to Assad is mostly gone, I suspect Putin would be thrilled to see every last Iranian or Iranian-paid mercenary in Syria killed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  257. @French Basque
    Interesting video. Do we know what piece of hardware took down the Pantsir system?

    That does not bode well for the alleged superiority of Russian AA/AD systems.

    A quarter of century ago while doing my military service in an anti-tank unit of the French military, I several times felt how our lives would be at the mercy of a minor technical advantage of our opponents, in the case of a real conflict, and that one's chances of staying alive would be to stay clear of the most technologically-advanced assets -- as opposed to close or inside them, because they would most likely be the prime targets of the technologically superior adversary. And that was even before the advent of fully-integrated systems.

    Interesting video. Do we know what piece of hardware took down the Pantsir system?

    That does not bode well for the alleged superiority of Russian AA/AD systems.

    You see, that’s the advantage of fighting a war of conquest against the Ukraine as opposed to “fighting terrorists” in Syria. There is absolutely no way Ukrainians could take down a Pansir system. Israelis, on the other hand, have all the best American stuff, and their high IQ soldiers know how to make the best use of it.

    God, how did the Kremlin get into this?! They deserved to be inside that machine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    There is absolutely no way Ukrainians could take down a Pansir system.
     
    I would probably have agreed with this, until you wrote it - given your track record about anything to do with Ukraine.

    Remind us again about how Azov are all western Ukrainians :-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  258. @Dmitry

    That does not bode well for the alleged superiority of Russian AA/AD systems.

     

    Not necessarily. Because the air-defense network is more than an addition of its parts.

    When a particular system is used by a country with a lower GDP per capita than Sudan, and with a lower average IQ than Nigeria - it is not a fair comparison of its abilities integrated inside the air-defense network of the military country that built it.

    I certainly do not disagree with you.

    However I want to bring some nuance regarding IQ and weapons systems: the company in which I did the initial part of my military service (what I think would be called “bootcamp” in the Anglo world) comprised only 23-24 year-olds just out of the university/college like me at the time (because as students we could get a deferment from age 20 to age 24 and even 27 for medical students). The NCOs commanding us during that phase certainly had lower IQs than most if not all of us. And yet, they never ceased to be appalled — sometimes amused — by the sheer incompetence demonstrated by many amongst us, at performing the simplest non-intellectual tasks. For example, lighting a fire in the forest with wet wood under the rain, a task that a career sergeant could complete in a matter of a few minutes, whereas us graduate engineers/lawyers/architects etc. were totally incapable of doing in several hours.

    If a real war had been in the cards I would have felt much safer with any of these working-class type career NCOs than with my fellow graduate soldiers…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  259. @Dmitry

    Of course it was given for free! It costs $15 million a piece, it’s not like Syria could pay for it.
     
    Do you have a source? Hopefully this is not true.

    Because with the purchase of the S-300 complexes, I have read discussions that Syria planned to pay for it (through Iranian funding). And other discussions about whether it will be given for free or not.*

    *(Total cost of the S-300 transfer is described as $900 million).

    My question is what was the point of hosting Netanyahoo in Moscow, and treating him as a guest of honor?

     

    Netanyahu was discussing his plans for this airstrike. He didn't come because of a ceremony.

    In the same afternoon (yesterday) he said that Putin would not probably limit them.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-israel-russia/russia-unlikely-to-limit-israeli-actions-in-syria-netanyahu-idUSKBN1IA2UA

    And airstrikes started 20 minutes after Netanyahu's plane landed in Israel from the airport.

    The question is what is Putin's rationales.

    To gain some legitimacy by standing next to an actual international statestman? Whatever it was, it had nothing to do with protecting Russian investments in Syria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    I wrote a few weeks ago that it could be partly the situation where if Assad is failing, then strong Iran in Syria is desirable from the Kremlin perspective. But if Assad is secure, then strong Iran in Syria becomes not so desirable.

    There is best case scenario for Syria (Assad survives) and a worse case Syria (Assad does not survive), from Kremlin perspective.

    In a situation where the best case scenario is achieved, then strong Iran in Syria is probably less desirable, as it reduces the final prize (power/influence over Syria). However, strong Iran in Syria also reduces the probability of the worst case Syria (Assad does not survive).

    At the same time, Israel destroying expensive equipment and weakening image of power projection is a negative. So the Kremlin view is confused of how to react.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  260. AP says:
    @Felix Keverich

    Interesting video. Do we know what piece of hardware took down the Pantsir system?

    That does not bode well for the alleged superiority of Russian AA/AD systems.
     
    You see, that's the advantage of fighting a war of conquest against the Ukraine as opposed to "fighting terrorists" in Syria. There is absolutely no way Ukrainians could take down a Pansir system. Israelis, on the other hand, have all the best American stuff, and their high IQ soldiers know how to make the best use of it.

    God, how did the Kremlin get into this?! They deserved to be inside that machine.

    There is absolutely no way Ukrainians could take down a Pansir system.

    I would probably have agreed with this, until you wrote it – given your track record about anything to do with Ukraine.

    Remind us again about how Azov are all western Ukrainians :-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich

    your track record
     
    I have a consistent track record of triggering you with my posts about the Ukraine, but no record of being wrong ;)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  261. @Dmitry
    At least this year, I don't think Trump will attack Iran. They will start with America unilaterally imposing their economic sanctions on Iran, although it is some months away (in the Autumn).

    They may pressure oil customers to reduce purchases of Iranian oil, using a quota system like last time - gradually taking oil off the market, and possibly raising the price of oil in 2019, other things equal. The losers will be mainly oil importing countries - including the EU.

    Trump will never attack Iran. But I certainly blew a lot of credibility on the nuke deal which I promised Trump would never leave.

    I’m not disappointed in Trump who we’ve always known was a loose cannon and a shallow thinker. I’m disappointed in myself for believing what I wanted to believe in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I am now basically just a Jewish version of Elijah Magnier.

    which leads to an important question: If you score of triumph but in doing so become the very thing you were fighting against, have you really won anything at all?

    I say “yes”. A win is a win.

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

    Syrians are perfectly capable of protecting themselves, have the tools to do it. Russians don’t want Syria falling in to the Israeli trap of escalating when Syrian only gets stronger as time goes by. Israelis obviously trying to provoke conflict.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    The Syrian "tools" are generously supplied by Russia. Israeli tools - by the USA.

    The difference of course is that Russia doesn't print the world's reserve currency. Should this evolve into a war of attrition between Israel and Syria, we cannot hope to win.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  263. @AP

    There is absolutely no way Ukrainians could take down a Pansir system.
     
    I would probably have agreed with this, until you wrote it - given your track record about anything to do with Ukraine.

    Remind us again about how Azov are all western Ukrainians :-)

    your track record

    I have a consistent track record of triggering you with my posts about the Ukraine, but no record of being wrong ;)

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    I have a consistent track record of triggering you with my posts about the Ukraine, but no record of being wrong
     
    Almost everything you've ever written about Ukraine has been wrong. One of many examples -

    You wrote:

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/military-spending-in-2017/#comment-2316166

    "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"

    Reality, lol:

    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).

    :::::::::::::

    You ran away to your safe space last time you were debunked on this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  264. @LondonBob
    Syrians are perfectly capable of protecting themselves, have the tools to do it. Russians don't want Syria falling in to the Israeli trap of escalating when Syrian only gets stronger as time goes by. Israelis obviously trying to provoke conflict.

    The Syrian “tools” are generously supplied by Russia. Israeli tools – by the USA.

    The difference of course is that Russia doesn’t print the world’s reserve currency. Should this evolve into a war of attrition between Israel and Syria, we cannot hope to win.

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

    We build alliances – they build empires. That’s the difference between Americans and Russians. And that’s why Russia is bigger than the next two biggest countries combined.
     
    Have you ever heard of something called 'the Mexican-American war'?

    Have you ever heard of something called ‘the Mexican-American war’?

    The cretin you are replying to must have thought the Panama Canal wasn’t man-made but natural due to plate tectonics…and the administration for it was because Americans “build alliances”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  266. LH says:
    @anon
    "Russia was slated to be on the winning side of World War I. The Bolsheviks, and especially Lenin, need to take the credit from grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory. Conversely, Germany’s defeat would have been all the more comprehensive, making its future resurgence – with pro-Russian kingdoms installed in Bohemia and Poland – all the more improbable."

    So absurd in these prognoses that it is difficult to know where to begin the challenge. Does the author really believe that Russia could achieve such extensive territorial gains? Install a Romanov as King of Bohemia? No matter the content of the secret treaties with the British and French, they obviously made absurd promises to get allies. Such promises became unreachable in the course of the war. How many Russians would need to die so some Romanov could reign over the Josefs Schweiks? Why should Russian peasants sacrifice their lives for this? Did the Czechs want to have a Russian sovereign rather than an Austrian? Such imperialist daydreams were rendered unfeasible by the prolongation of the war, and were incompatible with the Allied propaganda that presented the war as a "struggle for the freedom of the peoples." The Romanovs themselves became victims of anti-imperialist and anti-German allied propaganda, which led the Russians to treat Czarina Alessandra as a German spy. The entry of the United States into the war, based on the Wilsonian idea of ​​'self-determination of peoples', meant the end of many imperialist fantasies, and led the Russian generals to depose the Tsar because Woodrow Wilson did not extend his hands of purebred WASP to a 'Asian despot'.
    It must be understood that World War I was a monumental stupidity that was absolutely bad for all the countries that participated in it, except to a lesser degree for the United States, which only entered into the struggle in 1917, and had the advantage of having a between them and Europe. With the revolution of February / March of 1917, the imperial projects finished definitively delegitimized. The New Statestman reproduced an article published by The Nation in 1917, which clearly shows the liberal left's view of war and its unfolding:
    https://www.newstatesman.com/1917/2017/03/1917-revolution-archive-russias-new-holy-alliance
    By the way, around 1917, all armies seemed to be quite exhausted, and there was evidence of widespread dissatisfaction everywhere, even in the United Kingdom. It was the entry of the United States into the war that saved the Allied cause and the Western rulers. But the Americans obviously could not afford to dump huge numbers of soldiers on the Russian front to save Kerensky.

    Install a Romanov as King of Bohemia?

    This was seriously considered as an option by some Czech political parties, up to 1917. Notably the National Social Party, whose leader offered to turn the party into spying organisation for Russia before the war (this was politely refused), or the big Russophile Karel Kramář.

    Obviously, they looked for a constitutional head of state, not an autocrat.

    Did the Czechs want to have a Russian sovereign rather than an Austrian?

    This is pure guess, but they probably wouldn’t mind. Head of state isn’t dictator, and if the other options are Germanic prince or republican experiment, then it doesn’t look that bad.

    Interestingly, the pro-Austrian side wasn’t just the usual mix of reactionaries (catholic parties, big landowners), but also social-democrats, who saw Austria-Hungary as convenient vehicle for revolutionary changes, and petty nationalism as obstacle to this dream.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  267. @Gerard2

    go west and you find plenty
     
    ...the west...the least populated, poorest and most stupid part of Ukraine you dimwit. Ukrainian isn't a language, it's a dialect you idiot. Even the non-modernculture or non-tech-words that Russians now anglicize stupidly......Ukrainians follow identically

    people denying its existence
     

    25-30% of it are gifts from Lenin and Stalin, Kiev is the most Russian city of all, the fact that a country of "Ukraine" never, ever existed, the fact that it's only Bandera-Shukhevich-Nazi animal-rapist scum who escaped like cowards in the 40's and the 50's courtesy of UK and US intelligence who fund and promote that "Ukrainian" myth , otherwise the whole country would be at least 92% pro-Russian.

    Ukraine is an artificial country that never existed and doesn't exist because it cant govern itself...and it has an illegal government

    25-30% of it are gifts from Lenin and Stalin, Kiev is the most Russian city of all, the fact that a country of “Ukraine” never, ever existed, the fact that it’s only Bandera-Shukhevich-Nazi animal-rapist scum who escaped like cowards in the 40′s and the 50′s

    Forgot to take meds, eh ….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gerard2
    It's not as if most of the people around the world believe in "Ukrainian" as a culture and so on.....or can even locate it on the map you cretin
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  268. @German_reader
    It was clearly a war of aggression by the US though which was deliberately engineered by president Polk. Even at the time many (e.g. Henry Clay, Ulysses S. Grant) regarded it as a dubious or downright immoral venture.

    And lets not forget Hawaii. China should list Hawaii as a separate territory for their airlines. I honestly don’t understand people who go on about how US isn’t an empire and forms alliances instead. Apparently they don’t grasp the fact that the USG’s idea of alliance is the US doing whatever it wants while telling their “allies” to go fuck themselves and toe the line. France and Germany have businesses in Iran? Too bad. Unfortunately Europe will probably cave.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  269. @songbird

    Do you not get Mr. Karlin’s point? We Americans bled the least and reaped the greatest rewards from World War II.
     
    By preference, I will take the rewards of the Japanese. Hiroshima looks pretty nice now, compared to Detroit. Of course, we used to say that Japanese and Germans were lucky to have lost, but Germany certainly was not lucky.

    Not that Detroit isn’t complete shit, but I highly doubt Japan’s reward is all that great. Spandrell is basically right about Japan. The whole place is in a death spiral and in reality it is a USG puppet. Japan is completely non-competitive in the long run. Japan’s true interests lie in sticking with other East Asian countries, China and South Korea. Unfortunately, it just so happens that South Korea and Japan are both USG vassals. I think the reason Shinzo Abe constantly LARPs about the return of the Imperial Japanese Empire is because in reality he knows he’s USG’s little bitch and he LARPs to make himself feel better.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  270. Regarding WWII, I’ve long since come to the conclusion that in the case of Germany & Japan, it was some sort of cognitive dissonance for their behavior. Of course, resentment from WWI, anti-whatever ideology, weird ideas about life & everything…. but any analysis shows that it was a big historical blunder.

    I may disagree with historian Hanson on many points re modern history, but his points are, in my opinion, irrefutable:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  271. Druid says:
    @Dmitry

    Of course it was given for free! It costs $15 million a piece, it’s not like Syria could pay for it.
     
    Do you have a source? Hopefully this is not true.

    Because with the purchase of the S-300 complexes, I have read discussions that Syria planned to pay for it (through Iranian funding). And other discussions about whether it will be given for free or not.*

    *(Total cost of the S-300 transfer is described as $900 million).

    My question is what was the point of hosting Netanyahoo in Moscow, and treating him as a guest of honor?

     

    Netanyahu was discussing his plans for this airstrike. He didn't come because of a ceremony.

    In the same afternoon (yesterday) he said that Putin would not probably limit them.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-israel-russia/russia-unlikely-to-limit-israeli-actions-in-syria-netanyahu-idUSKBN1IA2UA

    And airstrikes started 20 minutes after Netanyahu's plane landed in Israel from the airport.

    The question is what is Putin's rationales.

    And airstrikes started 20 minutes after Netanyahu’s plane landed in Israel from the airport.

    The question is what is Putin’s rationales.

    He’s using Israel to cut Iran’s influence in Syria down to size. Russia and Iran are allies (by definition, of convenience), not friends. There are plenty of background differences between Russia and Iran, including on territorial issues, with Iran probably harboring a mess of resentments re the excision of the Caucasian parts of the Persian empire by Russia, with pieces currently in Russia itself, and other parts (like Armenia and Azerbaijan) currently independent of Iran. According to Lieberman, Iran has spent $13b in Syria, an amount that should buy Teheran an outsized role in Syria. By vaporizing a good number of Iranian installations, Israel has just increased Russia’s influence in Syria. Once the danger to Assad is mostly gone, I suspect Putin would be thrilled to see every last Iranian or Iranian-paid mercenary in Syria killed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    You're surely partly correct.

    Although as mentioned by Felix, it is the questionable if this expensive weapons platform was given, not sold, to Syria - it is a loss of expensive equipment.

    And in addition, there is a loss of the image of power projection.
    , @Felix Keverich
    That doesn't really make sense, not when the US refuses to recongnise Assad as the legitimate ruler, and continues to illegally occupy 30% of the country. The mercenaries we should be looking to kill are the American ones.

    My plan would be to arm Iran and its proxies, so they would stage deadly attacks against Americans, forcing US to withdraw from Syria, similar to what happened in Iraq. IMO it's a much better plan than becoming Netanyahoo's patsy.
    , @iffen
    I suspect Putin would be thrilled to see every last Iranian or Iranian-paid mercenary in Syria killed.

    Since Smoothie is not here to enlighten us dummies, we'll have to figure it out for ourselves.

    I suspect Assad received the systems from Russia with the understanding that they will only be used to protect Assad. Further, I assume that since they are no longer needed, Assad would like for the Israelis to destroy the Iranians forces and proxies currently in Syria. The engaged defense systems were probably commanded by rogues (or perhaps manned by Iranians) who are failing to keep in line with Assad's wishes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  272. iffen says:
    @Talha

    Iran is fighting back!
     
    They can't do much - they only have a small expeditionary force in Syria with only the air cover that Russia feels like providing. They'll bide their time until it makes sense to do something (if anything). At the end of the day, Israel has deemed it very important to control any threats to itself across the border in Syria. Though I don't agree with them violating Syrian airspace, they have a serious dog in the fight. From Iran's perspective; Syria is good to have as an ally in the region so they will help the regime stay alive - however, that doesn't necessarily mean it is worth it for them to have a military satellite presence in the area unless it helps in achieving the first goal.

    I wish the Arabs had the same sense of honor
     
    They should outsource their defense to the Turks. Let the Turks have command & control and run it with sizeable Turkish garrisons backed by local forces that pulled from soldiers that can make the cut, not village conscripts. Yeah it's neo-Ottomanism, but current state of affairs sure isn't working. Turks will do a better job and it'll be cheaper.

    Then they might even get pseudo-NATO protection.

    Second; plenty of the Arab elites would love to pal around with the Israelis, it's the Arab street that keeps them from doing so. Don't expect anything from the Arab nations until their leadership reflects more of what the street sentiment is. The elite know that any war with the Israelis means a possible decapitation of their government. Furthermore, even if they are able to start winning, Israel will simply deploy nukes over multiple major Arab cities; it'll be the worst victory in history.

    This is one of those fights that is won over centuries. And the win is not necessarily through any battle.

    it effects my peace plan
     
    LOOOOL! That made my day!

    Peace.

    however, that doesn’t necessarily mean it is worth it for them to have a military satellite presence in the area

    We can count on Talha to remain partisan with regards to Islam, but to also look at the “big picture” in an even handed manner. I like it. I want to be this way when I grow up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Thanks. There is the way one would like the world to be and a way that it realistically functions. Let's turn the situation around. Say that the Kurdistan area gains a high level of autonomy and develops ties with Israel (including some defense cooperation) - this is not altogether fantastical based on how the Kurds have worked with Israel before. Israel then sends over certain operatives and electronics countermeasures/eavesdropping crews into Kurdish territory to mind Iran from across the border.

    Tehran is not going to like that and will eliminate the threat with extreme prejudice and with serious force because that is a challenge to the Iranian state and security. They would attack Israeli presence from across the border and actually have the means to do so.

    The Israelis - if they couldn't get Sam to to fight for them - would have to determine whether it is worth escalating to full-fledged war to simply have a more convenient spy presence in the area. My guess is that it wouldn't be worth it.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  273. Mr. XYZ says:

    : I largely agree with what you and Anatoly Karlin wrote about an alternate World War I which breaks out in 1925.

    That said, though, out of curiosity–do you think that, if Russia and/or France ever got desperate in an alternate World War I, they’d try launching unrestricted submarine warfare against Britain (assuming that Britain would fight on the Central Powers side in this alternate World War I, that is) in an attempt to strangle Britain and thus cause Britain to withdraw from this war and to make peace? Basically, I am curious about this considering that, if Fr