cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/30140601
Oleksandr deserted from the front line in eastern Ukraine after watching his fellow servicemen being pulverised by Russian bombardments for six months. Then, those remaining were ordered to counterattack.
It was the final straw for Oleksandr, 45, who had been holding the line in the embattled Lugansk region in the early months of the war. Even his commanding officer was reluctant to send his men back toward what looked like certain death. So when Oleksandr saw an opening to save his life, he did.
"We wanted to live. We had no combat experience. We were just ordinary working people from villages," the soft-spoken serviceman, who declined to give his last name, told AFP.
His decision is just one of many cases plaguing the Ukrainian military, which has already suffered at least 43,000 losses in nearly three years of fighting, President Volodymyr Zelensky revealed this month. The government is also struggling to recruit new troops. Together, these manpower problems present a critical hurdle for Ukraine, which is losing territory to Russia at the fastest rate since the early days of the February 2022 invasion.
The issue was put under the spotlight in September when 24-year-old serviceman Sergiy Gnezdilov announced in a scathing social media post that he was leaving his unit in protest over indefinite service. "From today, I am going AWOL with five years of impeccable soldiering behind me, until clear terms of service are established or until my 25th birthday," he wrote.
Figures published by the Ukrainian general prosecutor's office show that more than 90,000 cases have been opened into instances of soldiers going absent without leave or deserting since Russia invaded in 2022, with a sharp increase over the past year.
Oleksandr said that after leaving the frontline, he remembered little from the year he spent at home in the Lviv region owing to concussions he suffered while deployed. He recounted "mostly drinking" to process the horrors he witnessed but his guilt was mounting at the same time. He ultimately decided to return after seeing young Ukrainians enlist or wounded troops return to battle -- despite pleas from his family.
His brother was beaten during the historic Maidan protests in 2013 that toppled Ukraine's pro-Kremlin leader, and later died. His sister was desperate. "They're going to kill you. I would rather bring you food to prison than flowers to your grave," he recounted his sister telling him during a visit from Poland.
It was guilt, too, that motivated Buch, who identified himself by a military nickname, to return to battle. The 29-year-old deserted after being wounded in fierce fighting in southern Ukraine in late 2022 during the liberation of Kherson city. "Just staying under constant shelling gradually damages your mental state. You go crazy step by step. You are all the time under stress, huge stress," he said of his initial decision to abscond.
In an effort to address manpower shortages, Ukrainian lawmakers in August approved an amnesty for first-time offenders who voluntarily returned to their units.
Both the 47th and 53rd brigades in December announced they would welcome back servicemen who had left the front without permission, saying: "We all make mistakes." Prosecutors said in early December that 8,000 servicemen that went absent without leave or deserted had returned in November alone.
Still, Siver, commander of the 1st Separate Assault Battalion, known as Da Vinci, who also identified himself by his military nickname, said the number of Ukrainian troops fleeing the fighting without permission was growing. That is partly because many of the most motivated fighters have already been killed or wounded.
"Not many people are made for war," said Siver, describing how his perceptions of bravery had been reshaped by seeing those who stood their ground, and those who fled. "There are more and more people who are forced to go," he told AFP, referring to a large-scale and divisive army mobilisation campaign.
But other servicemen interviewed by AFP suggested that systemic changes in military culture -- and leadership -- could help deter desertions.
Buch said his military and medical training as well as the attitudes of his superiors had improved compared to his first deployment, when some officers "didn't treat us like people". Siver suggested that better psychological support could help troops prepare for the hardships and stress of battle.
"Some people think it's going to be like in a movie. Everything will be great, I'll shoot, I'll run," he said. "But it's different. You sit in a trench for weeks. Some of them are knee-deep in mud, cold and hungry." He said there was no easy solution to discouraging desertion, and predicted the trend would worsen. "How do you reduce the numbers? I don't even know how. We just have to end the war," he said.
Initially, Germany was not allowed a military. Using your military offensively is against international law so you're saying that to be sovereign, you need to break international law?
I do not have any kind of German patriotism. As usual for my state I'm Holstein first, European second, German if then third. The former is actual identity, the middle is the greater family, the third is an amalgamation of other peoples many of which have less in common with us than Danes or Dutch. It's kinda arbitrary.
Might I remind you that the Prussians actually conquered us, and the only reason that we didn't go for independence after the war is because Prussian refugees also got a vote. Be it Danish or German jingoism has only ever brought Schleswig-Holstein calamity.
In short: You're well-advised to not base anything on your understanding of European identities because you understand nothing about them.
Please look at the election results of Svoboda since 2014.
"collective agent" does not mean "they were the majority of the people". They were a small fraction of the people. The vast majority of protestors did not come there as part of organisations.
Entry to Valhalla. Also Russia has no way to win this thing, they lost within days of invading ever since then it's a matter of them not understanding that.
...is what Russia likes to keep telling itself to justify to themselves why they haven't won yet. In reality if Western support would cease, Ukraine would fight on, if necessary as partisans. They've spent long enough as a colony of Russia to understand that it's worth the fight.
And, have you laughed at it already?
As said: I'm not saying that the impeachment was according to the constitution, in fact I think I said the exact opposite. What about the elections after that, though? Not even Russian propaganda is talking about the "Legitimate president Yanukovich" any more, I mean it would be rather silly considering his term would be long over.
Who is the civil society if not the people? Despite your assertions the protests encompassed a wide, wide spectrum of people, from all walks of life, all kinds of political directions.
...no. E.g. Christian Wulff was forced to resign over this, based on public pressure. Yanukovich did not have the common decency to resign, he went AWOL instead, so he had to be impeached.
No. Most of the population of the "people's republics" have either fled or have been killed at the front, holding Mosin-Nagants the Russians gave them while installing barrier troops. In other words: They were put to the meat grinder. Another portion was massacred, Bucha, Izium, etc. Now it's mostly settlers from Russia.
No. There were polls conducted by Russia showing support. Those two things are not the same.
Ukraine pre-dates the Duchy of Moscow, pre-dates the Russian Tsars. It has a long history of keeping Moscow out, not all of it successful. Post-USSR, Ukraine has made much larger strides economically and when it comes to combatting corruption than Russia did.
No. The EU is the strongest economical power and, militarily speaking, could stalemate the US. It does not have as much power projection capabilities, we don't want them. We use soft power instead. Something something USB-C, but that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Mostly South America and a couple of places in Asia because Domino Theory. Btw do you believe that the US still believes in that. That is, do you believe that their reasons for doing things are still the same as they were during the height of the cold war.
You'll have to be more specific. You said "After WWII" which implies after 1945 which means that you're talking about the Ukrainian SSR. At that time Stalin was generally busy sending Ukrainian Red Army soldiers into gulags. Or was that before or after. Anyhow kinda off topic but yet another crime of Russia against Ukraine.
It was founded to organise Europe against the threat of Russia, just after and in response to the Berlin Blockade I'm not a fan of it either but the whole thing wouldn't exist, and definitely wouldn't have expanded, without Russian imperialism. The alternative was the Pleven Plan which would have involved a joint European army, but France ended up vetoing its own proposal.
So did Russia, so did the EU.
Oh, definitely. All those bribes definitely weren't cheap for Russia.
I have exactly three questions for you, in return:
We're trying to make statements of objective fact.. Without a base set of facts, this conversation will go nowhere. I'm going to ignore everything else so that we don't get lost. Although I have read it and I appreciate your effort in this discussion. You are welcome to make statements as well.
Please. Yes or no because xyz. Ukraine could have made great strides, but that doesn't change the statement. Let me make the statement more precise
1. The modern state of Ukraine is a relatively young country with 3 decades of independence and is a poor and corrupt post-Soviet Eastern European state.
https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2023 - Below average corruption and only marginally better than Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita - Poorer than Guatemala, Iraq, and Libya
There are three parts here: a) Ukraine, with its current institutions, has 3 decades of independence and thus is a young country relative to most other countries b) Ukraine is a corrupt country relative to most other countries c) Ukraine is a poor country relative to most other countries.
So again- yes to statement 1 or no because xyz
Well first, EU is not a country. But I'll play along and pretend like it is. We'll start with economy-
GDP USA $26.85T
GDP EU $16.7T
EU economy, putting all 27 countries together, is roughly 60% the size of the American economy by nominal GDP.
GDP per capita USA ~$80,000
GDP per capita EU ~$38,000
In a per capita sense, EU citizens are worth about half of what American citizens are worth
But to be honest, these are bad measures of economic power in the modern world. We live in a globalized society where corporations are what determines economic activity and ultimately economic and soft power. So let's compare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue
Largest 50 companies in the world by revenue
22 are American . 7 are EU.
If we look at the top 10 largest companies by market capitalization- 7 out of 10 are American. Only 1 is from EU.
American companies also dominate specific industries. For example there are no major tech companies from EU. Apple, Google (Alphabet), Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook (Meta) and more are all American companies. There is no EU Silicon Valley. The reason we are able to communicate right now is because of development and infrastructure by American companies.
To simplify and put it roughly: American companies are dramatically more dominant globally than EU companies.
There are other indicators-
The New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq account for over 50% of global equity market value. That means the two major US stock exchanges account for over half of global economic output or roughly $40T.
If you combine EU stock exchanges- Euronext, Deutsche Börse, Borsa Italiana, we have roughly $10T.
So American equity markets are 4x the size of the EU.
The first part of the statement - The US is the largest economic power in the world - I think is clearly true. If you have reasoning and evidence otherwise, please share. But this is pretty non-controversial
The next part of the statement - The US is the largest military power in the world. Your response was this
This is patently false. For one, we could look at defense spending.
The US defense budget is $877B. This accounts for roughly 40% of global military spending.
EU defense budget is $235B. So roughly 1/4 of what the US spends.
This means the US has more planes, more guns, more missiles, more drones, more bullets, more bombs, etc. Not only that, but it has higher tech equipment because the US has been spending much more for much longer (including on research). In one year the difference is $877B − $235B = $642B. Over 2 decades that's $12.8T.
This is why the US has stuff like the Patriot Missile Defense System and the Europeans don't.
Let's look at some figures
So not only does the US have better stuff, they have more of it. They also have much more experience using that military, which leads to tactical and doctrinal advantages.
So the statement "The US is the largest military power in the world" I think is clearly a true statement. It's the US that has dozens of military bases in the EU, not the other way around.
2. The US is the strongest military and economic power in the world and spends more money on power projection than any other country in the world.
yes or no because xyz
Please, yes or no because xyz. It's either true or not true. We can discuss nuances after we agree to a base set of facts. But to elaborate, here's a non-exhaustive list of US attempts at regime change (with varying levels of success)
the statement "Mostly South America" is false, as South American countries make a minority of the countries on that list. the statement "a couple of places in Asia because Domino Theory" is false, as it was more than a couple and they mostly had nothing to do with Domino Theory. We can address your question once we have the axioms.
I'll keep the statement identical
3. The US has attempted, with varying levels of success, to topple dozens of regimes all over the world throughout the 20th century up to the modern day.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/11/covert-operation-ukrainian-independence-haunts-cia-00029968
I will revise the statement to be more precise
4. The US has in the past used covert means to spread dissent and support regime change in Ukraine, in addition to other Eastern European countries.
Yes or no because xyz
Ok let me revise my statement
5. NATO was founded as a tool of American hegemony and power projection, with an aim to counter the Soviet bloc
Yes or no because xyz
NED has existed for longer than Ukraine has been an independent state and has been funneling money for the entirety of Ukraine's existence. EED, on the other hand, was not founded until 2013. NED also operates with roughly 10x the budget of EED.
Your statement about Russia is probably true, although hard to find evidence for. Let me revise the statement
6. The US has openly funneled billions of dollars in Ukraine since Ukrainian independence, far more than any other country except perhaps Russia.
Yes or no because xyz
Let me revise my statement to be more precise
7. There is some non-zero and significant amount of money that the US poured into Ukraine covertly in addition to the funds above.
Yes or no because xyz
Same goes for Russia regarding independence, and twice and thrice for corruption, and also poverty if you look anywhere but at the imperial core (Moscow/Petersburg). Same goes for, say, Romania. Who side note out-drink everyone.
Not a good measure, either. Maybe look at without whose toilets neither Boeing nor Airbus would be able to build planes: It's a small German company owning the global market for closed-system toilets, 100% market share in airplanes, dominating in high speed rail (where it's feasible to go with cheaper options because a toilet breaking down isn't as disastrous). Like 90% of multinational conglomerates run SAP. International shipping wouldn't exist without European propellers, even South Korea is buying them, and not due to lack of domestic heavy industry (they're building the rest of the ships, after all). The list of European hidden champions is endless, providing goods that just aren't available anywhere else.
You mean at the CERN? America, structurally, gravitates towards big companies that's why there's more big American companies. Capital accumulation is harder in Europe, regulations actually get enforced and anti-trust isn't a clownshow. You're dazzled by those companies, which tellingly were all end-consumer facing.
Let me make this more concrete: The Brussels effect, as well as the track record of economic wars started by the US and won by the EU in short order.
Tell me you know nothing about the military without telling me you know nothing about the military. If, say, the US was stupid enough to send all its aircraft carriers to Europe and leave its pacific flank exposed, those aircraft carriers would be gone within days. There are no counters against stealth subs.
That's why I specifically said "stalemate": Both sides would quickly discover that they're on the other side of an ocean and that it's completely infeasible to reach the other side.
Oh, technologically speaking, the US are far behind in the aforementioned stealth subs. Abrahms tank barrels are produced under license from Rheinmetall, the US aren't exactly stellar at metallurgy. European air to air missiles are generally superior to their US counterparts.
When the US tries to build frigates and the likes they turn out to be 20x more expensive than off the shelf European models, and still not as performant.
As said, you're wrong about the economy. The US is structurally weak, much of its GDP relies on broken windows, on financial transactions. Nobody wants to buy their cars or is excited about buying one of their factories. US manufacturing, by and large, is a joke.
Military strength, sure, but as already said there's limits to how much of it can be used. Monetary expenditure is not a good measure at all.
Fine. So did Britain and France and Germany and I bet others. Only the likes of Estonia have a clear record. Often the US only gets involved because it can't bear to not be seen doing something when Europe does something, it's e.g. still puzzling to me how Americans associate Libya with Hillary. France wanted Gaddafi gone and saw an opening, it's as simple as that.
As your source says: Cold war. Of course they did. So did the Soviets in the other direction. That's why it's called the cold war.
A very important nuance, though: The Kremlin is considering people becoming fans of liberal democracy "western hybrid warfare", independent of whether that's due to direct influence, or people looking at the world and saying "yeah we'd rather have that instead of a Tsar". Do you share that outlook?
"tool of American hegemony" is a loaded term. It presupposed the existence of a hegemony, for one. Sure it might have been intended for that but that doesn't mean that said hegemony exists.
You'd have to show me actual numbers. Partnership treaties with the EU date back to independence, being direct continuations of treaties with the USSR, Ukraine has shown general interest in EU membership since 1993. Millions and millions of migrant workers earning wages in the EU and spending them in Ukraine. Random shit, like being a ESA member and building rockets. Ukraine has been quite integrated into European frameworks for decades.
Speculation, also, so what. Specifically: Why, if the Ukrainian people are completely bought by the US, did they not do what the US wanted during Euromaidan. If you now think "why, they did", then that's because the sources you get your information from conveniently left those parts out, focussing only on instances where US preferences aligned with what Ukrainians wanted to do anyway.