politics

As a general rule, losing a big chunk of your youth population is horrible for a whole host of reasons. Hell, a brutal war of attrition on the Russian border was what ultimately brought down the Romanov Government. The Bolsheviks were (somewhat paradoxically) militant anti-war activists.

I meant that the losses may not have the same proportion of various groups or intelligence as in the general population, so, for example, if only RG and FSO troops were sent there and were dying there, it would be arguably a positive result.

However, this is not what's happening, people from poorest and most depressive places and social layers go there, which means that while many of them will die, some will get back with combat experience. Lots of crime.

Nothing paradoxical in that, about bolsheviks.

I don’t exactly predict another October Revolution soon. But the long term health and wellness of the Russian Federation is degraded with every month of utterly fruitless artillery exchanges. Ukraine ain’t doing too hot, either.

Well, see, it wasn't going to be good anyway. Those people who've ran from Russia to the West and pretend to be good and civilized were able to play opposition exactly because they were compromising on some old issues (like Chechen war, lustrations and crimes of the Soviet state), and they were mostly people with relatives from Soviet and modern Russian elites. By the way, elites in Baltic countries are from the same flock, and seeing Kaja Kallas in EC is kinda intimidating.

Real opposition back then was simply murdered or defamed on federal TV or even put into prisons and asylums, some just died of old age. There's very little remaining from them and their political ideas and points. Again, Starovoitova, Novodvorskaya, Politkovskaya, Sakharov, one can go on.

Note how those being arrested for sabotage or protest in Russia over the last two years don't have anything in common with the opposition of the Sobchak kind. And they have some similarities with those people who were successfully dealt with in the late 90s.

Navalny's organization was better, but they sadly stained themselves by associating with that "fashion opposition" of 2012 too. This may be the reason they didn't succeed. People may not say anything, not even think anything, but feel vary over such associations.

Ukraine is clearly winning this war from a strategic standpoint by maximizing their superior education and innovation on the fly.

This is a bit old news. The frontline innovations in tactics and instruments are more or less similar between sides.

There's an issue with news about wars - they are always distorted. Maybe if such a thing as independent journalism existed today, but it really almost doesn't.

Ukraine's offensives were pretty similar to Russian ones, as in "meat grinder".

Forget the fact that the nature of playing defense under most situations always lends to a numbers-advantage that most strategists say require 3-to-1 military odds even IF matching strategic parity — which again, Russia is not.

Neither side is winning right now. But Ukraine's economy is in very bad shape, while Russian isn't.

Let’s not forget the fact that Ukraine is being bolstered by broader NATO forces, especially the US, UK, France, Germany — all who have far larger economies than Russia. In fact, Russia’s economy is smaller than that of the single state of California. Considering how galvanized Western support is for Russia, Ukraine has no financial issues; they also have technological superiority in nearly every aspect of this conflict — air-defense, long-range artillery, and soon to be fighter jets/bombers. Forgetting the fact that NATO intelligence and ISR is clearly superior as well.

It's not that galvanized, this support ; also Russia's economy is sufficiently supported by more or less all the world except West. Including NATO member Turkey.

If Ukraine could fight indefinitely and economical issues were the only issues, then yes, but it's losing men and will to continue, and it's devastated. Russia doesn't have that problem because, again, no Russian cities have been razed by artillery fire.

Bear in mind the mightier USSR collapsed under a weaker opponent during the Soviet-Afghan War.

It was the other way around - the Afghan war started and ended at various stages of USSR's collapse. Were there no war in Afghanistan, that collapse may have been less dark, again, without all the traumatized veterans, but who knows.

You’re right that dark times are ahead for Russia, and I sympathize with those who cannot escape. I understand over 1 million people have fled Russia when they could, and that’s one of the largest brain-drains since Einstein fled Nazi Germany.

I wouldn't say all the best have emigrated, and I wouldn't say those who emigrated are all from the best.

I understand that Putin is not just attempting to commit genocide and territorial expansion in Ukraine, but views this scenario as “win-win” because he’s always purging dissents and undesireables within Russia itself.

I don't think he sees things at such low level. Rather the whole situation of war makes many things different for him.

Liberals, academics/scholars, political opposition, sincere journalists, ethnic minorities, etc… That is why I expect this war to sadly continue because it’s not touching the rule-class of Russia… Yet.

See, liberals and political opposition here are quite close to the ruling class. They've sort of distanced themselves from it, but this is a poisoned field. Same with journalism, many of those "sincere journalists" are plainly suspicious people. It has all been suspicious since late 90's, when Starovoitova and Politkovskaya and who not were killed, and others successfully defamed or driven out of relevance.

Also the case with those who emigrated.

But true - those dying are poor people mostly.

Nevertheless I believe Russia will now be relegated to global pariah and its standard-of-living and technological innovation will drop off akin to North Korea.

I don't see that happening yet.