So full mobilization is coming. This insanity is about to reach another level. I bet these guys will be sent to front lines without proper winter equipment (because it was stolen by corrupt officials). The autumn will come and they will freeze in some woods fighting for nothing to death. As a dad I would do everything to keep my kids alive.
Technically, may be not yet. I work with a developer from Ukraine whose parents are not that old. His father cannot come visit him because he is not 60 yet. But he hasn't been drafted either.
In all fairness, the Russian people had
* a chance to stop the KGB in 2000, possibly in 2004
* at least fifteen years to get another passport in a great environment before 2014
* an opportunity to oppose the war in 2014 when that didn't mean getting fired and likely jailed
* another 5 years under more challenging but still workable circumstances to run away
* half of 2022 for really desperate actions
At this point those still in the country have nobody else to blame for their situation unfortunately.
The scale of the tragedy for the Eastern Slavs is reaching truly historical proportions. The 21st century was not supposed to be like that and I don't really want to know what's next.
Hardest country to emigrate to in Europe is most probably Switzerland (barring maybe some tiny 'states' with obscure rules). There you can apply for citizenship after 10 years of continuous habitation (which means work at least majority of the time), and you need to pass some pretty basic language and overall knowledge test.
I know quite a few Russians here, who wanted to get passport has it, its just about strong enough will and consistency. But that's something very few have, ie consistently take language courses for a year or two, learn culture, history, actually integrate into local society and not just stick around the people from same speaking country all the time.
If you have no good expertise, work hard on getting one, god damn there are countless programmes in both EU and Switzerland to become an expert in something basically for free. It may not be a CEO position but it will be a well paid honest job. Sorry but every single time I've met people complaining about this, they really, really slacked on above and just kept dreaming about superb chances for free, which obviously never came.
This may not be true about other continents, no experience there. But commenter you respond to is 100% correct for Europe.
I have passed every language and history test, my income is significantly above average for the country. But the fine print of the immigration system is what fucked me up.
For example in UK your passport application will be rejected if you were not in the country 5 years ago from the exact date the application is recieved by the Home Office. You could pay all fees, taxes, pass all tests, live in country for 20 years, but if you left for one day on Sept 1 2015 and post delivered your application on Sept 1 2020, your application will be denied.
If you spend 4.9 years on a dependand visa, but then your partner gets a permanent residency, you have to switch to a family visa, and your period of 5 years starts all over again.
Student visas don't count to the 5 year period, being outside the country for too long resets the period, for example if you had to help out aging parent after surgery.
The rules change all the time and there isn't an 'immigrant newletter - what will fuck you up at the next step'. Its usually when you try and apply for the next step, you find out you've wasted 5 years.
Also the amount of money I've spent on various immigration and lawyer fees is probably about 40 grand.
There was some bad luck and one poor decisions made, but the bottomn line is, it's easy to fall through the cracks and end up with nothing no matter how resourcefull you are.
The edge cases of immigration/naturalisation rules seem to suck everywhere.
I'm extremely privileged that my experience with naturalisation in Sweden was very smooth. At the same time I lived 5 years with some anxiety due to numerous cases of mishaps with immigration processes from personal contacts.
It includes high-skilled immigrants being deported due to a past employer not paying worker insurance, something that as a worker you're never aware of in your payslip, contract, etc. Includes couples being separated for years, waits of weeks to months for getting a permission to leave the country to care for ill relatives without affecting their process. All of it just for the sake of applying rules, not empowering immigration case agents to take decisions pending further reviews, or a justice system that is rigid on the application of rules (as was the case of the missing worker insurance, which affected a few other people).
Living with those reports from others close to me always kept me on the edge of what could happen to me, and this is a great country as an immigrant, including in terms of bureaucracy.
I can't imagine other places with much more confusing and contradictory immigration systems...
> For example in UK your passport application will be rejected if you were not in the country 5 years ago from the exact date the application is recieved by the Home Office. You could pay all fees, taxes, pass all tests, live in country for 20 years, but if you left for one day on Sept 1 2015 and post delivered your application on Sept 1 2020, your application will be denied.
UK rules often seem arbitrary or deliberately trying to trap people.
> The rules change all the time and there isn't an 'immigrant newletter - what will fuck you up at the next step'.
That surprises me: I would imagine there are online forums, maybe a subreddit, for such a purpose.
> * a chance to stop the KGB in 2000, possibly in 2004
Given how much of a shitshow shock-therapy economics were in the 90s, I think the results of those elections were completely expected.
People have spilled a lot of ink in 2016 about how MAGA rode a wave of people being disillusioned by the status quo - well, imagine that, but ten times worse, and you'll get a picture of Russia in the 90s. It leaned westwards, got burnt hard, was ready for a change, any change, and look, here comes a Russia-first strongman to make the country 'great' 'again'.
It had as much of a chance to stop Putin in 2000 and 2004 as Kentucky has to not re-elect Mitch McConnel.
> * a chance to stop the KGB in 2000, possibly in 2004
IIRC, Russia was a different kind of trainwreck in 2000, so it's not really fair to fault them for not proactively dealing with $CURRENT_THING, when it could have only been distant speculation.
As a dad that is the responsible thing to do. To make matters worse, the new recruits will get mediocre training compared to their Ukrainian counterpart.
Russian has been having logistic problems to supply their troop of 200K men. I was wondering how they could supply a fully mobilized troop. 200K at a time?
Task and Purpose has some discussion by a former USMC Lt Colonel who now works for the RAND corporation as an analyst.[1]
“It won’t be pretty, it won’t be efficient, but they’re going to be able to find the people. I think the more relevant issue is: How capable and ready are they going to be — not very. How much training are they willing to give them before they send them out to the front lines. Right now, the indications are — the way they’ve pumped units into Ukraine — is not a lot and certainly not enough.”
This is a classic Russian style of warfare. Throw conscripts into battle. The survivors will become good soldiers or die.
Usually countries do this when they're being invaded, desperate, and fighting on their own territory with the support of the locals. It's rare to see it for a country that's the attacker and is operating in hostile territory. That takes a lot more training, organization, and support.
This can go on for a long time. Russia does not have enough power to conquer Ukraine, and Ukraine does not have enough power to conquer Russia. But they can fight for years.
To call what is happening now the classic Russian style of warfare is a flanderization of Soviet Second World War tactics. The Soviets were indeed attacking en masse, but they were not voluntarily sending people to a meat grinder with no hope of success. They instead were using their sheer numbers to annihilate the ability of the enemy to mount a defence. The fact that the Soviets are renown for not retreating was also due to their enemy losing the initiative.
> the rest of line the you quote from is important.
I understand their argument, but I dispute it. The way things are going, the war is not going to last for years. Russia's military is collapsing. They have low morale, little training, bad leadership, little to no will to fight, deprecated weapons, no strategy, no allies. Ukraine's military has great motivation and morale, phenomenal public image, good training (and getting better every day), good troop rotation, great intelligence, numerous allies. And now they have the silver bullet too, in the from of HIMARS.
We are not watching a slog. We are watching a lopsided fight.
If Russia throws badly trained, led, equipped and supplied troops into battle, their losses are likely to be horrendous and their morale rock bottom. They would be far better served by a smaller number of well trained troops; but that would take too much time.
> If Russia throws badly trained, led, equipped and supplied troops into battle, their losses are likely to be horrendous and their morale rock bottom.
Russia's strategy seems taken straight out of Zapp Brannigan's Art of War, where they are banking on Ukraine's arms supplies to eventually run out after spending them all wiping out wave after wave of Russia's "badly trained, led, equipped and supplied troops" until there's no resistance left.
Starting from day 1, Russia has been sending unwitting and unequiped conscripts through the Ukraine frontlines until they draw contact.
Russian actually had a problem with too much hardware and not enough people (let's overlook for a moment that most of that hardware is soviet-era, badly maintained, incomplete and low quality).
Why do you think so much hardware was captured by Ukrainians? Because there just wasn't enough people to drive it all back when they retreated.
Russian tactics suffers because they are sending tanks without infantry. The tanks are meant to support troops to achieve results, not be standalone solution.
Now, the reason I think the mobilisation will not help is actually different. I think somebody summed it up pretty well: "$50M piece of artillery driven by an 18yo". There is already not enough experienced soldiers and now they will be diluted with even more that have no idea what they are doing.
It will also put a clock on whatever Putin is trying to do. Now that this is done, he will absolutely have to show results or public opinion will start deteriorating very quickly.
> Russian actually had a problem with too much hardware and not enough people (let's overlook for a moment that most of that hardware is soviet-era, badly maintained, incomplete and low quality).
That's not exactly true. Russia has problems supplying themselves, but thanks to the astronomical casualty rate they've progressively getting fewer bodies on the few gear they have.
Their units are chronically underequiped to the point whole units barely have boots or bullet proof vests to equip their grunts.
Russia has been rushing their ancient 50 year old tanks to the front lines even without maintenance or any type of update.
Russia is now in such a state of despair that Russia, once one of the world's to arms exporter, are resorting to buying gear from Iran, of all places.
> Russia is now in such a state of despair that Russia, once one of the world's to arms exporter, are resorting to buying gear from Iran, of all places.
IIRC, Iran has a pretty impressive domestic arms industry. The thing they should probably be more embarrassed about is buying arms from North Korea.
> Why do you think so much hardware was captured by Ukrainians? Because there just wasn't enough people to drive it all back when they retreated.
Those vehicles had crews, that's how they got to the battlefield in the first place. The vehicles are being abandoned because they don't have the fuel to make it back to friendly lines because their logistics is a joke. So crews are abandoning vehicles rather than sitting in a Javelin magnet waiting for a fuel truck that will never arrive.
In a professional army if a vehicle managed to run out of fuel or was damaged but serviceable its unit would detach some soldiers to watch over it while an engineering vehicle (an armored tow truck essentially) was dispatched to retrieve it.
If public opinion didn't deteriorate till now (since people in russia generally grok what has been actually happening, lets not dumb whole population down to brainless incompetents), official war won't make a dent big enough to concern Putin. Those willing to protest largely already left the country or are in jail/worse. You can't apply democratic thinking to place like russia, you will fail tremendously in understanding and predicting anything.
I agree with dilution of skills, with modern equipment number of troops alone mean almost nothing, high motivation and morale can be easily 10x multiplier etc...
But equipment left in Ukraine - that's often part of that low morale. There are countless videos of russian soldiers ignoring their fellow soldiers lying on the ground bleeding and concerning about themselves only. Whole tank crew coming to police station to 'ask for direction', effectively giving up. Imagine US soldiers doing that anywhere... That's something that won't get fixed in 10 years even if they started in right direction now, and they aren't and won't.
These are fragilities of dictatorships, where ass kissing and corruption trumps competence every time. This is one of the cores of what russia is as a state now. I say good for us, since they will never reach even fraction of potential their numbers and equipment gives them.
> people in russia generally grok what has been actually happening, lets not dumb whole population down to brainless incompetents
There is a difference between understanding what is happening and caring about it.
I believe Russians do understand what is happening, for the most part. But I believe most Russians just don't care enough to do something about it. That might change when their sons, fathers, husbands are on the hook to go to a bloody war.
It is kinda like eating meat. You know it comes from an animal that most likely had to live in poor conditions and then be killed. Most people do understand that this is what is happening, and yet they do not act on it because it is easier to not do anything.
> That's something that won't get fixed in 10 years even if they started in right direction now, and they aren't and won't.
I agree. The Russian regime is based on corruption and cynicism. This breeds an attitude of everyone for himself. It is not fertile soil to grow a competent army in.
> These are fragilities of dictatorships, where ass kissing and corruption trumps competence every time.
There have been plenty of autocracies that have had good armies. E.g. Alexander, the Roman Empire, the Rashidun Caliphate, Nazi Germany.
> There is already not enough experienced soldiers and now they will be diluted with even more that have no idea what they are doing.
Just as a caveat, note that the provisions of the current partial mobilization explicitly exclude students and conscripts and is for 300K “reservists who have previously served in the Russian army and have combat experience or specialised military skills”. So, I don’t think the mental image of fresh recruits who have no idea what they are doing is necessarily accurate.
> Why do you think so much hardware was captured by Ukrainians? Because there just wasn't enough people to drive it all back when they retreated.
Yeah, I read somewhere that their units are so undermanned that they've been sending APCs into action with just the drivers, which apparently is both ineffective and also makes them really vulnerable to the kinds of anti-tank missiles that Ukraine has been getting by the truckload.
> Because there just wasn't enough people to drive it all back when they retreated.
Also Russian soldiers didn't care whether it was captured or not. They just care about saving their own lives. This does not make for an effective army, but it's all Russia can do.
As a parent and someone who have acquaintances in China, I am encouraging many of my Chinese friends to get their kids out of the country right now, and not wait for Xi Jing Ping to declare himself emperor in October and preparing for war against Taiwan in the next 5 years. So their kids aren't ship fodders when China mobilize their citizens to get on ships that will be sank quickly and swiftly by US, Japanese and NATO navies.
That said, there's already a huge migration for many Chinese citizens, especially those from Shanghai, to Singapore and Malaysia this year, since now it's super hard to emigrate to US or Australia or Canada. The rich do see the writing on the wall. or rather, the many buses to the covid concentration camps.
Here is a timeline of the US pundit factoid that China plans to invade Taiwan by 2027 https://nitter.it/MikeBlack114/status/1571401031539367939#m The Chinese government hates free Taiwan and may invade but its a good idea to be suspicious of US government claims about the intentions of their enemy of the week.
> The Chinese government hates free Taiwan and may invade but its a good idea to be suspicious of US government claims about the intentions of their enemy of the week.
Wait, why does the Chinese government hate a free Taiwan ? US gov was pretty on point with the Russian invasion of Ukraine
Shouldn’t we be suspicious about a government that “hates” a free neighbor ?
International politics are not about good guys and bad guys. The US government hates the Iranian and Cuban governments, not because they are worse than US allies like Saudi Arabia, but because they once humiliated the USA. Until 24 February 2022
Germany got along well with Russia, not because they had the same type of government, but because each had something the other needed.
Assuming "why does the Chinese government hate a free Taiwan?" is a real question, because Taiwan is where the survivors of the Chinese Nationalist government went after they lost the civil war with the Communists (and Communists and Nationalists kept kidnapping and murdering each other after that date), and because Chinese Communist Party ideology emphasizes unifying all Chinese.
See also the CCP's crackdown on democracy in Hong Kong. Hong Kong was another place where Chinese people lived with independent courts, a free press, and multiple parties and the CCP was not satisfied.
> Chinese Communist Party ideology emphasizes unifying all Chinese.
Interestingly, CCP wanted to help Taiwan, Mongolia, Korea and many other provinces to independent.
It is KMT (nationalist government) who advocate unifying all Chinese.
I guess the nationalist government won the propaganda war, now CCP go KMT's way.
Pretty sure that the CCP policy that there is one China including Taiwan goes back to the 1950s. Its ugly and complicated history but Taiwanese people today can look at what is happening to the Uighurs and see very good reasons not to be conquered by China.
Fair enough! The history between the KMT and the CCP in the 1940s and 1950s was really ugly and complicated, but it has lead to this situation where Beijing may try to conquer Taipei and hundreds of millions of people may suffer.
Taiwan is the Republic of China government that flee the mainland after they lost to the Chinese Communist Party during the civil war, so of course the CCP want to eradicate them once and for all.
Yeah, the only NATO navy worth talking about is the USN, with the Royal Navy and the Marine Nationale following distantly behind.
The Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force is much more impressive than the Brits and the French though. (And Japan has major strategic reasons to keep the Chinese on the far side of the Taiwan Strait, most relevant being that that's the easiest place to stop an island hopping campaign towards the home islands)
Agreed on the US Navy, the French and Italians are right up there with the UK so. The former has a full nuclear triad, a nuclear carrier, nuclear subs. The latter has two active aircraft carriers.
Sure, might be challenging to project that power to the straight of Taiwan, but by no means impossible as part of a coalition force. And especially the French have some vested interesst in the Pacific with their overseas territories.
I did mention the French - they're the "Marine Nationale" in question!
I'm not sure the Italian carriers are relevant for operations in Southeast Asia. Maybe once they get F35Bs, but their Harriers would not fare well against much of anything, and that's assuming they have the ability to operate at such a distance from the Mediterranean in the first place. (Incidentally, what most of the world calls a carrier is not what the USN calls a carrier. STOVL carriers are not really in the same class as CATOBAR carriers!)
The region around Taiwan has the benefit of mutiple, unsinkable, carriers, namely Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. Not sure how far Italy deployed its carriers, that being said the above mentioned countries offers quite a few sophisticated naval bases as well. At the very least Harriers are still good enough for escort duty, if shit hits the fan someone needs to keep shipping lines open. A carrier is great for that, Harriers are great for that.
True so that US carriers, and vessels like the De Gaulle and the British carrier (Elizabeth-class if memory serves well) are different beast than the Italian ones. And the US has quite a few of those.
In the event of a China v. NATO war, I imagine most non-US navies would be involved in preventing merchant ships from trading between China and the rest of the world, and in preventing China from similarly interdicting NATO use of the seas.
China will be hindered by not having any real allies, other than short term allies of convenience (Iran, Eritrea, for example).
True in detail, but were they wrong in essence? Does not most of the planet non-trivially value TSMC? I don't mean most people, but most decision-makers. Perhaps I project.
For the same reason that China did not need conscription when it fought the Korean war. It will have no problem recruiting enough volunteers, just like the US had no problem recruiting enough volunteers post-Vietnam.
And because any conflict its likely to fight will not be one across a two-thousand kilometer front that physically requires millions of people sitting in trenches. It's not 1943 or 1917 anymore.
There are more people between the ages of 15 and 35 in China than there are people alive in the United States.
There are more 20 year-olds in China than there are men in Taiwan.
You don't need conscription to fight a naval war when you have almost a billion and a half people. Your demographics support finding enough volunteers.
Also, the one-child policy put China's fertility rate at 1.70 children per woman. You know what the US fertility rate is?
if they follow the Russian law they can opt for civillian 2 years service for minimum pay without weapons, so it's your option - better paid meatgrinder and crappy safe work, there is also option to get jailed up to 10 years if the prison will last that long
'Opt out' is not as easy as you make it sound, this is based on a particular military commissioner discretion and they are heavily incentivized not to allow it. There is an option to sue, if you have proper connections, enough money etc. etc.
The less Russia has to lose the more I'm concerned about a potential nuclear war. Western Europe should start to negotiate as soon as possible and give Russia some space. The tail risk is simply too great.
Negotiate what? Giving up part of Ukraine? Well in 3-4 years same situation will be in Baltic states. And maybe not so easily winnable, since even russian army learn from their failures to some extent. Give up Poland, Slovakia, hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and so on?
You are talking about mobster who understands only strength and rule of stronger, any concept of morality, fairness, rule of law etc. is meaningless. At this point, he considers large parts or whole Europe should be under his dictatorship, and so does parts of middle east. Well we Europeans say NO (and much more). Waving nuclear threat won't change our stance since what goes around comes around, if he goes in others go in and all was for much less than nothing. Fighting for greater Russia will lose any meaning since there won't be any to talk about anymore.
Russia has so much more to lose, it hasn't even begun losing properly.
There's a very practical reason for the "do not negotiate with terrorists" mantra. Not because it's good or noble, but because negotiating simply kills much more people in the long run, probably orders of magnitude more.
The west did exactly what you said the last two times Russia took a bite out of Ukraine, and now we're in this mess, with millions involved and nuclear war on the table. I fear to think where we'd be with another round or two of passing the buck.
> Western Europe should start to negotiate as soon as possible and give Russia some space
Every time you give in to Russian threats and aggression, you get more Russian threats and aggression.
The West should tell Russia, firmly and directly, that any use of nukes by Russia will result in the same on Russia, and advise the Russian armed forces not to obey any order that would amount to national suicide.
Why would we do that, exactly? Western Europe lived through the constant threatbof a nuclear war all the way to the end of the 80s, so that is nothing new. Also, MAD applies, there are two Western European countries with a full nuclear triad.
If the nuclear weapons come out, the US would at least seriously consider retaliatory strikes as well. If NATO countries are attacked, the US is treaty-bound to fight alongside them, too.
Indeed. And prevailing winds on the European continent blow into Russia from the west.
Beyond the reality of instant and powerful retalation, dropping nuclear weapons on Berlin or Kyiv or Warsaw is a tad suicidal from that POV alone.
And even the use of a small scale "tactical" nuke inside Ukrainian territory would essentially force NATO into committing its own forces inside Ukraine. It would be too far beyond the pale.
I don't think Putin will take this gamble. The whole world would lose, but Russia would lose even more.
Back the day, before the Urkaine invasion, I thought of Putin as a pu0et player and calculated risk taker, but one that knew his limits and had a keen risk calculation. The he non-surprise invaded Ukraine and botched it horribly. Seems somewhere during Covid he got on the crazy train to his own universe of madness...
I totally think Putin is insane enough by now to order a tactical nuclear strike. I also think, for now, the Russian military will act by then and "remove" him from power. Or not, because who knows how those things play out in real life.
I think the kleptocracy in Russia feels cornered and vulnerable. They are entirely dependent on a) the subservience of their own population and on b) high energy prices. Too many times in the last 10 years they have felt the squeeze on both. And so they're lashing out with a brutal mixture of old-style colonial imperialism and jingoistic nationalism -- "why should you get an empire if we don't?"
Hence Lavrov constantly crowing about the hypocrisy of "the west." It's not that they think what the US empire has done is immoral. It's that they (and by they I don't mean the Russian people, but instead a select cadre at the top) want the same thing for themselves.
The irony is there was no singular unified west until Russia invaded Ukraine. Out of that conflict, they have inadvertently forged a much more united western opposition to them.
I hated the whole concept of NATO until Russia invaded Ukraine.
So yes, I agree, think Putin overplayed his hand in a clumsy way. But he may have had no other choice.
> Hence Lavrov constantly crowing about the hypocrisy of "the west." It's not that they think what the US empire has done is immoral. It's that they (and by they I don't mean the Russian people, but instead a select cadre at the top) want the same thing for themselves.
Yes. What Lavrov doesn't understand is that the West isn't an empire, it's a series of states with similar cultures and political and economic systems, that voluntarily choose to work together. But Russia doesn't seem to realise that there are other ways of getting people to do what you want than brutality and threats.
Please watch Sergey Lavrov's Address to the UN General Assembly [1]
> What Lavrov doesn't understand is that the West isn't an empire series of states with similar cultures and political and economic systems, that voluntarily choose to work together. But Russia doesn't seem to realise that there are other ways of getting people to do what you want than brutality and threats.
> brutality and threats
Brutality and threats is what U.S. sanctions and U.S. national security strategy are.
(As the father of a teenage boy, this is the first thing that popped into my head) Any family with the ability to send their teenage boys abroad to live with extended family/friends is going to do so, ASAP. Russia's already terrible demographics are going to get worse. A lot worse.
How long before they start selling territory to China?
Yeah. My family and I are in Canada today precisely for that reason - we never knew when a random truck would pick my tall 15-16 year old self from the street and send me to dig trenches (different war, 25 years ago, and yet with eerie similarities)
And THAT is the main reason there were so many young men among the refugees from Arab countries, they didn't want to fight for what ever side shanghaied them first.
it's descriptive, carries a lot of connotation, none of which actually involves the city or the people of shanghai, I don't get why anyone has beef with it.
> It's literally the opposite of descriptive. Obviously it's not a big deal, but it's an easy thing to fix.
Did you know all words are just sounds with an arbitrary connection to what they describe (except the unusual case of onomatopoeia, of course)?
It's exactly as descriptive as most other words, and the benefit over a neologism is the arbitrary connection has already been established in speakers' minds.
Both "impressment" and "conscription" are more accurate and actually descriptive. (Though one form, "impressed", can be vague due its homonym.)
(Since I'm getting downvoted anyway - anyone avoiding the overwhelmingly more common near-synonym, "drafted", is doing so because they don't like to remember that the US can still do it, too.)
I personally feel that conscription/drafting carries a different connotation than impressment/shanghai'ing, but maybe that's just due to the historical context in which they were used.
The former I expect to be a highly managed process through which the state renders you unable to seek employment, housing, education, free movement etc, in order to coerce or capture you violating the law, encouraging you to present yourself willingly rather than dealing with criminal charges in addition to or instead of conscription.
The latter, my expectation is that mercenary recruiters, driven by sales team esque metrics, eventually resort to pulling random young men off the street, out of bars, etc, based on a best guess of the young man's age. It's far more chaotic, error prone, and disruptive to family life, while being less coersive.
It's not at all descriptive, it's purely allusive. You could learn everything there is to learn about the actual city and not have a clue what it meant.
> You could learn everything there is to learn about the actual city and not have a clue what it meant.
I don't think that's what "descriptive" means. The term is as descriptive as much as "laconic" or "china" or "japan" (meaning varnish) - in each case, you can't independently derive the word's meaning from the original place name.
> It was suspected that he had been drugged and carried off, or, as it is vulgarly called, “Shanghaied,” on the ship Oliver Jordan, which sailed yesterday.
Maybe in 1857, "vulgar" had a different meaning. Compared to "vulgar Latin", describing a latin 'dialect' spoken by the masses (in contrast to Cicero's Latin) even after dissolution of the roman empire, reaching its pinnacle in the arguable descendent 'roman' languages (French etc.).
Your language policing demands are alien to me. I am pretty much aware of the history of the term but disagree.
I remember the rampant public discussion in Germany about properly naming the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, denouncing prior examples to name new diseases by their (perceived) country of origin (compared to Syphilis, which was named by the Germans as "French disease", and by the French as "Neapolitan disease" etc.).
Telling people how to talk is just wrong in my opinion.
> Telling people how to talk is just wrong in my opinion.
I don't think it's necessarily wrong, my issue with it is that the policing comes usually with snark. As if only total disgust to a term and a middling aggressive tone will help.
I only got to learn how some terms can be harmful through empathy, and try to apply that when trying to make a point about why I think using term such-and-such wrong. Even then I still reject when someone approaches someone's perceived non-politically correct speech with snark, we should save that for egregious instances of it, not for small slights...
At least in the US, the COVID naming thing was most definitely a political issue. Trump called it the "CHINA-virus" not as a neutral country-of-origin differentiator, but specifically to lay blame on China and to deflect responsibility inside the US for dealing with the disease. I think it was more than appropriate to push back on that term, which was promoted only to redirect outrage away from the Administration.
> Telling people how to talk is just wrong in my opinion
Everyone has their line, though. Not knowing anything about you, I will wager there is some language you were maybe OK with 20 years ago, which you're not cool with today?
because it has nothing to do with present day China for at least last few decades, you are MUCH more likely to get drugged and robbed in Manila for instance
I had to look it up because this is first time I heard this nonsense term, so it's not like it's commonly used
And everyone* is likewise free to complain about inconsequential choices of verbiage while men are being drafted against their will and forced to invade their neighbours.
*everyone but those poor souls being drafted or invaded...
The expression "to shanghai someone" doesn't just derive from the city name -- it is the city name. And the term originated at a time when respect by the West for Chinese people was not at a historical high point.
This doesn't seem like a great idea, if you only have Russian citizenship. You may be forced to go back to Russia at any point due to immigration issues, and once you do, you will be arrested for avoiding mandatory service/draft (if one comes...if one doesn't come, then you didn't need to flee)
My understanding is that there are countries bordering Russia (Georgia, Azerbaijan for ex) that have fairly open immigration processes for Russian ex-pats, and very extensive Russian language communities.
And the reach of Russian authorities is unlikely to extend into Georgia at least.
> You may be forced to go back to Russia at any point due to immigration issues
you could have money, skills and eligibility to be in EU country, but if your one and only Russian passport has expired you can't extend the visa, the embassy won't extend
and you will be sent back.
Perhaps countries should not have gutted their refugee programs over the past decade. Those seem like they would be preferable to having to deport someone so they can be forced to try to kill you.
But they are telling that to everyone. I'm not making a joke. Even back in April a Russian State Duma member made a radio poll if they should nuke Baku. That was after the first skirmishes between Azerbaijan and Armenia back then, or it may have been March. I don't remember how many but the number of people who asks for their neighbor's capital to be nuked was at least a third of the callers.
So threatening to nuke somebody is completely routine for Russian government and as it seems for not insignificant parts of the angry population too.
I have to add that "Delyagin’s comments were swiftly condemned by senior Russian officials" - but as I said, making the threats itself is routine even for people in government positions.
At this point it's become rather meaningless to take too much notice of such frequent occurrences. Even Putin cannot help himself alluding to nukes, so it's not like you could point to certain people in particular that would be more worth listening to.
In the end, does it matter? If it was possible that threatening nukes gets you whatever you want - and what Russia wants right now is really big and bad - then they could just go and do whatever afterwards. I think the only logical conclusion is that one has to ignore the threats and act as if it's only used as political and propaganda weapon. The possibility that someone will do much more has always been there, but never has it made the West back down in whatever fight it came up in, despite repeated close calls. Right now the losses of giving in would be much higher and longer lasting than in many of the previous instances. I doubt even the Cuban missile crisis was as big a deal as giving Ukraine to Russia would be. Ukraine has industry and resources in large amounts, and people, and it would be a huge boost to Russia's strength to control it all. Whether they can after hat they did is another question, but lets not underestimate the power of a brutal police state. At the very least they will spread tons and tons of misery, more and much longer than they already do, and they will have significantly more control over Europe.
If Fox news helds a viewer call-in poll on whether or not we should glass Iran, they could probably get at least a 30% positive response rate.
It would tell me a lot about how successful pro-war propaganda is among it's viewership, but very little about what is likely to be done by the department of state.
Which is precisely why it is extremely perilous for Russia to use nukes in Ukraine.
If Russia breaks the nuclear taboo, all other countries can retaliate nuclearly against Russia. At that point China invading Russia becomes an advantageous action for China.
I think just yesterday they passed legislation that would allow foreigners to sign contracts for 1 year of military service in exchange for citizenship eligibility.
Really scary to imagine what that must be like. My heart goes out to those Russian citizens.
EDIT: In case it's not obvious, I'm referring to people who do not support invading another country and murdering innocent people, but are being drafted to do so anyways.
“Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.”
Please don’t get triggered by OP. He/she obviously means the ones that don’t support the war, have 0 influence about what the government does, and will be forced to go and die in a foreign country.
Having empathy for the Russians citizens that are going to die fighting a war they don’t support is not mutually exclusive to having sympathy for the Ukrainians.
Russians supported the war when it was a largely professional army doing the invading. Support for war is typically thought to decline when your own family members get dragged into it and injured. Drafts have never been popular politically.
I think the only thing we can conclude from that is that they're not willing to risk their own lives for it. It says nothing about their overall sentiment about the invasion itself.
It could go to the end only by two things:
* With lots of corpses from one side. Bodies have penetrated with ATACMS Missile
* 21th Gorbachyov (less probability, those who in charge are scarred as hell)
No other options. The mental settings about society in Russia
Sure, just stop showing compassion for the average Russian families worried about their sons because their authoritarian leader started a war he cannot win with an army that is at least allowed to tale out their frustration on civilians.
Average citizens and grunts on different sides of a war have more in common with each other then they have with their respective leadership.
That begs the question of who is and who isn't responsible for their state's actions. The US killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians in a completely pointless war in 2003. Despite having started the war, the American people reelected their war criminal president in 2004. Are those who voted for George Bush without blame? What about Israelis who for decades have supported parties that prolong the illegal occupation of Palestine? Or Turks, who elected and Islamist fascist as president? If Ukraine wins the war and demands reparations from Russia for all damage it caused, who should pay it? Average Russian families?
Some are brainwashed. Some are fully on board, without any need for brainwashing.
Most are on the path of least resistance, not asking many questions as long as life is ~comfortable, or at least not getting dramatically worse. They kind of like the strongman. And there is always alcohol/drugs.
Added: In general I agree with varjag's assessment. The average Russian family supports Putin.
Summed up nicely. But now they will get some sobering up.
I have little faith that Russian society is going to come out of this war any better. It's a cultural thing. Germany had to be razed to the ground by am external force and millions of Germans had to be killed for the society to ditch militarism. And Russia has nukes.
Yeah exactly. You're the only one inmune to propaganda, it's everyone else who is brainwashed. It obviously couldn't happen to you since you're smart, and "normal Russian people" aren't.
I guess the question comes down to who is responsible for one's own sanity. The individual, the community, or the state? Anyways, I would argue that attributing Putin's popularity to brainwashing is not that solid of a theory. Perhaps Putin is popular because Russians want a strong leader in the wake of previous leader who were seen as weak.
We can't know without better introspection and data to ground the discussion.
There have been plenty of protests across Russia since this announcement, as well as since the invasion of Ukraine began in earnest earlier this year. It is also illegal to speak out against the war in Russia, so that statistic is likely specious at best.
Given that, are you arguing that you are holding every Russian citizen accountable for the sins of the ruling class? Do you believe in nuance?
Well over 70% of the population supports the invasion.
And the time to protest was over the last 20 years. It wasn't always impossible, it just became gradually more difficult over the years. But few people cared, because it was more convenient to live in a Powerful Empire.
I don’t believe that’s what he said. He basically just pointed out that we should be careful not to speak of the Russian people as if they’re all innocent prisoners of this evil regime. It’s not a very accurate representation either.
I’m quoting him: “we are talking about the nation that invaded another country, targeting civilians, raping and murdering”. Did Putin himself do all of this? No, it was a significant part of the Russian people that did. An even larger portion of the Russian people supported these crimes. They (the people referred to here) are not innocent.
Edit: Just as a disclaimer, I do question the 70% stat. I don’t know where that comes from or if such a number can even be reliably acquired given the censorship that’s going on in Russia.
> Just as a disclaimer, I do question the 70% stat. I don’t know where that comes from or if such a number can even be reliably acquired given the censorship that’s going on in Russia.
"Among television viewers—mostly people over 60—more than 80% support the war. Among 18- to 24-year-olds, who get their news from the internet, it is less than half."
I mean, the whole reason they're there is because of him.
>No, it was a significant part of the Russian people that did.
Not really:
>Prewar intelligence analyses said Russia had deployed around a total of 170,000 troops to the regions near Ukraine’s borders in the run-up to the invasion.[1]
>The current population of the Russian Federation is 146,072,977 as of Wednesday, September 21, 2022, based on Worldometer elaboration of the latest United Nations data.[2]
Less than 1% of Russian citizens were at Ukraine's border in February. Now we're hearing of a need for an additional 300,000 for a total of 470,000, or still less than 1% of Russian citizens. I find it incredibly difficult to call that a "significant part of the Russian people".
>An even larger portion of the Russian people supported these crimes.
Again, it is illegal to speak out against this invasion, and the nation has been under incredibly increasing levels of oppression for decades. While I don't doubt that a portion of Russian citizens supports it, I can't take those polls at face value.
You’re making some good points. But I think the main argument still stands, that we should be careful not to view the Russian people as being all victims.
I concede to what you’re saying about the censorship. However, do note that this can act as an argument for his point as well.
>But I think the main argument still stands, that we should be careful not to view the Russian people as being all victims.
This is a fair point. I didn't intend to paint all Russian citizens so broadly, and I could've done more to drive that point home than the single sentence at the end of my last post.
>However, do note that this can act as an argument for his point as well.
>If Donald Trump becomes US president again, then, unless we take action (dissolve the union?) then we'll all be complicit, even those that voted against.
You and I seem to share similar political views in that area, but this is fundamentally untrue.
>If I stand by in my liberal enclave, paying big national taxes, then, I'll be individually responsible.
As a US citizen who has felt uneasy about knowing where my taxes have gone both at the state and federal levels, I fully understand that I am not to blame. Neither are you.
>Unless they're actively sabotaging they are complicit.
I get the feeling that you don't really know what it's like to live within a regime as oppressive as Russia. Neither do I, but because of that ignorance I'm not going to pretend that it's fair to hold those citizens accountable.
Who cares if they used the "correct" words? They were not joking and also not generalizing and condemning an entire segment of humanity. If you would call every German in the 40's a nazi or every Afghani in the early 2000's a terrorist, then it is you who is incorrect and untruthful.
Plenty of us do, and did during the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. That didn’t stop those invasions just like Russian citizens protesting the current war won’t stop Putin’s doubling down. To assume everyone in Russia toes the party line is unfair to them.
Assuming you weren't alive when those decisions were made or did not support them at the time, I don't see why you should. You have little control over the actions of your nation-state today, you had none when those atrocities were being committed. The vast majority of the people alive today bear no responsibility whatsoever for the events of WWII
> Putin didn't appear in vacuum. He is a product of his society. Every Russian out there is to blame for this war.
I agree with first 2 sentences but have to correct: his societies were outlaws and KGB (legal outlaws) which is far from representing the whole population.
Putin's both parents worked at a factory which means no parents most of the time, the daycare was provided by the "criminal elements" [sic] on the streets, he stated that he wanted to join KGB during childhood, he didn't pass entry exams as he entered university as a sportsman and became KGB's agent (not an employee), his job was KGB then after the fall of Berlin Wall he worked for rector of his uni for a brief time and after that for a docent who went into politics and happened to become the mayor of now St. Petersburg in 1991...
Looking at the absolute dearth of volunteers for the slaughter, the support for invasion seems to be rather lukewarm.
Also, I read that doing polls in RU is now a challenge, because only a tiny minority of respondents won't hang up immediately when asked about something sensitive. So the numbers may be total garbage.
I don't doubt that there are a lot of avid supporters, but I doubt the 70 per cent figure.
As someone else noted, that statistic may be inflated as it is illegal to speak out against the war there, but the 30% of russians are decent enough and deserve sympathy.
Also, it's fine to wish the Russian soldiers actually fighting ill but even people with bad opinions deserve life, to some degree. Making many of them fight likely to their death is horrible and you shouldn't wish it on anyone.
I know that collective gilt is en vogue right now, but that's a very narrow way to see a country which population hasn't had much of a say on public policies for centuries. The logical consequence of collective guilt is war crimes and genocides.
Not sure if you're naive or a troll, but i'll assume the better, as per site rules.
So, what makes you think that a poll in a country like Russia will get honest answers? Currently speaking out against the war there is a jailable offense.
Support for the war is at 70% - because 70% of Russians think Ukraine is mass-murdering the own citizens and Hitler has resurrected from his grave to run Ukraine himself.
I don't think that's necessarily saying that Russians in general are any more or less awful than the rest of the global population - just that their information sources are terrible.
As Ice-T remarked on gang wars... Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Average Russian is a simple guy. When he sees SS emblem who were known to kill his relatives 80 years ago, he does not give a benefit of doubt. He just recognises fascists and acts accordingly. I understand that civilised Europeans can see it as a little national colourite of a newfounded Ukrainian nation. Russians are not very inclusive in that regard.
> He just recognises fascists and acts accordingly.
So ... the average Russian is now going to kill Putin because his Wagner-buddy is a Neo-Nazi and so are (at least some of) his troops? I won't hold my breath, but good luck.
Does not look like credible proof. But Utkin does not have any kind of people's support, that's for sure. AFAIK the entire existence of Wagner army is questionable, as it was never admitted by officials. It might be another ukrainian myth.
What? Wagner PMC "might be another Ukrainian myth"?
So immediately after the 2014 invasion, they've started to create this giant myth that doesn't exist but is seen fighting wherever Russia fights, just not in Russian uniforms, complete with recruitment talks and all that? What's next, Russia doesn't even exist and is just a myth invented by the US military-industrial complex to justify defense spending?
Oh, I actually received such a call from a government-funded polling agency while still in Russia. Told them everything I think about it (which was still somewhat difficult despite the fact that the actual risks were low), but some questions were tricky to answer in such a way that actually reflects my opinion, e.g. something like "do you think our army is succeeding in defeating the nationalist batallions in Ukraine and protecting the people of Donbas?" Yes/No/Refuse_answer
> currently support for the invasion hovers around 70% on average
I've never believed this number. Yes, I have many friends who have been brainwashed by the state media and they really believe that Ukrainians had been killing Russians in Ukraine so Putin had no choice, but most realize this is plan horseshit and just want to live in peace.
> and where currently support for the invasion hovers around 70% on average
The Russian government / Putin isn't exactly known for tolerating political dissent. Is it really surprising that citizens say they support the state when asked by some random pollster, let alone someone from state-affiliated media?
"Se peut-il rien de plus plaisant qu’un homme ait droit de me tuer parce qu'il demeure au-delà de l'eau et que son prince a querelle contre le mien, quoique je n'en aie aucune avec lui?"
"Can you think of anything funnier than a man having the right to kill me because he lives on the other side of the river and his king quarrels with mine, although I don't with him?"
> I think System of a Down asked this same question: "Why don't presidents fight the war?"
This war is already lost by Russia precisely because the generals and leaders are too far from the frontline. They are using people as pawns.
The only reason this war appears so dangerous is because of nukes. This will be the first time in history that a non-American nuclear power is losing a war.
The French in Vietnam and the Algerian civil war lost as well. As did both, the UK and France along side Israel, in the Suez crisis (granted, Israel did pretty well on their part).
(Please allow this light-hearted deviation which might be considered in poor taste)
Or we could build giant dueling death robots who decide wars 1-on-1 instead of pointlessly wasting human lives like in classic Sci-Fi schlock Robot Jox [0]:
> Fifty years after a nuclear holocaust, mankind is decimated and the surviving nations—the American western-influenced Market and the Soviet-Russian-influenced Confederation—have agreed to outlaw traditional open war. In their place, disputes are settled with gladiator-style matches between giant robots operated by pilots called "robot jox" [...]
I think the point of "humanity will always have a desire and/or find reasons to want to go to war with itself, and the only way we can at least slightly stop that is because it gets too expensive" is quite poignant.
Yeah, that's why I'm not really crying for the Russian citizen right now. They had a full half year to risk jail by protesting the war, when it was "just" their country invading and murdering other people. They did it for a few weeks, then went back to their Stormbucks and McDelicious.
> Weak argument. Iraq War created massive discontent, debates were on the news every night for years.
All states, regardless of professed ideology, are only concerned with matters that affect their stability. Nobody in US power elite gave an F about people stretching for miles in DC and NYC. And many in the country were not even aware of the scale of the protests.
Look at what any state suppresses without remorse and that is where their vulnerabilities are.
In countries like Russia, China, and Iran, where the notion of a "leader" is significant in maintaining state cohesion, public displays of division undermine the psychological barriers that any person (anywhere) creates internally, in a very similar fashion to taboos. Public rebuke of leadership breaks taboos that maintain the 'magic circle' of power. It is all psychological, with local variations based on history, culture, system timeline, etc.
I took part in the protests. The bulk of the people largely accepted the arguments. The bulk of congress voted to approve the war. We didn't have to throw lots of people in jail because the protests weren't disruptive enough to matter. Everyone went back to work the next day. At work the average sentiment was that of course Hussein had WMDs and mostly neoliberal handwringing over if it was tactically wise to actually invade or not with a lot of acceptance that it was inevitable.
Yeah, blaming the population, that's totally fair.
What country are you from? Are you sure you're "free of guilt"? Why even stop at war? Do you have poverty in your country? If so, why are you happily posting in HN instead of fighting in the streets?
Mostly because I don't believe government intervention can solve poverty. If anything, governments should get out of the way and let people make money, so protesting in the streets to "do something about poverty" is actually counterproductive.
When it did any good, yes, I did my share of protesting. I even did some politics, I'm actually still a party member.
I'm from Germany. I'm pretty sure I am personally free of guilt today, but I'm convinced that most Germans during the Third Reich were not. They knew what happened and they didn't protest, they didn't act and enjoyed Hitler's social programs instead. I don't think there's much controversy around that.
Or even more cynically, if you are old and rich and run a country and theres lots of young, poor men wondering why they aren't rich then maybe sending them off to die in a pointless war has some upside for the ones who can escape service via their connections.
There was a Youtuber in ~March asking young russians in front of university (or maybe it was red square?) about support for war and russian soldiers, followed by whipping out a notebook and asking for the same in writing as he was making list of patriots. Every single person swiftly ran away. Sadly I cant find the link now.
This is why those visa restrictions for russian citizens are counterproductive. We should rather send charter flights to Russia to pick people up who are willing to leave the country (also the ukraine war is particularly unpopular among educated russians).
> This is why those visa restrictions for russian citizens are counterproductive.
There is already a wealth of reports of Russian tourists being enthusiastically militant about Russia's invasion of Ukraine to the point of assaulting people who bear any relationship with the country or show any semblance of support and even vandalizing their tourist destinations with propaganda supporting Russia's assault.
If these prospective political refugees exist, in the very least they should actually stand up against their country's murderous and self-destructive attack on Ukraine. Until then, let them reap what they sow.
> The ones that stood up are spending 15 years in a jail system known for torture and rape of men
Aren't the russian armed forces are also known for torturing and raping their own conscripts and soldiers? With reports from captured soldiers on how russian officers are systematically killing wounded soldiers?
This. Why should the West act as a safety valve for Russian dissidents? It's their society, they've made it the way it is, it's not like Putin created the modern Russian society. Putin is just an amalgam of forces.
Yeah, why would we host dissidents from countries we almost at war with? Good for all of us the UK didn' host a buch of dissidents and governments in exile during WW2... Oh, wait, they did!
Oh UK did it 80 years ago? Well then Ivan, come right in. And bring everybody who is war-averse with you, we wouldn't want any harm coming upon them, would we? Feel free to organize yourself any way you see fit and if you don't like how we made your morning toast - just cry "Russophobia".
The problem with that is that Russia is also heavily encouraging citizens to action in other countries (such as attacking humanitarian aid to Ukraine or Ukrainan refuges). Or regular spies.
> The problem with that is that Russia is also heavily encouraging citizens to action in other countries (such as attacking humanitarian aid to Ukraine or Ukrainan refuges). Or regular spies.
This.
We already have Putin's pundits demanding thins like the Russian diaspora to increase waste of gas in Germany and the like to contribute to keeping Germany dependant on Russian gas.
We have elements of the Russian diaspora organizing protests against support for Ukraine, and in support of Russia's invasion.
We have Russian tourists flashing Russia's fascist symbols and messages of support of Russia's invasion, oppression, and genocide campaign.
And now these guys are supposed to want out?
These sudden refugees are no better than those Russians who suddenly felt compelled to flee south Ukraine, specially Crimea, when Russia's war effort started to crumble.
> Yeah, I hate it too if people flee from war or use yheir right of free speech and assembly in democratic countries. How dare they!
You seem confused. Tell me which war are these invasion- and genocide-supporting russians fleeing from. Or are we supposed to believe that to Russia's fascist militants a war is only awesome if it's everyone else doing the fighting?
Didn't we talk about Russians leaving the Crimea? That would make it rather obvious which war they are fleeing from.
And yes, as long as Russians in, e.g., Germany are protesting in support of the war, and follow the rules concerning demonstrations, they should be allowed to do so.
> Didn't we talk about Russians leaving the Crimea? That would make it rather obvious which war they are fleeing from.
Russian colonists in Ukraine didn't fled war in Crimea. They started leaving occupied ukraine territories because the war they are and were supporting enthusiastically suddenly stopped going in their favour.
Russia is not doing that at all. Absolutely not. I'm a Russian in Poland, I see all the perspectives, I have never saw anything like that. No one is interested in that at all, it's not in collective subconscious, as it is for some Ukrainians, for example.
How many are you willing to accept as your roommates? I heard only nasty stories about Russian tourist, no reason to believe your average Ivan is any better.
I have a weirdly unique counter-point. Of course totally anecdotal but: I lived in a shore town for a few years that exclusively had a ton of Ukrainian/Russian workers over the summertime.
Not only were they usually quite attractive - they were also intelligent and hard working (most of the time, emphasis on MOST of the time)
You had to be careful as they would latch onto you for obvious reasons but they were honestly typically pleasant. (Green Card, etc;)
Where did you hear/read about russian horror stories?
What forbids someone doing shit not answering to you truthfully? Or not answering at all or answering wrong because they would like for you to blame wrong people?
> I heard only nasty stories about Russian tourist
Edit: and this is doesn't answer my question: did you have been able to distinguish between them? Did the people who told you nasty stories could distinguish between them? In 2022 it is much easier because they haul their flag almost everywhere, but before that?
Yeah but what's the failure mode? If only Putin supporters and people who didn't have the means to flee are left, what's the next regime going to look like?
For what it's worth, I support people dodging this and every draft.
What's left is a relatively weak resource-dependent nation whose economic fate is tied to whether they can stay in the good graces of the regional power. Same as most other places in the world.
If you are writing about educated people then you need to use your capital letters consistently and cite sources. It is just a credibility thing.
Flights could have been maintained for the last two hundred days. Russia has had no sanctions against the West and honoured contracts. It was the West that stopped the flights, denying the option for Russian people to leave.
Nobody denied anything, not sure why you do lie so obviously. Flights ie via Istanbul were fully booked since February, you have no idea how many russians spent their holidays in ie Egypt or Sicily. I've been to both after invasion and let me tell you, sometimes I felt I am in some russian black sea resort, just russians everywhere.
They still do travel into Europe, just need to add a hop or two. Same for Switzerland, chock full of them just as before. You can spot them from mile, and their language is hard to not recognize immediately (especially since I come from former eastern bloc previously occupied by russians)
Looks like fake to me. No sources. The title says 'ordered', by article itself about 'sold out'. The sold out part is actually true and was reported by multiple sources.
I don't understand why Europe stopped all flights to and from Russia. I think they should have kept the border open for non-rich people seeking to leave the country.
Once you're served a notice to appear in mobilization center - yes, it is illegal to not comply. If you're not served one - there should be no repercussions.
However, you may be required to stay in your home town and not travel outside without permission if you are potentially subject to mobilization (which is the case for ~50% of men in Russia) - IANAL, there's different readings of the rules here.
Also, hoping that everyone who did get out (who presumably isn't that keen on murdering Ukrainians) is busy sending help to Ukraine and dedicated a significant percentage of their salary to that effect.
With all due respect, I believe that you are demonstrating a strong, fundamental misunderstanding of what life is like for a refugee, which results in your comment coming off as tone deaf.
"Refugee" is a broad category. I know a number of Russians who left their country and live very well in Western cities, with well-paying IT jobs. Some of them regularly write about the subtler aspects of newly announced Apple hardware. People like you and me.
So — tone deaf, perhaps, but only if you have a stereotypical image of a "refugee" in your mind.
Ukraine deserves all the support it can get. From NATO and othet allied / supporting nations. Private donations a drop in the bucket.
Reminder: If Afghan or other refugees from the various wars and occupations in that region of the world send money to finance resistence, we in the West have a tendency to call it funding of terrorism.
Pretty much only if they support the Taliban or ISIS though, who they're allegedly fleeing from. If someone fled from Russia because they didn't want to fight in Ukraine, but then sent money to Russia "for the war efforts", would you consider that reasonable?
Thinking, that people living in russia should bear responsibility for what russia does, is not really that
presumptuous, given what russia is doing.
Russia 101: Russia forcibly mobilizes men from occupied teritotries, most of them will die off in the spec operation, then (after war) loyal russians will be imported to that region.
> people living in russia should bear responsibility for what russia does
Ramzan Kadirov is a regional warlord in russia, known foe decades for murder and torture. Before the war he had instagram and other social media accounts. Should the Western leaders ever take responsebility for working with blooduly dictators when it suits?
As opposed to some poor John Doe in the middle of Siberia, who protested mutiple times and got nothing but a broken skull to show for it
Those who should take responsibility are the rich who also don't have to worry about being sent to war. The question is, how do we make them take responsibility?
Are you willing to take in 100M russians? Got a big back yard, with schools and hospitals to take care of them? If not, where are they to go exactly? What is it you want them to do? They live in a de-facto dictatorship. Most are normal people trying to just live a life. They have as much effect on Putin as you do (possibly less).
Does that not absolve everyone of everything but Putin himself? His generals were "just following orders", the politicians "couldn't do anything alone", the tank-engineers were "just trying to live a life", the soldiers invading Ukraine "really have no influence", so they choose to murder Ukrainians instead of turning their guns on those they allegedly have no influence over.
$higher_power willing you never end up with a choice of either obeying orders to go kill someone or having your family executed in front of you. Bottom level grunts only have this choice.
Maybe I was unclear. The comment above mine said Russian citizens should donate a significant portion of their earnings to Ukraine. That's the part I objected to.
> We haven't blocked the domains, we are asking people to move. There are plenty of other choices out there when it comes to infrastructure services so this isn't "deplatforming". I sympathize with people that are not pro regime but ultimately even those tax dollars they may generate go to the regime. We have people on the ground in Ukraine being bombarded now non stop. I cannot with good conscience continue to support the Russian regime in any way, shape or form. People that are getting angry need to point that at the cause, their own government. If more grace time is necessary for some to move, we will provide it. Free speech is one thing but this decision is more about a government that is committing war crimes against innocent people that we want nothing to do with.
Yeah I'll take all your downvotes. My family got out and I don't appreciate companies calling me a monster by accident of my birth on the wrong side of an arbitrary historical border.
>... I don't appreciate companies calling me a monster...
At no point in that quote were you called a monster, nor were you specifically blamed for anything. This sentence is key:
>I sympathize with people that are not pro regime but ultimately even those tax dollars they may generate go to the regime.
I empathize with how difficult the Namecheap issue may have been for you, but Namecheap did not call you a monster. They simply didn't want the tax dollars generated from you going to a cause they may not support, even if that was never your intention. Simple as that.
>Oh but they're not calling them monsters, they're simply calling them people who support a regime of monsters.
>Oh but they're not calling them supporters of that monstrous regime, they're calling them funders of that monstrous regime.
INADVERTENTLY. That's how taxes work. I disagree with different presidents and their policies and their actions, but I don't go to the people who oppose that president, but still pay federal taxes, and call them monsters. Hell, I've felt uncomfortable knowing that my tax money was used for things I disagreed with, but I also know that that did not make me a monster.
You are not a monster. Nobody thinks that you are. You got screwed by Namecheap, and that fucking sucks, but you are not a monster.
Tax residency. For nearly a year neither am in Russia nor use a Russian bank nor pay taxes to Russian government yet had to encounter similar attitude where I was obligated to provide a non-Russian ID in order to continue using some services.
no way for me to do this. most companies are not like this but it feels like gradual lockout and the walls are closing in. thankfully I don't have family to support, but some do
I'm really curious about learning of some countries that don't provide ID cards to residents. One of the first things my family had to do when moving to any new country was go and get some kind of identification issued.
I am unsure how your response relates to my comment because I specified residency. I'm aware countries don't often issue ID cards to tourists or other non-residents.
I specified residency in my comment, because I (mistakenly, it seems) thought your mention of not paying Russian taxes or living in Russia meant you were a resident elsewhere. I'd be curious to learn more about what country issues almost-year-long visas without involving some sort of residency status.
It seems generally reasonable that people who have not actually formally immigrated from Russia and obtained residency elsewhere are affected by sanctions on Russian citizens.
Oh yeah, this for sure depends on what you mean by "resident". Countries do issue IDs to residents on paper but alas they don't issue IDs to de-facto residents.
If I legally reside in your country for a long time, do not use Russian financial system or pay taxes to Russian government, do not plan to return to Russia, haven't had a Russian customer in my freelancing career (not working in your country, that would be illegal, but working with customers in other countries) I know I'm a Russian tourist in your eyes and the eyes of immigration officers but no matter how you spin it legally in reality I've been a resident of your country.
It's a difficult decision for them, with a lot of nuance and variables involved, so they likely opted for a path that was easier for them despite the fallout that might occur for users such as yourself. Bear in mind that I'm not defending Namecheap here, I just wanted to highlight that nobody considers you to be a monster and that I think you're being a bit too hard on yourself there. But by all means, be pissed at them for the simple fact that it happened.
I'm sorry you're experiencing this. You have every right to be fuming mad. You don't deserve to be treated any differently, and I'm really sorry that you are.
It is fake news. There’re no restrictions to buy any tickets or cross borders in Russia. However, this measure is active in Ukraine.
The Russian government keeps their borders open so dissidents can freely leave if they want. They don’t bottle them up within the country as the USSR did.
This particular article is most likely fake news based on rumors from "journalist Amir Tsarfati" because if they were to cut it off they would definitely do it at the passport control, not "Russian airlines sales". There are tons of non-Russian airlines flying out of the country, including half a dozen Turkish ones, Emirates, etc. They already flag people dodging debt and child support at passport control, they would do the same for the draft dodgers, but so far there have been no reports of that happening.
If this is true, I hope it is only posturing for international audiences, and not that they will be calling up more people to fight.
I hope Russian leadership is already seeking an exit in which they can restore productive international relations, not intending to go out in a blaze of personal infamy.
And I hope everyone else outside of there wants to see relations restored, not to cripple them, at tremendous human cost.
UPDATE The head of Russia’s tourism agency said no restrictions have been imposed on travelling abroad so far and that Aeroflot, the country’s flag-carrying airline, said it was not limiting ticket sales.
Also the OG source - guy in Israel who tries to sell his fiction books. Always check the source.
They're already at sending reservists, who get around 3 days of training. Their front-line tank crews get exactly one practice shell per crew member, each year. Putin is going to run through all their reservists, and then start sending every Russian man who can physically hold a gun into the meat grinder. It only ends when someone in his government finally takes him out, or Ukrainians march on Moscow itself. How many Putin allies can fall down stairs or have strange accidents in 2 months time?
Russia has used this tactic before with success. They used to send wave upon wave towards the Germans. Your choice was get shot by Russians or maybe get shot by Germans. Turns people choose to try and kill the Germans first.
As far as I know, they were fighting a rather well trained army which had better training and weapons than they did.
It's realistically possible that they could just win the war just by sending so many people that Ukraine runs out of people to fight back even if they were killing multiple Russians per Ukrainian that died.
It's like everyone forgot the reason Russia were feared wasn't that they were a super power, had an amazing military. It was the fact, they don't care how many Russians die to win and they are brutal.
There is one marked difference - the waves of russian peasants were armed and supplied by the industrial might of the United States of America. Now, they are armed and supplied by a nation with the industrial output smaller than most European second-tier states.
You mean continue to back them. They're currently backing them. I believe they're continued to show their support today. Seems there is something there you don't see.
China is making serious overtures about invading Tawain. It's well known they want to take Tawain "back". Letting them US and other countries waste their weapons on killing Russians is benefical to them. It also creates an overall unstable geopolitical envoirnment which they can take advantage of. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
They’ve been buying fossil fuels that they didn’t really need. And China can’t really be sanctioned. The US had a trade war with them and lost because the US needs them more than they need the US.
China gains little from rearming one of their biggest adversaries and angering their European partners.
It is much better off continuing to do what they're doing today: providing token diplomatic support to Russia in exchange for steeply discounted fossil fuels.
Russia in WW I and WW II were before the demographic transition from high fertility, high mortality to low fertility, low mortality, so the Czar or the Party could throw away the lives of millions of farmers' sons. Russia today is after the demographic transition, so there is a shortage of young people and a surplus of elders. Their fertility rate is well under replacement.
From an AP version of the story someone linked bellow:
Tickets for the Moscow-Belgrade flights operated by Air Serbia, the only European carrier besides Turkish Airlines to maintain flights to Russia despite a European Union flight embargo, sold out for the next several days. The price for flights from Moscow to Istanbul or Dubai increased within minutes before jumping again, reaching as high as 9,200 euros ($9,119) for a one-way economy class fare.
Lots of Middle Eastern airlines. Qatar Air, Emirates, Air Arabia, Azerbaijan Airlines, all have flights out of Moscow that are still bookable according to ITA.
The important thing is that foreign airlines can fly only between Russia and their country of origin. So some AirFrance can't be making flights to Turkey, for example.
It doesn’t work at all because, well, the borders are open yet and no one in Russia ordered to prohibit selling tickets to men. This is misinformation.
If Russia is going to have radically less resources, this is one way to reduce the demands of the population?
How do they simultaneously argue how awesome they are doing at war and then a draft?
There's no way anyone is convincing me nuclear isn't happening if things go even worse and maybe not even locally, he's got nothing to lose at this point, there's literally nothing the world can do about it because they aren't starting WW3
one of the way to reduce the number of soldiers Russia would be able to send, is to specifically create favorable conditions for Russian dissidents to move out of the country; not preventing them from moving abroad
That might reduce numbers, but it would also raise average willingness. Solving Russia's morale problems for them could actually be helping the invasion.
Luckily it's not up to you to decide; and as I mentionned, "dissidents" have already the right to come under Geneva conventions. I am simply proposing to strengthen this link
It doesn't need to be a full mobilisation, it doesn't take a large fraction of 300k people trying to flee the country to saturate flights that had already been greatly reduced after the various sanctions.
That’s doubtful. It seems Russia doesn’t have enough equipment to fully mobilise. Plus their economy is already not doing that well I don’t think they could afford total war at this point.
Don't worry, you're not the only one in the dark. No one knows who will be drafted, they (military) can pretty much grab whoever they want. No one even knows how many people are in "reserve": 20M, 50M? Minister of defense said they are looking to draft 300k people, but in Russia statements like that don't mean anything and the target number can change drastically at any moment for any reason.
"Mr Putin's announcement, made in an early-morning television address on Wednesday, raised fears that some men of fighting age would not be allowed to leave Russia."
EDIT: To be clear, the linked Reuters report did not say airlines had been told to stop selling tickets, just that above sentence speculating that it could happen. The Reuters report is 6 hours old at the time I am posting it here.
There is this famous tweet that I am unable to find, that essentially says:
"If you tell Ukraine to just surrender the parts Russia want, please point to the parts of your country you would surrender if one of your neighboring states attacked your country."
I think a fair number of people who live in countries divided among factional and/or ethnic lines would actually welcome certain undesirable parts of them splitting off. I know I would cry crocodile tears over Florida ending up as part of Cuba. Or Mexico. They can take Kentucky, too.
The problem here is that the war doesn't seem to be about Donbas.
Russia will be dealing with separatists attacks and assassinations for several decades on the occupied territories. For me this is one of the reasons for this new partial mobilization.
They would in either case. Give Russia what it wants in Ukraine and it will tell you what parts of Poland it considers theirs and threaten nuclear war as the alternative. The only good news: it'll stop once it reaches its eastern border.
For every bullet produced and soldier trained by Russia, the west can train 20, and they could be in Ukraine if needed. 'next attack' would be an even bigger disaster
This is true, but then we'd leave the people in occupied territories to the Russians, and with the amount of mass graves and torture victims we continually discover that's probably as good as a death sentence.
I don't blame men for fleeing.
I have no intention to die for the USA.
A country that denied me of healthcare, housing, and opportunity.
I won't fight and die for a country that treats me as a evil white man.
I just wanted a nice job, wife, and family.
I won't be sad if the "elite" centers burn to ash.
Failing to provide you something for free is not the same as denying it to you. The majority of Americans have access to healthcare, we just haven't found a solution for the remaining ~30 million/10%. I'm in favor of a universal German or Singaporean style public-private system that covers everyone and am not downplaying the real issues with our system, I'm just adding context to hyperbolic statements like this I always see.
Based on personal research: They mostly have mansion with bunker. In the capital of Russia there is a village area. It's called Rublyovka. It's a homeland for all powerful people. 70% of mansions have a private bunker. size depends..it's a real deal.
