Radio War Nerd #326 — Dear Gary: RWN Answers Your Ukraine War Comments
Recorded: April 14, 2022
Your humble RWN hosts respond to subscriber comments about Russia's war on Ukraine.
Total time: 1:34:00
Comments (81)
I'm guessing you guys have seen this by Jacques Baud, whom I had never heard of but who appears to have a relevant background: https://www.thepostil.com/the-military-situation-in-the-ukraine/ Baud writes, “[i]n order to make the Russian intervention totally illegal in the eyes of the public we deliberately hid the fact that the war actually started on February 16. The Ukrainian army was preparing to attack the Donbass as early as 2021, as some Russian and European intelligence services were well aware. Jurists will judge.” When you emphasize that “invasion is the crime” it doesn’t give much nuance to the chain of events that moved the situation to where it is. Is it a case of stopping a crime with a bigger crime? Would letting the war in DPR and LPR flare up again while providing more covert support have been the more appropriate response? Could that have led to another decade draining war like in Afghanistan? For a layman like myself the details are messy to the point where I can only think jurists will judge. Although I empathize with your assessment the discussion hasn’t built a framework that has led me to be similarly confident in the conclusion that we pick the biggest crime to apportion the biggest blame. Maybe having more of a devil’s advocate debate would help listeners. Maybe I just have read War and Peace too many times.
Interesting article. It would be great if the guys could interview someone like this. There seems to be no debate whatsoever between the opposing sides on this,
Also, where's the footage of Ukrainian drone strikes? There were a few Ukrainian videos in the opening weeks again, but I've seen virtually nothing since. Are the Russians shooting them down/jamming them?
Russian telegram is full of media of dead and captured ukrainian soldiers, destroyed equipment and fire after fire on Ukrainian positions, vehicles and infrastructure. We're seeing virtually nothing similar from the ukrainian side of dead Russians/destroyed equipment anywhere - and the ukrainians were not shy about sharing similar images in the opening weeks of the war. What is going on? I'm beginning to think Scott Ritter has a point in his military analysis and that the Ukrainians are being hammered with very few recent Russian losses.
I noticed this too. I wouldn't say it means Ritter is right, but it does show Russia switched its propaganda strategy to counter the flood of Ukraine clips/photos of dead Russians and destroyed Russian equipment in the first month+ of the war. It might also reflect a shift in current advantage of the last few weeks, or at least is another piece of evidence in that direction.
"Over 2 months into this war, and still almost no info on condition of Ukrainian forces, losses, positions etc—despite (what seems to be) deluge of granular info from all the OSINTers, analysts etc. And zero curiosity from western media. Just a kind of heroic abstraction." Like how Yemen casualties were at 10,000 for years.
It feels like the "phony war" ca. 1939 to me (in USA) right now. The full court press of Russia/Putin demonization on FarceBook and YouRube is not being sent to me by the algorithms anymore, that stream was cut off as with a knife about 48 hours back. I know people are still getting killed and stuff is being broken: https://www.bitchute.com/video/AZSsVSJu7jdN/ But I'm getting cute kitten/puppy videos, Johnny Depp's soiled bed linens and a LOT of stuff about planting a garden anywhere that might be possible. That last being emphasized right now I suspect is a really good idea. This morning's read ended with this quote: "in geopolitics, it is better to admit that we are in the dark than to pretend to see the light." https://katehon.com/en/article/what-ultimate-rationale-russias-operation-ukraine
Dear Gary and Mark, thank you for trying to present a more balanced perspective in this episode. I don't agree with you on everything but I appreciate your intellectual honesty. If you continue making episodes on Ukraine, please consider examining some perspectives from people who supported the 2014 Donbass uprising, but are against this invasion. They are a significant contingent within the Russian-speaking world, but are completely underrepresented in English-language commentary on the war. Also, on the economic underpinnings of the ongoing conflict I highly recommend Oleg Komolov and his team from "Prostiye Chisla" (Prime Numbers) Youtube channel. Their materials are in Russian but Mark at least should have no trouble with it.
You keep saying there were better Russian options but the only option you give voice to is for Russia to start near unrestrained assassination of western policymakers and lobbyists who agitate against it. That is a stupid idea. Nothing indicates that Russia would “win” some War of Assassins with the West. Doing so would also have really isolated Russia diplomatically. Nor can Russia buy influence in any major way in the West as Turkey has for the very same reasons that you two laid out about Russia never being able to join NATO.
Russia is going win a Stugna. Special delivery right to its tanks.
Just for giggles, Larry C. Johnson, an ex CIA analyst expresses his opinions on RT: http://thesaker.is/larry-c-johnson-interviewed-by-rt/ I expect such sources will be disappeared too, if they get any traction, save if you want to watch again later.
Clandestine Officer/Operative, not just an analyst. He was in the same Farm class as Valerie Plame.
I do wonder what happens if one tries to access them from, say, Iceland or Switzerland? Wish I'd bothered to make a copy, particularly the sources listed.
Well. It seems things I've linked here are being "disappeared" from internet availability? I tried to post a link to a strategic-culture.org article on Facebook yesterday (the one titled "Fact checking the fact checkers- Why does Ukraine seem to have so many Nazis nowadays?). Got an automated message stating this violated "terms of service" and no explanation of WHY. I sent the request to reconsider this ban after re reading terms of service, there is NOTHING in article which violates any of them. Crickets... Now, I can't even get to the article on my browser. I get a message telling me I have to sign in to access with my email and name, however, I have never needed this previously, nor do I have any sort of account with them. Very interesting... https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2022/03/22/fact-checking-the-fact-checkers-why-does-ukraine-seem-to-have-so-many-nazis-nowadays/
That is strange! I previously read the article when you first linked it. But now like you said I can no longer access it either.
By the way, it is being said that Russia is fighting for its survival. I am thinking that the West is too, given the total propaganda war, where even Masha and the Bear is now suspectified and putinified. Any more informed thoughts on that?
I keep hearing leaders in Europe, but especially the UK, rant about Russia not being allowed to ‘win.’ At first I thought this was just standard rhetoric. But when you think about the greater response from the world outside of Europe it can be said that the west was, if not shocked, at least a little surprised. Especially in regards to India. So perhaps they fear a weakening of western/NATO influence? In the economic realm I think the US overestimated the shock and awe value of the sanctions - especially since many countries outside of Europe seem to be half-heartedly, if at all enforcing the sanctions. Of course, Russia will still suffer for the next few years which they have admitted, but the predicted collapse of the Ruble has not materialised. Like Ben Aris said in a previous episode Putin ha been preparing for this for the last 8 years. But we will see what happens. Also, not to steal any of RWN’s thunder but Ben has a podcast which is updated semi-regularly. I’d definitely recommend checking it out for news on the economic repercussions of this conflict https://www.intellinews.com/podcasts/
Great episode, as always! Would it be possible to get Ben Aris back in soon? Even for a short catchup for any new economic ramifications. Also maybe a guest who could speak on the worldwide geopolitical ramifications (I understand it's extremely early so it may be hard to tell). Some example topics: 1. China and how they are affected (seems like they're big winners). 2. India. Is India's neutral seeming stance going to alienate them in the American alliance? Or are they too important? 3. How the lack of grain/wheat trade from Ukraine will affect places already in tumultuous circumstances (Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Ethiopia). 4. Finally, maybe a "final update" episode on Syria. Obviously like John says, these types of wars never end (only pause), but has everything more or less settled in Syria? Maybe eventually getting Joshua Landis or Elijah Magnier on to discuss where it is at? Maybe insight on the SAA activity supposedly happening in Syria.
I don't love the former USSR. I don't love the 3rd Reich or those who worship at its steely alter. I kind of like farmers. They feed me. I think we shouldn't put landmines in their fields and on their roads. https://www.bitchute.com/video/zo8JmscXktpC/ I like most people, actually. I think we shouldn't grab a bunch of random ones and haul them down into our bunkers for shields. https://www.bitchute.com/video/fIZxBfyZ2Qxp/
Ah... I see what's happened. You guys have attracted a Tankie element. Hence the lack of nuanced thinking and the internet-brain.
There is a meme I like. It depicts dozens of 3rd world leaders and African Americans allied with the USSR, including Amilicar Cabral, Nelson Mandela, Ho Chi Minh, Assata Shakur, among others, captioned with the title "Tankies". Were these heroic individuals who allied with the USSR tankies? They would probably have gone to lengths greater than most internet MLs would to actually defend the USSR. I find the meme funny because it clearly demonstrates that the USSR was committed concretely through military aid to the national liberation struggles of dozens of nations (or personal aid in the case of Shakur) and that there is good reason for the people who received that aid to have cause for coalition with the former USSR. My description of the meme aside, I find tankie a pretty meaningless phrase. How do we define it? People with rose colored glasses for regimes targeted by the US-led Western consensus? If that is our definition, then yes the left is full of them. The War Nerds' anecdote about strangling sheiks comes to mind
I will be honest and say that I was disappointed. Regarding Bucha, it seems to me that RWN dismisses the idea that it might not be a Russian atrocity. That's fine, and i'd love to see that line of reasoning. (Like, sincerely. I haven't seen a good back and forth on this) Pretty much all that was said in the show was that people who discount the idea of Russian atrocities are deluding themselves. Sure. And obviously Ritter is a completely biased source, and unlikely to admit fault. But one can allow for Russian atrocities and yet still think this particular event is fishy. I guess I was just hoping for more of a point by point argument.. but that's outside of the scope of this podcast. Anyway I'm glad you did this episode and i hope this didnt sound too antagonistic. I'm going to remain agnostic.
I'm also agnostic re: Bucha.
Brendon gang rise up
Oh my god, have we pissed off Brendon now?
Good job avoiding many of the landmines found in this very comments section: - Conspiratorial thinking - Blanket denial - Flat out fantasy
Thanks, we're trying anyway.
Great episode. You're answering a lot of questions about this war and why the coverage is being spun the way it is. Many thanks.
RECORDEMOS EL MAINE. Maine if I remember correctly wasn't ammo but a bad design of the coal storage but your point sustains.
Ah, you're right about that. It's been a while since I studied that.
This episode was great. I was bitching about you guys a bit but you answered my concerns quite nicely. You guys are number one in intelligence and integrity.
Can we please get time markers in the post description so we can avoid Russian related content?
Welp. In an episode on the Russia-Ukraine war, that'd be a nope. A polite nope, but nope.
wish we could get accurate counts on casualties on both sides, but the western press just shouts whatever number of russian deaths the ukranians give them and you will never hear a single word from them about ukranian casualties.
The estimate of 10,000 Ukrainians killed in Mariupol was widely reported in the western press. Estimates of Russian casualties from the Pentagon and the British MOD are substantially lower than those of Ukraine's, and they get a lot of coverage (including the caveat that these are "low confidence" estimates). Russia's estimates of its own casualties have also been widely reported in the western press, albeit skeptically. When Ukraine does release counts of its own military casualties, it gets substantial coverage in the western press (and is immediately used to promote more and more intervention, of course). What's missing in all this is Russian estimates of Ukrainian casualties. And they're missing for good reason: from the Russian propaganda side, this is still supposed to be a liberation, not an invasion, and when you're liberating people you don't brag about how many of them you've killed in the process. You didn't hear a whole lot of Iraqi casualty figures from the western media during that invasion either, you know? On the other hand, a force resisting invasion will want to tell you that would-be liberators are dying (or better yet, dropping their guns and running away) in droves. This, I suspect, is why the casualty information sloshing around out there, be it good faith or exaggeration, seems to be so lopsided.
The point that both sides are guaranteed to act barbarically and commit atrocities is well-taken. But I think it's virtually certain that there will be at least one fake or misattributed atrocity that is paraded in the media. I would really like a collection of the sources that RWN finds to be the most neutral and reliable (most of the time). The majority of stuff I read is either very pro West or very pro Russia and I'm not sure that splitting the difference gets me anywhere.
I'll ask Mark about this but off-hand I can't think of any.
A small note on Klitschko. In German papers at the time he was called "our man in Kiev". The Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung promoted/fostered/supported him (a foundation belonging to the CDU, in Germany each party has it's own foundation financed by public money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung). Also he played a role legitimizing Swoboda as a political player though probably most in the pro-EU spectrum of the time did that.
Ah, that's good. Thanks. Didn't know this.
Hi guys! First off thank you for taking the time to respond to your listeners. Some may have seen in the comments of the previous episode that I am/was the anonymous commentator mentioned. What I am about to write may be too long for some and I apologise in advance. I live in the west, and as I can only assume, so do most of your listeners. This leaves a great deal of us with nothing but the same talking points and emotionally manipulative narrative we see in our news feed everyday. It is becoming overwhelming. I’m not an expert on Russia or the Russian military and in fact the only connection I have with the country is a failed attempt to learn the language many years ago, and a love of their literature (BTW thank you John for recommending Bulgakov’s The White Guard; and yes, I know he was Ukrainian.) Mark has a better grasp on Russian life, Russian outlooks and maybe even their military (?) then I or many of your listeners could ever hope. And Gary has always proven himself a genuine expert on all things military. But now my fear is that you guys are overcorrecting yourselves after calling the invasion wrong. Like I said, I’m not looking for pro-Russian views, or a justification for why Russia did what it did. I, and a lot of your listeners are interested in the military aspect of the conflict. We understand that war is wrong and powerful nations do what they want, when they want. We get it. In my opinion, which could very well be wrong, there has been a distinct difference to the way you guys have covered this conflict compared to others. But, I have also had to question my own views as well. I’ve been with you guys since before Patreon, back when I used the awkward NSFW portal on my PC to listen in. I look forward to all of your episodes, Thanks.
Here are a couple of articles with background information on the present situation. As always, a writer will have their own prejudices & agendas- But there are some verifiable facts in here too. https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2022/03/22/fact-checking-the-fact-checkers-why-does-ukraine-seem-to-have-so-many-nazis-nowadays/ https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2022/04/04/how-ukrainian-nationalist-movement-post-wwii-was-bought-and-paid-for-by-cia/
I just wanted to say thank you gentlemen for, in addition to taking on our establishment betters, being willing to take on that segment of the radical world that has this infantile "only America can do evil things!" worldview. Empires are not a good system of political economy for any number of reasons but they're not uniquely American. In some ways I feel like both the NATO centrists and that segment of the radials still think it's 1995. 'Putin is just another Saddam. The big one can't happen' say the centrists, 'Russia is the best force for TRUE FREEDOM AGINST AMERICA' say some of the radicals. Both are crazy. I appreciate that despite your biases you admit to them and try to get at what's really going on despite them. Very rare these days.
I've never seen so many strawmen as on this show and in these comments. Maybe I'm not on Twitter enough, but the argument can't be "Putin is our savior." The arguments are: 1. Most of us are citizens of NATO countries, principally the US, and so - if one has any moral or intellectual integrity - one's first obligation is to review one's own country's responsibility for what has come to pass. Especially if one lives in the most full-spectrum-powerful state the world has ever known. 2. The US govt, including its media, defines the United States as (per Obama at West Point in 2014) "the one indispensable nation," the world's sole sovereign, which sets the rule, enforces the rule, but is not subject to the rule. Martin Luther King Jr explained that the US is the leading - by at least an order of magnitude - purveyor of piracy, death, and destruction in the world, as has been for generations. It is quite reasonable to consider seriously the idea that a multilateral world - with a partial check on American "leadership" - could be a safer and more hopeful place for most of us. 3. At no point has RWN listed out the options the Russian govt really had. Really had. Not just "this war is stupid" or "Putin took the bait" or "boohoo, we didn't guess the future right." I want a list of actual options that Russia had. A couple of shows ago in the comments, I listed six options I thought the Russian govt had to escalating US/NATO/Kiev-Regime provocations. It would have been nice to hear something like that, instead of refutations of internet trolls and fanboys. Apart from surrender and wait to be dismantled like Yugoslavia, did Russia have any choice except attack? - either (1) shut off all the fuel to Europe and the US or (2) a limited invasion of the east or (3) the stepwise to-and-fro attack which it's doing or (4) flatten and slaughter everything in the Ukraine?
Link on Gabriel?
Posting here in full because the Facebook post isn't publicly shareable: As ever, Michael Kofman excellent, both concise and sober. The average observer may be puzzled about Russia, of all places, having trouble finding replacements for maybe 20,000 casualties. There are two problems: one of specialization and one of reserves. Specialization is the reason why, although the number of professional soldiers in the Russian system clock in at around four hundred thousand, there are actually not that many of them who are usable as reinforcements. Whatever its problems, Russia possesses a technologically advanced military, and this requires a great deal of specialized personnel that cannot be improvised out of conscripts serving one year or less. In principle Russia could re-assign, say, missile-launch warrant officers or radar technicians to motor rifle battalions, but this would be both wasteful and not much better, in terms of military effectiveness, than simply training a similar number of new recruits. But are there really no reserves of former professional infantrymen that could be mobilized? The answer appears to be no, and the reason may have more to do with the political economy of the Putin regime than a deficiency in planning or doctrine. Most militaries that use volunteer professionals will have a system to place these individuals on some kind of reserve list after they complete their active service. This is distinct from people enrolled only in the country's part-time militia system or the conscripted component of its military. Thus, both in conscript and wholly volunteer militaries, there are usually two kinds of reservist. Many may well be "weekend warriors" or former short-term conscripts glad to be rid of barracks life (or civilians liable to service but so far happy to have escaped an actual call-up). But there will usually be a significant contingent of people who completed at least one full term of service of two years or more, and who thus have a level of training and experience that allows them to be integrated more quickly into combat-effective units. A useful example here is the British Expeditionary Force of 1914, where close to 60 percent of its storied "regular" soldiers consisted of this kind of reservist, called up from civilian life after the declaration of war (readers of the "Old Soldier" books may recall Frank Richards was one of them). They were used both to bring existing battalions to full strength and to quickly create additional "wartime" battalions, all this quite separately from the mobilization of the part-time Territorial Army or the later "New Armies" of Kitchener volunteers. It is a startling fact about Russia that, despite continued attempts to develop a substantial professional volunteer component since at least the Serdyukov reforms of 2007-8, it lacks anything like such a system. As with so many Russian military weaknesses revealed by this war, a key problem appears to be the balanced-budget hawkishness of the Putin government. Armies always tend to favor equipment procurement over personnel and readiness, and in Russia the strain was intensified by the 2014-15 sanctions and the escalating round of fiscal retrenchment that followed. The recruitment of professional soldiers continued and their overall numbers still grew, but this effort appears to have been barely enough to keep up with the staffing needs of a growing number of "deployable" Battalion Tactical Groups (indeed less than enough: there have been many reports of oddly undersized platoons and squads in Russian mechanized units). There are some peculiarities of Russian military institutions that don't help either. Outside of a few specialized units, there's no real "career advancement" for enlisted Russian soldiers, simply because their officers perform many of the duties that in Western armies are the province of the NCOs corps. So indifferent pay and lack of meaningful promotion prospects may have turned the Russian professional enlisted force into what some analysts feared the US Special Forces would become relative to Blackwater and other PMCs: a feeder or farm system for outfits like the Wagner Group or private sector employers, where you do your time in the actual army just to get your ticket punched to go to the private sector and start making some real money (and also perhaps assume more interesting command positions). This doesn't mean there are no benefits to senior enlisted personnel under the Russian system (their pay scale weighs time-in-service heavily), but simply that the attractions of the private sector (in a military where accommodation conditions even for junior officers can be horrendous) are likely to be overwhelming for many soldiers who might have otherwise constituted an enlisted reserve. In the US, as each wave of contract soldiers goes through the system, a reserve is being built up of experienced NCOs at the higher ranks and reservists with serious training and time in service in civilian life. But in Russia this kind of former professional will often be either either in a PMC, bodyguards for starlets or oligarchs, or simply in the wind. (In 2015 the Russian MoD admitted that it was not tracking former soldiers--this has presumably been remedied at least formally, but it shows the depths of the problem.) Starting last year there were attempts to build something like this with the "Boevoy Armeyskiy Rezerv Strany" or BARS, but it was clearly too little, too late, and this program has now folded into Putin's general appeal for volunteers to fight in Ukraine. And here I suspect neoliberal penny-pinching comes in: primary budget surpluses turn out not to be that useful for war. All that money Putin spent acquiring his Smaug-like hoard of (it turns out) un-sellable gold would probably have been better spent on raising the bonuses and accommodation for senior professional infantrymen, and creating a reserve system like the American that could actually attract and retain qualified personnel. While it is true that Russian military spending has increased in the years since the last Ukraine war, a great deal of it appears to have gone to high-end weapons of (so far) limited utility in a ground war. One does have to pay reservists, especially if they are well qualified, and the political benefits of doing so are rather invisible in peacetime (reservists in their mid-to-late 20s aren't that impressive to put on a May Day parade). But here it must be said that, in skimping on readiness to fund procurement, Russia has been as "Western" as any other country's military. https://warontherocks.com/.../russia-downscales-its-war.../
As a new listener I really appreciate this kind of episode. I better get y'alls show and how you feel about the war. I'm definitely going to stick around!
"Putin was the Danny Trejo of [our national post 9/11] movie" Damn it's true
You guys have never promoted facile thinking, and that's why I've been listening for years, and continue to be a patron. You guys have helped me challenge my own assumptions and dig deeper on multiple occasions (including in the recent Ethiopian conflict... you guys were 100% right). I really appreciate the commitment to honestly admitting mistakes, and pulling back the curtain on your analysis and how you came to particular conclusions. Anyway, count me in for the rest of the march.
Aw, thanks!
I have never bought a TV in my life. People assume this is because I can't afford one and kindly give me their old ones- Frequently. I always thank them and put the set in storage. Then the next time I do a yard sale, they get sold. One year I acquired & sold SIX of them this way, back when flat screens were a new thing. I try and look at the spectrum of what is being put out, used to read in print a lot; online now. And since many can't be arsed to write properly with footnotes & sources, some podcasts.(skimming at most, really, it's like trying to drink from a firehose). Everyone has a little piece of the puzzle. Most have an agenda and a really narrow focus. "Genocidal Russian Darth Putin" vs. "Anything neocons/neoliberals don't like = good" is the order of the day. Some gold I've noticed in the rubbish: Bush the Elder explicitly and face to face told Chancellor Kohl and President Mitterrand: Screw that disbanding NATO business, WE WON. Now, we FINNISH the job (of destroying Russia). Both Mitterrand and Kohl have alluded to this although Bush had better OpSec than to go on record. James Baker did indeed say "not one inch further", whether or not he knew it was a lie when he said it, who knows? We acted in bad faith from the very first. As noted, the Russian political culture has certain charmingly old fashioned attitudes- Including what they feel a person's word is worth. Throw in the 7 documented instances (that I've found) of USA carrying out bio warfare attacks against Cuba. Consider the constant biological warfare waged against North Korean and Chinese troops during the retreat from the Yalu River, much of it derived from the "paperclipped" Japanese biological warfare staff and agents. The Russians wanted to try and execute those particular Japanese, we gave them JOBS. The Russians and Chinese have very good reason to assume those USA run labs ringing their borders are not benign, equally good reason to believe our word is worthless. Now, Joe Biden mutters stuff about how the Russians are going to use CBW and we are going to respond "in kind"? Our chosen policy tools in Ukraine appear to have carried out a series of rather poorly executed false flag attacks? Negotiations with dishonest people are a waste of effort. Waiting passively for the USA to get around to destroying your countries in the way which leaves the least radioactive contamination on the valuable real estate they want wasn't a viable option. This is not looking to end well. Here is my morning's read: https://thegrayzone.com/2022/03/24/us-fighting-russia-to-the-last-ukrainian-veteran-us-diplomat/
Hold on to one of them, you might want to watch old tapes one day. VHS holds up way better than DVD
I still didn't hear Mark or Jean/John/Gary talk about the 15k people who have died in the Donbass over the last number of years and how this factored into the decision to invade. I'm glad they brought up Scott Ritter because if you listen to him or The Duran, they pretty much endorse every excuse brought out by Russia. The hosts took the time to explain this thoroughly and made many good points which were truly balanced. You can't say this for the Western pro Russian commentators. I guess we Radio War Nerd grunts needed a chastening, the first since the comment insurrection over that one American medic working with Kurdish troops.
"the comment insurrection over that one American medic working with Kurdish troops." I remember that one, haha
Nice episode! Questions: To those who think the Russian invasion is a failure so far. Against what criterions? When reading about Ukraine there are almost only adjectives flying around but no scale to measure the adjectives. Regarding the buying flashy expensive weapons vs. paying staff & maintenance. Do you think Kinzhal & Zircon are F-35-level stuff?
Thanks a lot Ross! No hijacking here as far as I can see. I was looking forward to some answers and ideas. I am thinking that the special operation must be measured against the Russian objectives, after all they invaded Ukraine. I have no clue about Zircon or Kinzhal whether they are a waste of time and money or not, but if they are good to make "decision centers", not Ukraine, to think twice, possibly they may have been a good investment. Taking the Russians seriously they are looking to create a new security structure in Europe. That's the framework for my thinking. Then I really think that soldiers should get a fair salary and I have zero problems with the thought that maintenance is crucial for success.
Good discussion today. I'm growing very tired of people claiming that the Ukraine invasion is "the most wicked act of aggression since WWII". It's as if the world has amnesia.
Amnesia implies that there's no one to blame. That story narrative is an intentional, crafted and curated set of lies and dissembling by the same people crying crocodile tears about lies on the Internet.
Haven't completed the full episode, but wondering about this for last couple of days - Could Russia have used it's hundreds of billions of reserves now held back by the West to buy people off in Kharkiv, Odessa etc. And if it has not used substantial amounts so far, is it because of a Chubais like mentality pervading the elites in Russia
I think they could have, yeah. And that they did, but if they did, it seems like they didn't do it very effectively. It may also be that most Ukrainian officials have closed ranks and feel straightforward solidarity against the invader, hard to say.
God damn it all. Elon is helping kill people. https://m.dw.com/en/ukraine-is-using-elon-musks-starlink-for-drone-strikes/a-61270528
Welfare baby will do anything to keep sucking that teat.
Remeber Syria and Ted Postel and Arron Mate- No gas attacks all stage by white helmets. Come on guys, get Scott Ridder or someone on, we need to wait for the facts not the "French will investigate"
I haven't ruled out the possibility that the Bucha massacre was largely carried out by Ukrainians. Maybe I've just been effectively propagandized by Kremlin-aligned media, but a large number of the dead had white armbands (worn by Russian aligned civvies and collaborators), and a lot of the bodies that were photographed were dead on the ground next to Russian humanitarian aid. Azov has a history of proudly uploading warcrimes to social media, criminals like the Tornado Battalion (convicted child rapists) have been released to fight the Russian invasion, it's absolutely *possible* that the Bucha massacre was carried out at least in part by Ukrainian armed forces or Ukraine-aligned irregulars.. However, I have 0 proof of that, and even more telling any of the evidence I have of that is circumstantial. In other words, I'll wait for more info and assume everyone is as guilty as the other side says they are until it comes out.
Re: The Maine and hot, potentially unstable ammunition? The USN was still using bagged black powder as propellant on the Maine' "main" guns. Black powder wouldn't be doing anything special at temperatures which wouldn't kill the crew. However. The USN WAS just about to get into smokeless propellants for naval cannon- And their scientific staff wouldn't figure out the use of diphenylamine to stabilize smokeless until about 1902. The Maine DID have some small arms using smokeless powder in fixed cartridges on board, also, I suspect, early versions of HE shells loaded with compressed gun cotton, or even dynamite. Dynamite is a HORRIBLE choice for a shell filler, not even remotely insensitive. Tropical heat WOULD have made it a bit extra tetchy...
You should do more of these types of episodes. Really enjoyed it!
Any anti imperialist Marxist worth a damn must base their analysis on logic not emotional flag waving .
Russia will take and hold East and South. What will U S do is the only question.
Why do you take the attrocities story out of the liying media propagda machine in Ukraine which is the Ukraine's only skill set as gospel. India has asked for "Independent" investigation-why don't you ATLEAST ask for an objective analysis before buying what Ukraine says. You are compromising yourselves.
I don't recall Mark or Gary taking Ukrainian media as gospel. In fact from previous episodes I recall them saying that Bucha may well be a Russian atrocity (because they are not unusual in war) but that we simply do not know who was responsible. "You are compromising yourselves" By withholding judgement in the absence of independently verified facts? Maybe you have a timestamp where Mark and Gary take the Ukrainian narrative as gospel, I haven't quite finished the episode yet but I haven't heard anything of the sort.
Completely with you guys . Don't mind the haters out there.
Since I half-listened the first time, I didn't get to mention it before, but I was thinking about Hue as the first major urban battle the U.S. fought in Vietnam. Maybe just as a note to remind people that you covered it in episode 93.
I will be patiently waiting on the RWN Ukraine war series in the next maybe 10-15 years when (if) better and/or more information comes out.
I'm hoping that we have more information about this war once it ends, and we can look back with a greater amount of objective truth to conduct a deeper analysis on the war and the human tragedies it accompanies. As RWN has kindly pointed out in the past though, hope is futile.
40:20 "Hey, that's a divide and conquer...!" killed me haha
Pretty good report, you admit that this is a Ukrainian tragedy scripted by Washington. I cry for the children however I will let history judge how "evil" Putin is, I think he has pulled his punches and that will come out eventually.
I wonder if the Moskva just hit a mine.
I feel like the cultural comparison Mark was looking for w/r/t how Americans felt about Putin post 9/11 is Snape from Harry Potter especially since that was the peak of its popularity. Gonna go bash my head for making that analogy now
I used to marvel at how we were so bloodthirsty back then, but it feels so much worse now because it's not a RAH RAH KILL blood thirst, but instead it seems like a much more cold-blooded satisfaction at just seeing Russians die for being Russian. But, yeah, the first movie to get purchase after 9/11 was Training Day, which was released about 4 weeks later. There were lots of hot takes about Alonzo embodying that Dark Side (to quote Cheney) antihero (as opposed to just being the pure villain he really was) and that he may be repulsive but he was appealing for Getting Things Done. Putin was the same way. We got to stack the Eastern Front Russian stereotypes against the Islamofascist stereotypes and it was just a chance for people to rub their hands at the idea of watching people we hate kill each other and do it with an utter lack of humanity.
What a surprise! What a treat!
How do I RSVP for the NYC meetup without Facebook?
Email radiowarnerd@gmail.com.