Let's see the definition of fascism, from Wikipedia
> Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
So, except for "far right", the Russian regime meets ever point.
That may be so, but I do not find this difference to be as obvious as it is to you, and would hesitate before assuming it’s self evident.
For example, I see very little difference in terms of character; the variations between essentially boil down to respective levels of access to effective weaponry, geographical access to their enemies, and specific “enemy” groups.
Hitler maybe, but I don't see all that much to separate Mussolini from Putin. As others have pointed out Putin doesn't have a personal political movement the same way, but that's really the only significant difference IMHO. I personally wouldn't describe it a fascism, but there's not a big difference. I can see where people who do call it fascism are coming from so I'm not inclined to quibble with them on it.
> [...] far-right politics now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism, National Bolshevism (culturally only) and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and/or reactionary views."
I think it makes a lot more sense to just categorize them as authoritarian.
The rest of those qualifications certainly exist in Russia but I don't think it's to the extent where it's a characteristic of the regime.
Fascism seems to be a "I know it when I see it" thing and I just don't see Putin as any more than a strong man ala Saddam Hussein. Somehow I feel like somewhat of a cult of personality is a key aspect of fascism and an much more oppressive suppression of subversive ideas, more like North Korea. In Russia, we hear about Pussy Riot rather than them dissapearing before we do.
> feel like somewhat of a cult of personality is a key aspect of fascism
Hmm, there is definitely a cult of personality in Russia, but maybe not directly started by Putin, I think it's organic. Otherwise I fully agree with you, it's not really fascism because there is no "belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy." All those examples of "far-right politics" look very similar from my point of view, so I think it's normal for people to get confused to the detriment of discussion.
On the internet, it's impossible to know who is knowingly spreading propaganda and who actually believes what they're saying, but... does anyone actually believe that's a reasonable definition of "far right"?
Like, this just reads like a "far left" person wrote a long list of negative slander to throw at their opponents. I don't think anyone on the right would agree with essentially any of it.
The "ultra-nationalist" I guess maybe sort of works, if hyperbolic, in that I think you would get right-wing people to agree that they would prioritize their nation over others, but I think if you asked a random right-wing person on the street "do you support ____" for anything else on your list, they'd say no.
I'm solidly on the left by contemporary American standards, but I just wish we'd actually have honest discussions about what people believe and want, rather than slinging insults that our opponents are evil, vile people who intentionally want bad things because they're bad.
Read Umberto Eco's seminal essay [1], it contains 14 characteristics of fascism. They are what you'd call soft criteria, which make sense because fascism has always been ideologically and theoretically weak. It's explained in the essay. If you check Putin's regime and public statements by government officials against these points, you will find that all 14 characteristics are matched quite well. The only difference is that Putin did not have to found a movement to seize power, but you can see the corresponding elements in Kremlin-supported pro-Russian groups and parties outside of Russia.
The word is being used as part of a general rhetorical escalation. That's why the word "genocide" is also being bandied about, as if Russian war crimes were comparable to the Holocaust. It's insane, but people with no historical knowledge fall for it.
No one is saying the situation is as bad as the Holocaust. However, among other war crimes, large numbers of Ukrainian children have allegedly been abducted and forcibly transported to Russia.
This is a classic example of a Motte-and-Bailey argument.
Everyone knows what "genocide" means. It means an attempt to murder an entire group of people. That's why the word ends in "-cide," like "homicide," "suicide," "regicide," "fratricide" and other words that have to do with killing. When you say that Russia is committing genocide, everyone thinks you're saying that Russia is attempting to kill every single person in Ukraine. That's what the word means in the English language, as understood by the gobal community of native speakers.
The people using the word "genocide" are doing so precisely because the word has such a strong connotation. They want people to make the connection to the Holocaust, Rwanda, and other cases of mass murder of an entire people. However, that comparison is obviously absurd, because Russia isn't trying to wipe out the Ukrainian population.
So when pressed, defenders of the use of the term "genocide" retreat to a much narrower argument. They argue that according to a particular reading of the Genocide Convention, Russian actions fall into some technical definition of "genocide" - a definition that has absolutely nothing to do with how normal people understand the term. Now, that reading of the Genocide Convention is an enormous stretch, but people who want to use the word "genocide" fall back to it.
But of course, nobody is interested in a highly tendentious, dubious reading of the Genocide Convention. People are interested in whether Russia is committing "genocide" as the word is actually understood by real people.
I'll also add that even going by the Genocide Convention, the claim that Russia is committing genocide is still absurd. I don't want to get into it in detail, because it's a technical argument that's unrelated to what people actually care about. However, I'll just point out that the Ukrainian government is claiming that literally every Ukrainian child in Russia is abducted. Anyone who knows anything about Ukraine and Russia knows how absurd that claim is. There are very tight familial connections between Russians and Ukrainians (they were part of the same country for most of the last 400 years, after all). Because of that, Russia is the #1 destination for Ukrainian refugees. A lot of people escaping the violence have gone to live with family in Russia. Using that to accuse Russia of genocide is a really bold rhetorical gambit.
>Everyone knows what "genocide" means. It means an attempt to murder an entire group of people.
It doesn't mean that. It means to annihilate a culture or people. That can be done by killing them or it can be done by destroying their culture and making their language, religion, holidays, culture, and cultural identity illegal or otherwise unable to exist. That includes forced assimilation.
Actually, the UN explicitly says that forced cultural assimilation is not genocide[0]:
> Cultural destruction does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group.
Etymologically, the word genocide comes from "genus" (roughly meaning "race") and "-cide" (meaning "killing"). It was invented to describe the Holocaust, and every event that is widely accepted as being a genocide has been an attempt to murder an entire group of people.
Russians are absolutely doing genocide. They are removing the Ukrainian language and culture, they are burning Ukrainian schoolbooks, they are stealing children and re-teaching them to be Russians, they are targeting Ukrainians based on their nationality.
Even if your claims about Russia trying to destroy the Ukrainian language and Ukrainian culture were true, that would not be genocide. And just to give you some perspective, the claims you're making almost exactly mirror Putin's equally spurious (and disingenuous) claims that the Ukrainian government was trying to commit genocide against Russian speakers in Ukraine. His claim was based on attempts by the Ukrainian government to remove traces of Russian culture from eastern Ukraine (for example, by promoting the Ukrainian language over the Russian language in schools, by renaming cities, and by removing statues to cultural and historical figures associated with Russia), and on the Ukrainian government's shelling of Donetsk over the last 8 years. Putin is engaged in the exact same abuse of the term "genocide" that you're engaging in.
Sure, so how come there's so many videos of these untrue things? How come the Russians themselves are saying they're doing it on their own state TV?
I don't care about Putin's claims. There's a lot of Russian-speaking Ukrainian refugees where I live (there's hundreds thousands of them), I still haven't found one who felt like they were in any way targeted by the Ukrainian government. Now they hate Russia and every single one I asked has vowed to learn Ukrainian and erase any parts of Russian culture from their lives.
> Now they hate Russia and every single one I asked has vowed to learn Ukrainian and erase any parts of Russian culture from their lives.
I know a few Ukrainian refugees. They speak Russian as their native language, and I've often seen them hanging out and chatting with Russians. I've talked to one of them quite a bit about his political beliefs. He obviously doesn't support the Russian invasion of his country, but he's also very unhappy with the Ukrainian government (particularly since what happened in 2014), and he doesn't like Ukrainian nationalists (partly because of the way they try to restrict minority languages in the country, including Russian and Hungarian).
> This is a classic example of a Motte-and-Bailey argument.
I think this is a classic "you dont know what genocide actually means" argument.
> Everyone knows what "genocide" means. It means an attempt to murder an entire group of people. That's why the word ends in "-cide," like "homicide," "suicide," "regicide," "fratricide" and other words that have to do with killing. When you say that Russia is committing genocide, everyone thinks you're saying that Russia is attempting to kill every single person in Ukraine. That's what the word means in the English language, as understood by the gobal community of native speakers.
But thats not what the word _actually_ means, people using a world incorrectly does not change its _actual_ meaning.
> The people using the word "genocide" are doing so precisely because the word has such a strong connotation. They want people to make the connection to the Holocaust, Rwanda, and other cases of mass murder of an entire people. However, that comparison is obviously absurd, because Russia isn't trying to wipe out the Ukrainian population.
People use the word genocide because thats exactly what Russia is committing, its a heinous act and hard to face, just like raping and torturing children, but Russia is doing all of these things in Ukraine.
> But thats not what the word _actually_ means, people using a world incorrectly does not change its _actual_ meaning.
It's how virtually every native speaker of English understands the word. It's what the people accusing Russia of genocide want people to think.
The word "genocide" carries enormous weight, precisely because it is understood as meaning mass murder on the scale of the Holocaust, one of the most evil crimes ever committed. That makes the word very attractive as a rhetorical tool, particularly for people who don't mind massively exaggerating.
It's a Motte-and-Bailey argument because the people using the term want others to think of the Holocaust, but when challenged, they retreat back to arguing a much narrower position. They argue, as you're doing, that everyone misunderstands the word "genocide," so it's fine to use it for things that have nothing to do with what everyone thinks of as genocide.[0] Once the argument ends and they feel they've defended their narrow position, they go back to shouting "genocide," knowing that everyone will understand it to mean mass murder. The narrow position is only used as a fallback when the broad, shocking claim they want to make comes under attack.
0. Their argument isn't even technically correct - they're misreading the Genocide Convention - but that's largely beside the point.
Russian soldiers are lacking even basic supplies like winter clothing, boots and sleeping bags, let alone fancy stuff like radiation or chemical suits.
Not a problem for Russians, their commandeers will tell them to loot that from the local civilians. Radiation or chemical suits are hardly needed when they don't even have field medicine and don't collect wounded.
Putin uses tactical nukes or a nuclear disaster to create a buffer zone in between his newly acquired territories and the rest of Ukraine. No nuclear retaliation will happen and if there is any retaliation on his newly acquired territories, he will nuke those too, to create an even bigger buffer zone. This was all about buffer zones and lack of missiles close to their border.
Then the cat is out of the box and they will be the first ones to ever have done so, we simply dont know how that will play out, will Nato do nothing (i doubt that) or will they move into Ukraine and mop up all the russians, we dont know.
That would not work because it would render the newly acquired territories fairly useless (you can't sell radiated crops). Moreover, dropping one or two tactical nuclear bombs may not substantially change the situation on the battlefield. On the contrary, there are reasons to assume that with Western help Ukrainian troops could deal with the radiation hazards much better and with better equipment than Russia.
Putin would end up having to nuke the new territories themselves if the Ukrainian army continues to advance. However, that's not realistic either.
What's realistic is a sort of showing-off gesture, a nuclear attack on a city in Western Ukraine. The political consequences for Russia would devastating, though, and it would serve almost no military purpose.
Ive been following the author's currently ongoing Yale course on the history of the Ukrainian state on youtube, it's excellent. The latest lecture dropped yesterday and I just finished it a few minutes ago, so it seems weird to see his name again here so soon. Here's a link to the first of them.
It ends hopefully with Ukrainian and NATO forces parading on the Red Square to celebrate victory, denuclearization, demilitarization and denzification of Russia, prosecution of war criminals and internationally organized democratic elections to find new legitimate leadership for Russia and possibly regional referenda to find out which parts of Russia still want to be Russia. And of course Russian citizenship for every Ukrainian that would like to trade Ukrainian citizenship for Russian citizenship.
If all of the winning was done by Ukraine then Russia wouldn't know who to nuke efficiently and nuking itself or almost itselt (Ukraine) wouldn't stop the process of loosing and could even accelerate the process.
Not to mention the fact that Russia probably is just as inept when it comes to maintenance of nuclear forces as it seems to be for conventional ones. And nuclear devices are very complex and precise.
Not sure how and why this comment got duplicated but I encourage you to read the second version and my clarifications in response to similar concerns that are raised by other users in response to this comment.
It ends hopefully with Ukrainian and NATO forces parading on the Red Square in Moscow to celebrate victory, denuclearization, demilitarization and denzification of Russia, prosecution of war criminals and internationally organized democratic elections to find new legitimate leadership for Russia and possibly regional referenda to find out which parts of Russia still want to be Russia. And of course Russian citizenship for every Ukrainian that would like to trade Ukrainian citizenship for Russian citizenship.
Russian propagandists might say so in order to stir up anti-Ukrainian and anti-NATO sentiment, based on the narrative that this whole conflict was engineered by NATO in order to create a pretext to attack Russia, but it's absurd. It would also mean Putin and the pro-war faction in Russia were idiots manipulated by the west.
NATO forces haven't fought in this war so there would be nothing for them to parade about. Ukraine has no interest in going further than the internationally recognised borders, and nothing to gain from doing so. There has never been any military threat against Russia itself, except for the harm Russia has foolishly exposed itself to by going to war.
I have exactly zero doubts that Russia incited this war. I just described my prefered ending of it.
The parade is necessary because the lack of parade after Russia lost the cold war was what created Putin. Just like the lack of parade in Berlin after the WWI spawned Hitler decades later. Russians just didn't understand how hard they lost.
On the parade I'd see NATO represented as it fought. So just few few officials and NATO equipment. Operated purely Ukrainian soldiers. They might be NATO soldiers at this point or just soon to be NATO soldiers (as Ukraine should be admitted into NATO in a blink of an eye after the victory).
I'm fully aware that this ending might not happen because Ukraine doesn't have much to gain from pushing Russian army to Moskov not just to the borders but one might be hopeful.
This war showed that Russia is dangerously rotten and talking about military threat to Russia is completely out of place. It's a saying that a garbage dump might be threatened by a possible hostile takeover by Amazon. Getting in there would be a charity mission not a threat.
By Ukrainian Faschists stopping the attack on now Russian controlled territory.
By Ukraine getting out of bed with the US.
By Russia stopping the attack on Ukraine.
By "the West" stopping its world domination ambitions, really the US with all the military bases and blackmailing etc.
From my point of view the US is responsible for all the latest wars and never has 1 soldier been held accountable for their war crimes.
The US ignores the International Court of Justice in De Haague.
You can't have double standards and excluse the other half of the planet if you want world peace, which the US doesn't want.
They created this issue in the first place and not just that but also Kosovo, which is the origin province of the Serbs.
The US wants war everywhere else so they can sell more weapons while the rest suffers and degenerates. Then they buy the rest with the money they made from that.
If you kids would've listened just once in the last 20 years what this Dictator Putin said, after 9/11, after this "War on Terror" started. He wanted in on the deal, but was always excluded.
Now if US life was one worth living, but end state capitalism is war and our societies who were social societies were gradually turned into this dystopia of inequality and money rules above else.
The US is to blame for many injustices. Anyone who supports the Ukrainian Regime supports US world domination.
With what right does this US puppet Ursula Von der Leyen forbid us to read,watch,listen to Russian media? That is hypocrisy at its finest.
The war will end when the US stops pushing against Russian borders.
Instead the US now plunders the EU to fill its empty coffers because the past wars were so expensive.
If anyone still believes in "the good cause" of any of the powers they stupid, dumb and delusional, and reading the comments here there's a lot of those people.
Man, long are the times when people were able to exert critical thinking and were more immune to propaganda.
People here ignore the continued oppression and shelling of the Russian-Speaking people in the Donbas since the coup of state fomented by the US department of state (which was Russian territory anyway until Lenin decided that Ukraine needed an industrial region in order to counter-balance the rural population with the industrial proletariat.)
People here choose to ignore that Ukraine has been in a civil war since the coup, that Kiev ignored the Minsk agreements, cut water to Crimea, shelled the separatist regions in defiance of the agreements, and killed more than 14.000 people, and was finally amassing an army to overcome the separatists in the Donbas, which is one of the reasons that prompted the reaction from Russia, along with NATO encroachment, which has not been a defensive alliance but an instrument of American power for years now.
They also think that Russia is same impoverished Russia from the Yieltsin era, while ignoring that their PPP GDP is basically in the same league as Germany. So, you see people here repeating the stupid propaganda claims like russian soldiers lacking even basic equipment like clothing.
The winter is going to be a big surprise for these people. And meanwhile, Kiev will keep on sending young people for the meat grinder, trading space for heavy, absurd losses to conquer useless territory in order to appease their western sponsors and keep the huge amount of resources flowing.
This ends, or escalates further, with the use of nuclear weapons by Russia.
People can debate all day on whether Putin is a genuinely and popularly elected President, a totalitarian dictator, or a mafia boss.
But what’s not up for debate is Putin’s absolute consistency.
Putin does what he says, and says what he does.
If Putin threatens to use nuclear weapons, he likely will, the only debate is when.
The real threat of Putin using nuclear weapons shouldn’t stop efforts to shape the desired end-state.
A realistic hope may be HOW nuclear weapons are deployed.
An atmospheric test display over remote Russsian territory that disrupts the test ban treaty and global markets suffer some temporary disruption.
A high altitude atmospheric detonation over Ukraine that disrupts Ukrainian communications, western military support for Ukraine, and global markets suffer longer lasting disruption.
A tactical nuclear weapon detonation over Ukrainian combat units that disrupts Ukrainian offensive, western military support for Ukraine, and global markets suffer lasting disruption.
Western coalitions have disrupted the Russian economy with sanctions, but China/India provide two major energy export customers.
The west is most prone to economic disruption in Q4 Oct-Dec.
In consumer-led discretionary income dependent sectors, Q4 can be 50% of annual revenue with 25% of annual revenue coming from just mid-Nov to mid-Dec.
If I was Putin I would create and amplify tension targeting western markets and consume sentiment from now until Mid-Dec.
Personally, I don’t worry about a Cold War era Cuban Missile Crisis or 80’s Threads/Day After threat of total nuclear annihilation.
But I do strongly believe we are at greater risk of a limited nuclear display or tactical detonation than at any time since August 1945.
Ukrainian forces have a lot of offensive momentum and high morale, which leaves them vulnerable to hubris.
I am sympathetic and in 100% agreement with Ukraine to defend its sovereignty.
But Ukraine attempting to recover 100% of its pre-2014 territory will likely result in nuclear weapons being used.
My hope it that such a nuclear exchange is limited and that the global economic impact is only 1-3x the ‘20-‘22 COVID disruption.
>A tactical nuclear weapon detonation over Ukrainian combat units that disrupts Ukrainian offensive, western military support for Ukraine, and global markets suffer lasting disruption.
A single tactical nuke would have virtually no impact on Ukrainian military operations. It would only affect a few square km, maybe a battalion strength unit. To decisively influence a significant front like Kherson would take at least a handful of them. To relieve pressure along the whole front would take dozens. Strategic warheads used on the front would do more, but then the radiation and fallout effects would also impact Russian units, and Russia itself. there's also no way to use and EMP pulse to impair Ukrainian front line units without also impairing Russian front line units.
>Western coalitions have disrupted the Russian economy with sanctions, but China/India provide two major energy export customers.
Using nukes would remove all the remaining support Russia has, including that from China and India in terms of trade. It's likely the west would impose a total blockade and interdiction of all Russian ports, sea traffic and air transport anyway.
It might be worth looking at Russia’s unusual nuclear doctrine of “escalate to deescalate.”
I agree numerous tactical nuclear weapons would be required for combat operations, but not necessarily for information operations designed to shape western democratic citizenry.
People like us in the west can more easily afford to have opinions on Ukraine.
People in China, and particularly India can’t afford to have as many opinions when they are struggling to afford food and energy,
COVID related fiscal and monetary inflation is eating a chunk of the real gains made in recent decades.
A bit hyperbolic I know, but India has continued and will continue to purchase energy from Russia as will China even if a small number of nuclear weapons are used within Russian territory, within Russian controlled territory, or within Ukraine.
Food and energy price inflation pressures matter more to many countries than whatever is happening in Ukraine, 3rd world problems rather than 1st world privilege.
True that food and energy security are primary concerns for India and China. Does Russia detonating nukes in Ukraine improve or harm food and energy security? Especially if the west interdict Russian trade in response, as they have with North Korea. The answer to that will shape the response of these governments.
Will west escalate to interdicting Indian and Chinese flagged vessels used to circumvent embargo to bring home even more discounted fuel and food? Because ultimately that's what directly harms the food and energy security of these two other nuclear powers. At the end of the day RU isn't the one disrupting their bilateral trade with "friendly" partners. The real question is how will west make it worthwhile not to trade with RU, and so far it's been mostly sticks instead of carrots which is unlikely to work when it comes to fertilizer and fuel.
India and china do not benefit from turning a blind eye to active use of nuclear weapons for military or blackmail purposes. Remember that both India and Pakistan have a few nukes each. It's absolutely against India's interests to accept the principle that military use of nuclear weapons, or threat of their actual use, is acceptable internationally.
There are two problems with your reasoning. First, you’re assuming Putin’s use of nukes would make him automatically win the war. That’s not how it works. Second, you’re ignoring other possibilities. For example, an interesting response to Russian attack would be an “unknown party” detonating a dirty bomb in one of Russian cities. It’s easy to do technically, wouldn’t result in large casualties, couldn’t be blamed on NATO, and would require absolutely enormous cleanup effort that would likely topple the regime.
I don’t think or believe Putin will necessarily win the war by escalating to the use of nuclear weapons.
I just think he has been very consistent in “doing what he says, and saying what he does” over the long-term.
And that his personal credibility is tied to this conflict, so escalation is likely.
Escalation by Putin doesn’t guarantee victory(or the semblance of it), but de-escalation by Putin is a guarantee of failure(credibility).
The US has just leaked its unhappiness with Ukraine conducting targeted assassination in Russian territory(seperate from train/logistics sabotage).
But a dirty bomb detonated in Russian territory is far more likely to be a Russian casus belli, akin to Nazi false flag action in Poland in 1939 and Putin/Shoigu false flag action in 1999 with the Moscow Apartment Bombings.
Putin said he won't invade. Then he said Kyiv will fall in three days. Then conducted fake referendums, "annexing" territories he doesn't control. Izyum was declared a part of Russia forever from now on, and that "forever" lasted two days. So, this "doing what he says" doesn't quite check out.
As for casus belli - against whom exactly? And why would Russia need any casus belli?
The Royal United Services Institute wrote a nice little paper in mid-June 2022; it is NATO/US that has the insufficient productive (and logistic) capacity to match the Russian ‘operational tempo’.
The paper is called “The Return of Industrial War,” and it’s quite good, as it befits a person in a ‘think tank’ founded by the Duke of Wellington in the 1830s.
NATO/US has the insufficient productive (and logistic) capacity to match the Russian ‘operational tempo’ who in turn has the insufficient productive (and logistic) capacity to match the Ukraine ‘operational tempo’.
I know this is gonna be controversal but technically speaking, there are no Russo-Ukrainian War, but Russo-Ukrainian Conflict since Russia did not declare war on Ukraine.
It has a scale of a war but it is not officially a war yet.
In how many of the US's armed conflicts was war declared? To the best of my recollection, the US never declared war against any Indian tribes, but spent more than a hundred years periodically fighting against them. Then there were overseas engagements. I have never heard the fighting in Korea called anything but "the Korean War", but at the time the US line was that it was "a police action". The US had a lot of troops in Vietnam and dropped plenty of bombs on the north, without ever declaring war.
>> In how many of the US's armed conflicts was war declared?
The US has not declared war since World War 2.
The past 20 or so years of conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places was officially "Authorization for the Use of Military Force" [1], not a war. (Notwithstanding the frequent use of the term "war on terror".)
Under the US Constitution, war declarations are typically made against opposing nation-states and are performed by the US Congress [2].
This article is a useful reminder that to understand what Russia will do, think less about our politics (like, how will we react to Russian action A or Russian action B) and think more about Russia's politics. Any Russian actor that has been cultivating an independent power center within Russia (e.g. Wagner) won't want to see it frittered it away in Ukraine.
The 1990 revolution peeled away from the Russian imperium a thick layer of oppressed non-Russian nationalities. A springtime for sovereignty. A new Russian internal power struggle, occurring in conjunction with the crippling of Russia's armed forces, might (just) enable the peeling away of another layer of oppressed non-Russian nationalities from the Russian imperial core. 'Twould be something to see.
The article points to an idea I had not considered:
That the reason we see so many ancient pieces of gear and vehicles in Ukraine is not entirely due to shortages and the kleptocracy.
Rather that the various elements (Prigozhin, Kadyrov, army officers, etc) are intentionally holding back the good stuff for the eventual knife-fight for power after Vlad.
If true, then the collapse of the Russian Federation is much further along than I had realized. I would have thought that these consolidation moves would occur in the spring after the last gasp of Russian offensive power had been exhausted. That they may have been occurring this whole summer points that Vlad's doom may occur before the end of the year.
reply