Ukraine and Russia may go to war

[Gelion]

That is an interesting chart, but it doesn't explain either why the population peaked in 1990 or why all have been declining since then. This paper has lots of good info about why your graphs look they way they do. It is older data (2009) but the trends are well explained: emigration, low fertility; aging population. The short paper has a very nice set of charts at the end.
https://iussp2009.princeton.edu/papers/91919

The article is not very good (I'm sure you noticed), but the graphs look interesting. 1990's were the biggest hit on the Middle class in the world until the COVID pandemic and also resulted in a fall of fertility from which few nations so far have recovered. I was happy to see a reversal in CZE and POL, but overall the Baltic states are not doing as great. They have gone from being the best SSRs (along with Georgia) to not quite so fortunate in the EU. Therefore I thought that Zardnaar's idea that Russians should consider the Baltic states as a bright example of a "good life" does not quite stand. Sure some people will, but they'd also consider Moscow, St. Petersburg and other places as much of a "good life".

In case of Georgia you may have point - they tried to use their potential NATO membership for 'offensive' purposes, Estonia clearly not.

Thats how they were tricked into doing it. "America is with us" logic. And they were used.
I didn't only mean Georgia, I meant existing NATO members. Some of them.

Georgians have always been tricky bstds, they're an ancient people they pre-date the Russian nation state by centuries - wasn't Stalin from there also ?

Georgians for the most part are lovely people, hospitable and educated. But also tough.

 

[Snowygerry]

You should be really concerned by the threat from Germany then.

We are always concerned by the potential threat from Germany - but for the moment they have no army to speak of, so that's good

 

[Gelion]

We are always concerned by the potential threat from Germany - but for the moment they have no army to speak of, so that's good

Yeah, but comparatively neither do you, so .... You should probably still be afraid under that logic.

I rather think that the Russians expect the talks to fail.

They will then use that to annex the Russian speaking parts of Ukraine.

Only question is whether they try to snatch a land corridor to the Crimea too.

"Expect" and "want" are different words. Russia could have done what you described in 2014. With great ease. Great ease. I don't know what will happen now, but NATO's relocation of forces is seen as a real and existential threat. Not without reason.

..
...with Croatia, Slovenia and Montenegro sitting right there at the table.

https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-russia-in-a-standoff-after-talks-in-brussels/

Yes, the Croats that mostly got away with genocide, Slovenians that mostly escaped it and Montenegrins that are a result of a separatist movement inspired by those wars. They are the sides that "won" those wars and joined NATO as a result of those wars. Whats so funny about it?

 

[Snowygerry]

Last time they gathered 6 million German soldiers on our border - now that what I call a credible military threat,

we still told them stuff it - won the war too, despite an initial set back

It is not the first battle that counts - it is the last, and that was in Berlin, not here.

 

[Gelion]

Last time they gathered 6 million German soldiers on our border - now that what I call a credible military threat, we still told them stuff it - won the war too, despite an initial set back
It is not the first battle that counts - it is the last, and that was in Berlin, not here.

Hmm... when were 6 million Germans gathered against Belgium? Or at your borders? I'm genuinely curious.

 

[red_elk]

Last time they gathered 6 million German soldiers on our border - now that what I call a credible military threat,

Quite impressive. They invaded USSR in 1941 with 3.8 million troops only. They must really respect your military potential.

 

[Gelion]

As they previously did in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Romania etc. - all nations that since then have "fallen" to NATO.

Is propping up "crap leaders" as it was nicely put a crime? Do you condemn it universally or when "Russia does it"? Also besides the idiot Chaushescu that tried to repay all debt to the West what "crap leaders" were propped up in Romania? Lets start with that.

 

[Samson]

Is propping up "crap leaders" as it was nicely put a crime? Do you condemn it universally or when "Russia does it"? Also besides the idiot Chaushescu that tried to repay all debt to the West what "crap leaders" were propped up in Romania? Lets start with that.

You do not think Ceaușescu with his orphanages is enough for one country?

 

[Gelion]

You do not think Ceaușescu with his orphanages is enough for one country?

From your article:
"The conditions in orphanages had declined after 1982, as a result of Ceauşescu's decision to seize much of the country's economic output in order to repay its foreign debt."
As I said in my previous post. Ceauşescu's crime was the decision to repay its debt to the West. Would you put these conditions in the orphanages (as horrible as they were) on par with what was going on in Canada with native's children (recent story)?

 

[EnglishEdward]

They could have done that 2014. They decided against it then so I imagine it is still a bad idea

"Expect" and "want" are different words. Russia could have done what you described in 2014. With great ease. Great ease. I don't know what will happen now, but NATO's relocation of forces is seen as a real and existential threat. Not without reason.

Yes, but back then Russia was still hoping to re-establish its influence over the whole of Ukraine,
and annexation of the Russian speaking areas would have torpedoed that.

Russia may have realised that is no longer possible, and therefore may be more willing to settle for a lesser objective.

Of course this is merely my logical conjecture that may have little to do with people's thinking.

 

[Samson]

From your article:
"The conditions in orphanages had declined after 1982, as a result of Ceauşescu's decision to seize much of the country's economic output in order to repay its foreign debt."
As I said in my previous post. Ceauşescu's crime was the decision to repay its debt to the West. Would you put these conditions in the orphanages (as horrible as they were) on par with what was going on in Canada with native's children (recent story)?

I am not going to accept that a country that can field a modern military cannot afford to feed its orphans, whatever they are doing on the forex markets, though I understand rules for rulers are different from those of the rest of us. But fair enough, if you want to consider it all one "crime" then that does not actually change the moral position.

This is certainly comparable to the the Canadian (and Irish, and I bet loads of other places with less investigation) children's homes. It does seem that the Romanian decision making was much closer to the top of the government, and in Canada and Ireland was more intentional myopia, but that hardly excuses it.

 

[Gelion]

Yes, but back then Russia was still hoping to re-establish its influence over the whole of Ukraine,
and annexation of the Russian speaking areas would have torpedoed that.

Nobody ever talked about the "whole of Ukraine", maybe except in the West. Even in 2014 Western newspapers published "annexation maps" that included only Eastern and Southern Ukraine and not the rest. In Russia the Western Ukraine is considered as very alien anyway.

Russia may have realised that is no longer possible, and therefore may be more willing to settle for a lesser objective.
Of course this is merely my logical conjecture that may have little to do with people's thinking.

From what I know your scale is a little off.

 

[Verbose]

There are people who are willing to solve the crisis through diplomacy and search for compromise. And there are hard-liners who believe Russia is a threat which must be contained, if necessary pressurized into submission. Since the latter cannot be reasoned with, it's ok if they believe Russians are insane maniacs which can start war at any time. It will help to bring them to the negotiation table.

Thinking those are completely different people is a liability for Russia.

Since Russia is as clear as mud about its own motivations anyone dealing with it has to keep both possibilities in mind.

It's just that Russia would like one one set of ideas about it to count, and would like to be able to just sideline the rest. Probably not going to happen precisely because of that.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Re-establishment of influence is not the same as annexation.

 

[Gelion]

I am not going to accept that a country that can field a modern military cannot afford to feed its orphans, whatever they are doing on the forex markets, though I understand rules for rulers are different from those of the rest of us. But fair enough, if you want to consider it all one "crime" then that does not actually change the moral position.

Yeah its a nice video, and, yes, not being able to feed its orphans is kinda inhumane.

This is certainly comparable to the the Canadian (and Irish, and I bet loads of other places with less investigation) children's homes. It does seem that the Romanian decision making was much closer to the top of the government, and in Canada and Ireland was more intentional myopia, but that hardly excuses it.

Good, thats my view as well. So when are we going to condemn, lets say, the US or UK for "propping us crappy leadership" in Canada or Ireland? On the same moral ground?

Re-establishment of influence is not the same as annexation.

I see your point and I'd agree (me culpa, I misread). Current realities as such that neither is no longer possible.

 

[Verbose]

Nobody ever talked about the "whole of Ukraine", maybe except in the West. Even in 2014 Western newspapers published "annexation maps" that included only Eastern and Southern Ukraine and not the rest. In Russia the Western Ukraine is considered as very alien anyway.

It doesn't really matter if it's "all" or "some". The problem is the same re what Russia might have in store for Ukraine. ("All" is just unrealistic, since Russia doesn't quite have the treasure and manpower to end up as an occupation power on that scale – which is what "western" media tends to point out btw.)

But Russia also shouldn't count its chickens before they are in the coop – and this Russian tendency of chicken-counting some parts of Ukraine already... is kind of telling.

 

[red_elk]

Since Russia is as clear as mud about its own motivations anyone dealing with it has to keep both possibilities in mind.

What's unclear about it?
According to your posts here, Russia's goals and motivations are very clear - make as much trouble as possible, invade and annex everything it can.

 

[civac]

I don't understand. You are the accusing Russia of intending to occupy parts of Ukraine. But then you say Russia is counting Ukraine-chickens when they maintain they do not want any (more) of them?

 

[Verbose]

You should be really concerned by the threat from Germany then.

You mean the current Germany that is highly undecided on whether it really wants a military at all, but since it has one it is unclear about what that military should do and how, including whether Germany wants it to be able to actually fight. ("Innere Führung" as a principle might look good on paper, but if you want corps that can and will go to war you need different things – whether it is how the Russians do it, how the British do it, or someone else – but Germany really isn't doing it.)

Again, if Russians paid less attention to themselves and more to the world outside, this might all work rather better.

 

[Verbose]

What's unclear about it?
According to your posts here, Russia's goals and motivations are very clear - make as much trouble as possible, invade and annex everything it can.

That's just your take-away.