On February 22, 2022, the Russian military crossed the border into Ukraine. On this first-year anniversary its more important than ever to pay full attention!
Sadly, today marks the first-year anniversary since the conflict between Russia and Ukraine started
For so many around the world, the horrors of war and destruction have been almost a tacit situation that is “over there” – whilst people fail to realize that what it is at stake could very well change the world as we know it. It does not matter if you are rooting for Russia or Ukraine in this situation, this article will only focus on the facts. My opinion in the matter is irrelevant, because the realities in the ground are something I cannot give a first witnessing account. With that said, there is plenty of actual measurable and empirical evidence, both concrete and abstract about the realities of the situation. And the situation remains horrific.
A year ago today, I was serving on deployment in the Middle East onboard USS COLE DDG 67, today I am on duty. I finished all of my pressing duties and worklist for today; therefore, I have some down time, and I decided to invest on immortalizing what is tumbling in my head regarding this situation.
Ukraine-Russia conflict 334 days later
What has changed?
Trick question, nothing and a lot simultaneously. Yes, it is an oxymoron, but it is a fact. What has not changed are ever growing number of torn families, unmitigated destruction, and senseless loss of life. Also, there have been ZERO attacks to the Russian mainland. NOBODY has shot a single round into Russian territory, not Ukraine, and especially not NATO. On Thursday, 24 February 2022 it was the Russian military who crossed the border into Ukraine. This was despite the fact that the Kremlin’s official word to the world was that there was no intention of crossing the border with military force. Well, we all know that was not what you would describe as accurate.
Things only got worse as the war permeated several regions inside Ukraine. For Russian citizens it is still illegal to call this war actually a war. The official terminology is “Special Military Operation.” And it is also illegal to speak bad about it inside the Russian territory. Although people have been arrested for uttering those words, there are people for and against the war that call this conflict a war instead of Special Military Operation. You’ll see why this clarification is relevant as you continue reading this article.
So, what has changed? The people – Russians, Ukraine principally – and the rest of the cognizant world. And I said the cognizant world, because there are lot of people who have no idea what it's going on between Ukraine and Russia, and further don’t care to care about it. Yes, I wrote it how I wrote it. People in Ukraine continue fighting for their lives and their country. We got to see their resiliency and tactical chops in action while holding this fight against a much larger military force. The Russian military is struggling and have been struggling. They started strong, but they have not been able to sustain this momentum. And this is against a country they deemed militarily inferior. But as I said during my first article about this conflict, the largest Russian miscalculation was the fact that they underestimated the Ukrainian people. The Ukrainians believe in their cause because they are defending their homeland and their very lives, and no matter how much Russian forces have been trying to demoralize them they cannot destroy Ukrainian’s feeling of vindication for their own country and their own people.
The European Union, and many other countries around the world have provided Ukraine humanitarian and military aid, though none of these countries have officially joined the conflict, nor have they fought Russian forces directly. The general consensus from most nations around the world is that this is an illegal war, and that was started by Russia (or so-called Special Military Operation). Whatever the term, it is an illegal act of aggression towards Ukraine. How can we assert that? Well, I said it before, but it is worth repeating. Ukraine was not the country who crossed the border into Russia with military force last year today. Further, not one round has entered Russian territory. However, there same cannot be said about Ukraine, millions of rounds of ammunition and copious amounts of ordinance, artillery, missiles and other weapons have been directed against Ukrainian citizens. Yes, that that includes innocent civilians and critical infrastructure to support their livelihood.
In other words, ZERO Russians have been killed by military forces inside Russia since the conflict started. But how many Russians military and paramilitary forces have died in Ukraine? The actual figures are a closely guarded secret by Russian forces. But according to the Moscow times it is about 15,000 in what they describe as an independent analysis. According to the Wall Street Journal, U.S. officials estimate to be north of 200,000 been killed since the beginning of the invasion. For all of you eagled-eye mathematicians, that’s 185,000 more deaths than what is noted by Russian officials. And yes, all those Russian forces casualties are INSIDE Ukraine. Again, there are ZERO Russian forces casualties OUTSIDE Ukraine, unless you add the ship’s that got sunken by Ukrainian forces in the Black Sea.
As far as Ukrainians, according to the United Nations Human Rights Office (OHCHR), about 8,000 non-combatants have been killed (confirmed), and about 13,300 injured since the war stared. The Commander in Chief of Ukrainian Armed Forces said that back in August, Ukraine lost about 9,000 soldiers in the war. I was unable to find what the figure is right now, as there seem to be so many sources. But in either case it seems to be a lot lower than the Russian armed forces. Why you think is that?
Tactical Catastrophes
I’ve mentioned it in a previous article, and it is also worth repeating. The Human Factor is what can turn the tides of the war. I mentioned also in my previous articles that a lot of every-day Russian citizens are likely opposed to the war. Further, that was demonstrated by the fact we observed mass exodus from Russia after the mobilization took place. There are many fighting-age Russian expats all over the place. Although Russians in general are very patriotic, that does not equate for them losing the lives in vain.
If you remember from my frits article about this topic, I mentioned that most Russians likely realized the obvious. The is a non-zero chance the people in the ground, those giving orders to the troops, are not knowledgeable enough to sustain a successful campaign. This is not an opinion, there has been large amounts of Russian troops who died a senseless death because of lack of tactical planning and sheers amounts of inexperience in the front lines.
This is horrifying, but unfortunately not unexpected. It is a consequence of bad planning at the much higher echelons, which of course affect the front lines. Let’s start by the fact that the Ukrainian forces are fighting for their lives, the Russian forces are fighting for a narrative that is largely fabricated. What do I mean by that? Let’s start from the beginning of this Conflict, a year ago. I know that the conflict started much earlier, but a year ago is when the first salvo was fired into Ukraine.
The Official Russian story started with the narrative that they were not going to go into Ukraine at all. Even thought there were all kinds of evidence demonstrating troops surrounding the country and practicing for entering the Ukraine. However, Russia kept their narrative to say that they were not going to cross into Ukraine. So, that begs the question. WHY did Russia Crossed Ukraine in the first place? Well, buckle up, because this narrative has also been subject to a lot of modifications.
Originally Russian Forces crossed into Ukraine to “liberate” ethnic Russians in the Donbas area which are the territories that border Ukraine and Russia, east of Ukraine. The narrative said that they were under attack by Ukraine, and that they were hiding in their basements and fearing for their lives. They even used the word “genocide” for this narrative. There is no evidence that ethnic Russian people in this area in Ukraine were actually in any danger. Where there some of these ethnic Russians who were very much onboard with being part of Russia? Absolutely yes, but I am sure they were not counting with the sheer amount of destruction they got as a consequence for this “special military operation.”
The official story got modified to state they were fighting Nazis. Yes, that’s what they stated with a straight face. This is interesting because some of the actual mercenaries fighting along the Russian forces were indeed Nazi sympathizers and very much aligned with that dystopian world view. Particularly supremacy of one race over the other. Also, there has been no shortage of war crimes. However, calling an adversary a Nazi makes it easier to ping it to an enemy. Afterall a lot of the former Soviet audience will remember the prowess of the Soviet Union joining the fight against Nazis in World War II (WW II), even if none of the veterans from WW II are likely alive today.
Then the goal moved to state that Russia is currently DEFENDING themselves from NATO aggression. This is despite the fact that zero rounds of ammunition have entered Russian territory from NATO ever. Also, NATO is not fighting along Ukraine. Ukraine forces are doing all the brunt of the work as far as defending their own country. As I mentioned before NATO (to include the US) are not fighting in this war between Russia and Ukraine. I know that it would be convenient for Russia if that would be the case, but that is not what is going on. There are a lot of legal and international policy reasons for this restraint. I don’t intend to go to all of them in detail, but we will discuss a few that are relevant and released to the public. In either case, Ukraine has been proven a formidable adversary to Russia. Ukraine has a formidable weapon, which their own people’s resiliency and courage.
International policy is a very complex situation. It takes finesse, but most importantly, it takes a lot of understanding of abstract contexts (as in plural). Failure to do so would lead to the law of unintended consequences. That means when something gets royally f—-d it is because somebody didn’t plan properly for all the different possibilities. And no, possibilities are not binary. There are gradients, and each gradient is not a linear gradient, it actually dynamic. That’s why it is complex, and some people won’t be able to understand it. It is not their fault; it just takes a lot of contexts to fully grasp these concepts in a holistic manner. How?
Well, consider the following just as a little taste for the great amount of scheme involved when understanding context at this scale: Historical traits, historical references, historical narratives, historical biases, historical evidence, forensically historical evidence, etc. See? I am just getting started – and we are only taking bout history thus far. There are different ways history gets interpreted, regardless of if it is accurate or not, because people tend to embellish or down-right lie about history if it is convenient to them. And at some other point I’ll talk more about that, but for now I really just want you to realize that there is complexity in everything. I am not done, there is more to this gradient construct.
Cultural norms, cultural upbringing, acquired cultural biases, evolved cultural biases, language barriers, linguistic syntax, linguistic slangs, linguistic contemporary references, idiomatic divergences. Etc. Yes, there is a lot more. Religion, religious biases, acquired dogmas and divergences on spiritual identity for a group and for a dissenting group, upbringing, environmental changes for demographic segments of the population, misunderstandings and assumptions towards one group to the other, naiveties from particular segments of the population, education, literacy, political leanings, political understanding, useful fools, propagandists, opportunists, journalism vs opinion pundits, geography, elections, political leanings, districts, redistricting, representation, law and order, law enforcement, law abiding, cultural acceptance or disregard for statutes. Etc.
I am just going to leave it at that for now, but hopefully you get the point that there is plenty to contemplate when coming to planning process and understanding the context behind the planning. Also, I chose some of the less obvious elements because sometimes we have a tendency to think about what is “the point” – but that’s where the planning process could potentially fail. There is something additional to the story, and that’s why it is so easy to misdirect people into a narrative that is not accurate, or paint it in a way that seems possible, yet it encourages them to ignore all the important factors that indeed play a key role in the decision-making process. It is an art from, granted… and that is something that we all as a culture have been getting further and further away from.
For example, some people won’t even want to read a meme that is three lines long, because it is too long! What do they give up in return? Their critical thinking, as they are just getting trained into this “cause and effect” binary paradigm. That’s awesome if you want to be controlled by somebody who actually does have critical thinking. We are all creatures of habit, and when propaganda is rampant, then this propaganda will also become normalized and subsequently become part of a person’s identity.
I know these are complex subjects, that’s why I wrote three entire manuscripts that deal with these topics in detail. All these manuscripts are in process of editing and publishing, therefore as the time I am writing this I don’t know how long it will take to release them. However, it will be advertised as available once they are ready. The point is that there is a reason why said there is a lot of complexity on this particular topic. And of course, this not unique to Russia. Every country in the world, to include USA are bombarded with propaganda and false narratives. They can seem harder to differentiate, but there are telltale signs. The first way to break away from that is by enacting critical thinking and intellectual honesty. Yes, these need to come hand-in-hand.
Why? Because people tend to be VERY critically objective about OTHER people’s faults, but they will be blind to the SAME fault if it is something that requires introspection. For example, a dude getting furious at his wife because she cheated on him; but meanwhile this dude was cheating on his wife with a bunch of other ladies. In other words, hypocrisy and intellectual honesty are to diametrically opposed terms.
To further illustrate this topic, I enjoy watching debates in order to expand my critical thinking. I usually even prefer hearing debates about topics where I don’t agree with either of the participants. For example: if a flat-Earther person is debating a creationist. I don’t agree with either of them, but it is interesting to see how people rationalize their commitment to whatever school of thought they seem to subscribe. That does not mean that they would automatically persuade me to change my mind and suddenly I’ll become a creationist or flat earther. Why? Because I also have a lot of additional context and empirical evidence that will demonstrate my disagreement to either case.
However, I might also watch a debate about a topic I seem to agree and another I don’t seem to agree with. This will require to see how the merits are being presented. And if there were any actual fallacies for each argument, and how many can be identified. And sometimes it might actually be the person with whom you agree who is the lesser performer. This can go one of a few ways. But to make it easier let’s choose two. First, I might disagree or agree with either contender. Or second, I might have realized (with actual evidence) that the presenter was underprepared to argue the point, and actually performed poorly despite the fact they were defending a factual point. For example, let’s say the debate was about math, and one of the debaters was saying that math is intrinsically fallacious, and the other one was defending math as an exact science. However, the defender of the premise was not able to calculate a simple equation. That would undermine the presenter, but the validity for equation would be what it is regardless of if it was properly solved or not. Unresolved does not necessarily equals inexistent.
So, how all this ties with the conflict between Russia and Ukraine? Simple, this lack of understanding on context it is what continues to rally support by several groups of people who are taking inaccurate information at face value. It is jut applied in several different scenarios, what I described is in essence the formula.
Ukraine-Russia conflict 302 days later
The Russian Conundrum
I’ve said it before, and I will say it again. Everyday Russians are generally super nice people. There are several people in Russia who are very much opposed to what it is going on in Ukraine. The problem is that the same people feel uneasy about speaking up, because this could be considered akin to speaking against their government… and dare say, treason. And we stablished that the incumbent Russian policy does not appreciate people expressing something contrary to their official narrative.
I’ve seen several interviews from everyday Russians when they are asked information regarding their thoughts about their government, particular political figures, the mobilization, their reactions about what the official narrative is, etc. And a lot of them say much more with their body language than with their voice. That does not mean that they are not articulated or coherent… what I am saying is that they are very cautions on how they choose their words. In fact, they have said as much – as far as choosing their words carefully because they don’t want to be recorded saying something that could put them in a precarious situation. Whatever that might be.
We have to realize that people in Russia and anywhere around the world are very much capable of understanding what is in their environment. But that does not mean that people could not be peppered with propaganda and false narratives, and making a decision based on that understanding. And that happens a lot. As there are people for or against the war with Ukraine, some of those in favor use debunked talking points as their rationale for support. Which begs the question, how would their analysis and decision change if they had the actual full context?
True that there is always going to be segment of the population who will not care about context of the truth at all, no matter if it is clear as day. That is the segment I mentioned that lacks critical thinking and intellectual honesty. They are just ok blindly believing whatever narrative their biases seem to acolyte about. It is designed to be that way by the propagandists. Repeat something long enough in a way that resonates with the audience, and then the same audience will become the carriers of that narrative to the rest of the population. It is very similar to the way algorithms for social media work, give people more and more of what they seek. The problem is that when a person lacks critical thinking and intellectual honesty, this will inevitably lead them to be placed into an echo chamber. As a result, they become systematically controlled by whomever is guiding the narrative.
And the Russian conundrum is between their own people. I’ve said before, the only people who can end this conflict are Russians themselves. And no, I am not advocating for a coup or taking Russia by force, that’s not what I am saying at all. Read that again. Although Russia has a long history of doing exactly that (change of leadership by force) by their previous major revolutions in the 20th century. The raise of Communism and the subsequent fall of Iron Curtain. Those were achieved by Russians themselves. The problem on either case is that they led to a power vacuum, and this vacuum was filled by a myriad of opportunistic people who were poised in a way to gain that leverage.
People who oppose the incumbent, who’s for better or worse has been in power for over two decades, know that it is very hard to be an opposing party in that country. There have been a lot of dissenting views that somehow happened to suffer accidents. Is that a coincidence? I’ll let you think about it. I don’t plan on making myself a target from that. But for better or worse, the current Russian President has been in power for that long, even though he had a few different prominent titles throughout these years. In either case, Russia is – on paper – considered democratic, and that would mean that they could vote in or out their leadership. For a lot of younger Russians, the current president is all they know. In fact, I would be very surprised if any of them can name an actual opposing candidate. I know of Alexei Navalny. He is in custody in Russia, and he was supposed to be one of the leading compositors to the incumbent. A lot of oligarchs who had some disagreement with the incumbent also suffered several types of deaths ranging from falling from buildings, to getting mugged, etc. Would that give pause to everyday Russians to think about speaking out, and possibly suffer a coincidence? Especially if they want to run for office.
I mentioned before, and I it is worth mentioning again. A leader, ANY leader is only as powerful as his or her followers. If the followers do not feel the leader is fit to lead, then their power will fade as the support from their follower’s group fades. Which leads to another option, leading by fear of consequences. In other words, this becomes coercion as in black mail. Play ball, or something you care about its going to be negatively impacted (even if that something is your own life or the lives of somebody you love). But remember, this “leading by fear” still needs to get enforced by a living-breathing human being. In other words, an actual follower of whomever is this so-called leader. I’m not saying that President Putin is leading by fear. And if this statement is accurate, this could be demonstrated by allowing people to voice their unfiltered opinions, however unpopular – even if it is dissenting, and allow any opposition to compete for the same seat.
Why? Because if the incumbent is indeed the best fit for office, then it does not matter if the rest of the world dissents with him – the record will demonstrate that he was right all along. For you see, when things are real, then ALL the pieces of the puzzle fit automatically, there is no need to embellish, or downplay, censor, or eliminate (even covertly) any aspect for the equation. An opposition would be able to argue if there are points of contention, and the incumbent would be able to demonstrate if those points of contention are accurate, or if these points exist only somebody’s imagination. In either case, this is a decision for the entire country. The incumbent is not the entire country, it is only one citizen with a gigantic responsibility to look after ALL the constituents.
There is no disgrace for any world leader in stepping down and having somebody follow their legacy, or even improve on said legacy. The key of moving a society forward is by helping every person become the people they are meant to be. In other words, we try to make it better for the next generation. They have to be smarter and better prepared than we were ever afforded the opportunity to be.
In either case, the Russian people – particularly the younger generations very much understand that NOBODY in Western countries wants to fight Russia, or anybody else for that matter. People in the West are ok living their own lives, and buying stuff online, and eating at nice restaurants, and making a living in any way they find adequate to them. They have their own problems and the last thing they need is adding or advocate for starting problems elsewhere. And what it is encouraging about young Russians is that for better or for worse they will inherit their own land. Much like Ukrainians will inherit their own land as well. As it has been the case since the beginning of civilization, the younger generations will inherit the next chapters. Why? Because older people age and eventually pass away, and the new generation has to take over. That’s how time and life work in this particular planet. It’s physics and reality.
Another layer to this conundrum… and this will sting a bit. Russia already lost the war with Ukraine several months ago. And no, winning a war is not just who’s subjugating the other force. It is more about what stays behind in their own mother land. This war with Ukraine has costed the Russian people more than they will be able to afford for the next couple of generations. We are not just talking about money, equipment or even lives – but we can also add the fact that the rest of the world does not condone the premise, and execution of this “Special Military Operation (war) against Ukraine. Especially because it cannot be disputed that this very war happened and continues to happen for more than a year as I write this – indeed occurred. This becomes a self-inflicted wound to Russian’s foreign policy due to the exponential miscalculation for success in this campaign. Russian’s new generations particularly realize this to be a fact. And what is worse, it is going to be up to them to fix it. What will Putin’s legacy will be with them?
Any leader, good or bad, will leave a legacy behind. We’ll let history dictate what Putin’s legacy will be in the end. There is some speculation that every day the war is costing Russia between half-a-billion to one billion dollars per day. Is that accurate? Not sure… But the fact is that whatever is happening is not free at all. Ammunition, fuel, personnel, mobilization, uniforms, weapons, planes, missiles, etc. All that costs a lot of money. Also, we have to factor that all those need collateral costs such as food and water, and transportation of said goods and services.
So, where all this money comes from? Well, there are some state coffers, there is cash flow for the different industries, and of course there are taxes, and contributions… but more than that there is DEBT. It is simply not sustainable, and everyday this war rages on keeps mortgaging the livelihood of Russian citizens. In other words, each day costs more than what a regular Russian would make in their entire lifetime. Let’s remember that the cost of living and salaries in Russia are generally a lot lower than in western countries.
When we talk about debt – just like people, but at a macro scale, countries borrow money from a larger pot. And much like private debt, there will interest rates added to said debt. Unlike regular people, countries can extend their debt ceiling more and more… but that also means that it mortgages the future of the entire country. They will have to be able to keep paying that debt at some point.
And spoiler alert, the debt never does get paid… well It can… but generally most countries are in deficit – even the richest countries in the world, such as the USA. Yes, there is a lot of debt in the USA, and that’s why at the end of every year there is a political flight about raising the debt ceiling, and sometimes when they (politicians) disagree, the country gets shut down. It has happened a few times in fact. And USA is a very, very rich country. Russia is not rich. Russia has a lot of natural resources, but their collective economic power is nowhere near some of the biggest economies in the world. And every day the debt keeps getting larger and larger.
And just to illustrate the top 10 economies based on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in order are: USA, China, Japan, Germany, India, France, UK, Italy, Brazil and Canada.
Which begs the question, yet again, what will Putin’s legacy be after this war? Even if they “defeat” Ukraine. What about the legacy for Putin’s supporters, or what the opposition would call “enablers.” This is not a riddle the international community will be able to solve, but it will be very much something the rest of Russians will have to deal with at some point. Let’s put that in context. Putin was born the 7 of October 1952 – so he’s ~70 years old by the time I am typing this article. Let’s say for the sake of argument that he remains in power and reelected until he’s 100, that’s 30 more years of the same person in power. 20-year-olds would be 50 at that time. Much older than what I am today as I type this article.
Realistically, how many more times can he be reelected after this term? Once, twice? Let’s say even if it is twice… according to Russian law the maximum you can be reelected is a couple of times as president, and each term will be six years. Notwithstanding, there have been adjustments to this paradigm during Putin’s years, so really – who knows what the case will be. But for the sake of argument, let’s say he can get two more terms… that means he would have to run for re-election in March 2024. In other words, if he wins twice again, he would be 84 years old by the time he would finally let somebody else run the country.
This is part of the conundrum, because we all around the world know that there is a very slim chance that an opposition candidate will be able to compete in the meantime. Is there anybody who feels empowered enough to take this gig? I’m sure there are political aspirations, but that begs the question – would they be able to ask questions that the current regime finds “provocative” or even “accusatory” – and the next logical question is: What are the consequences for dissenting with the incumbent? I’ll reserve my opinion, but seeing from most everyday Russians who get interviewed about questions that could be deemed as contentious – they prefer choosing their words very carefully. Who can blame them?
Meanwhile, things are not going well in the front lines. The Russian official narrative states that they are doing great. Does that match the situation in the ground? There are no shortage of soldiers and mercenaries who have complained about the unpreparedness of these front-line posts. Pair that with the fact that many incarcerated convicts were sent to the front lines; they were given the choice to return as heroes if they fought for Russia, but instead a great number of them perished almost as soon as they went into battle. Likewise, a lot of the conscripts were given very short training opportunities and sent to the front lines without proper preparation and equipment. Many of them died very rapidly.
How do we know they died? There is no shortage of video footage seeing all kinds of Russian forces casualties running face first to their death. Some of that footage shows their lack of tactics and actual training when they are in the front lines. Those have become fruitless suicide missions. It is actually very sad, because even if some of the Russian military personnel believed in the cause, they are not even afforded the opportunity to have a fighting chance. They are already fighting their own shortcomings before they face the first Ukrainian adversary in battle.
But regardless, the best way for Russian forces survive has been empirically demonstrated. And that is not crossing form Russia into Ukraine in the first place. I said it before, and I will say it again. There have been zero rounds of ammunition hitting the Russian homeland this entire conflict. You know why? Because nobody is shooting on that direction. All Ukrainian-shot rounds and ordinance are used to defend their internationally recognized borders. They are being shot inside the Ukrainian border against the opposing military forces.
A bit of history for context
I’ve mentioned before that Russia and Ukraine share a very long history together. And the lines in the map as it is recognized today is not the way they were drawn many years ago. These changes had happened, and they will continue to happen one way or the other. There are disputed territories all over the world, and these territories normally become more contentious depending on their strategic value…. Which includes geography to a large extent. Russia and Ukraine have a lot of everything I just mentioned.
For us to understand this, we’ll go as far back to Soviet times… although there is more history before. But for the purpose of the current generations, Soviet era is far enough into the past. Why? Because most people from the time of the Czars have already passed away a long time ago. The Soviet Union was founded in 1922, which means that anybody alive from that time would be ~100 years old, not adding the fact that they would have been a baby… so any adult, let’s say 18 years old… during that time is definitely long gone. Unless we have a bunch of 118-year-olds living in Russia still. My assessment is that very few WW II Soviet veterans are alive now, if they indeed still exist. The Soviet Union feel in the early 90’s so that means that any person in their late 30’s and early 40’s would have been young enough to be cognizant of these transition periods.
Anybody who was born after the mid-90’s would have no actual notion of how it was like living under Soviet rule… however, there would be a lot of vestigial remanences from Soviet era. I am not saying that actual Soviet people were bad people, they were PEOPLE, but their world was skewed to the views that were approved by the Communist Party. Even if you were not a party member, too bad… because the law of the land was what it was. And if you disagreed, there was a non-zero chance that somebody would drag you from wherever you were and destroy you and everything you ever loved. That does not happen to the same extent now, or even immediately after the fall of the Soviet Union… but there is, and there always was corruption.
The Soviet system was riddled with all kinds of problems from the start. Particularly, because there were certain quotas that needed to be fulfilled, and the use of better equipment was often not granted. Even if industries were working at a deficit, it did not matter, because the government would be maintaining these otherwise failing, obsolete and ineffective industries. A big chunk of the collective budge went towards industry, but the agricultural part was largely disproportionated – as far as support. Unsurprisingly, this caused a huge famine problem through large segments of the population. Those on top were ok because these quotas would ensure that those on top would remain happy – regardless of the hardships from those in the bottom.
Even more bizarre, everybody was supposed to be equal… and they all lived in very modest conditions. So, a boss and your subordinate would be living kind of the same, regardless of how much responsibility one had over the other. There was still homelessness, and there was unemployment… However, that was kind of fixed by official policies to give everybody a an “adequate” dwelling and “employment” – but these were very much diametrically opposed to an actual good standard of living. However, all over the Soviet Republics, all these “adequate” living quarters and employments were what they were – low standards.
Most people would get a chance to have a higher salary based on certain skills they could pursue, but those were always well below western standards. This of course was an easy bait to demonize the westerners as decadent. In Soviet times, a family would have to be in waiting lists for pretty much everything. Food, housing, and even if you wanted a vehicle. And the waiting times were years long.
For example, for housing, if you’ve even been to any of the countries that were formerly part of the Soviet Union, you’ll likely got to see these very characteristically plain apartment buildings. They would have these little apartments. Often, they would be one or two rooms, or maybe if you were super lucky three rooms. I am not saying bedroom… these were rooms… Your kitchen would likely have a cot of some sort… so somebody would sleep there too. The rooms would have these futons, so they would be used as a couch in the daytime and then converted as a bed in the evening. More than one person would be sharing these futons at night – for example, you and your sibling.
There would normally be one small bathroom. These dwellings were not free, because Soviet people did not own any property. They had to pay rent, even though a lot of that cost was subsidized by the state. But if you needed to move, well… it was not like you could ask a realtor to help you out. you would have to coordinate with other people and try to swap places, otherwise back to the waiting list you go.
If you were one of those few lucky ones, you could get a plot of land somewhere… a dacha (summer residence), but people did not get to own the land… only the little building. There was a catch, most of these did not have any running water or other services. But they did tend to be located near a lake… so that’s nice. So, you could have a house, but pretty much nothing that would come close to actual conveniences. That’s another reason why so many would also prefer living exclusively in the cities, because they could get gas, and running water – however meager in appearance, but these basic services were there. This contrasted very much with western standards, and hence westerners would be considered “decadent” even though these same westerners were not necessarily rich in their own land.
But I bring this up, because these vestigial impressions against the west live to this day. And they are likely not to go away. Most people who were born under Soviet Rule did not leave the Soviet Block. Therefore, what it considered normal to them, is not what would be considered normal to others. That’s why I mentioned it was “adequate” in quotations. You could live there… but this would be a way to keep people humble in a very artificial manner. That’s why a lot of the older generations in Russia will view the younger post-Soviet generation as “selfish” or as though they are not as good as they were before. Well, of course things change, and people want to progress, and have more fulfilling lives.
That was different in Soviet times. People were ok with their lives, but many did not know any better… it was what it was. So, let’s do an experiment here while you’re reading this to understand this contrast. Let’s say that you are part of the middle class anywhere in the world… and you have a nice house, and a good job, a decent vehicle, and live relatively well – to include a little luxury here and there. You can get your chance to go out for dinner often enough, have some decent savings, but are not necessarily rich.
But let’s say that you go to one of those very exuberant cities and you’re asked to spend USD $25,000 a night in a hotel if you so choose to do so. Or you could have a nice room somewhere for just $200 a night. Which one would seem normal, and which one would seem excessive to you? How about if the room was only $3,000 a night? How about if it was only $1,000? How about if it was only $300 per night? At which point does it make it decadent and extravagant? Maybe this would be a one-off and spend so much on one night, but can you afford to spend an entire week at any of these prices? Even the $200 a night? That’s $1,400 for seven days by the way.
In contrast, let say that you’re the same middle-class person I mentioned above… and now you have to go to a place where there is no running water, and there is no electricity, and any modern conveniences such as wi-fi are very far away. And no, I am not taking about camping. I’m talking living in very impoverished conditions to what would be the “standard of living” you’re accustomed to.
In either example, high or low… there is going to be a perception of what is acceptable and what is adequate. There are people in the world who live in the way I mentioned with no running water, electricity, and no comforts whatsoever in the manner we are accustomed to – yet for them this is adequate, and they enjoy their lives to the max. Who’s to say who’s better than the other?
The difference is the choice… in our societies we have to some extent a chance to choose our own adventure. If we don’t like a job, we might be able to change it… even though there will be contractual restraints until we can do so. But that is not true for everybody and was certainly not the case in the Soviet Union. You had some sort of illusion of choice, and there were some ways to work these “opportunities” within a certain narrow scope of possibilities. But there was always a celling, and the only way you could go closer to that ceiling was with unquestionable loyalty and a lot of time waiting for your turn… years in fact.
For the sake of fairness, in the western world it is similar to a point. The difference is that the array of choices is much more diverse. Also, there are ways to go above the pre-determined ceiling. The Soviet Union, once they realized that their system was unsustainable tried to do something similar to western nations… that’s what’s known as “Perestroika” which was spearheaded by Mikhail Gorbachev, who was the last leader from the Soviet Union at the time. Some people give a lot of credit to Gorbachev for trying to help Soviets have a better standard of living. When you analyze history pragmatically, it is a lot more complex than that.
The Soviet Union was in decline, rapid decline. They knew that it was unsustainable, and that it was not a matter of if but when it would collapse. So, with Perestroika, it would give some incentives for some industries to either lease or purchase some of the farms and factories that were previously owned by the Soviet Government. On the surface, this seems like a sure way to jumpstart the economy and giving a kind of Capitalism-lite flavor to the Soviets. Well, not so fast… these factories still needed to produce the quota for the government, the difference is that the prices the government would pay for these services was already unsustainable. Another problem is that the government often refuse to let these industries update machinery or other ways to make the production more efficient.
That’s one of the reasons why in my original article about this war, I mentioned the Volga automobiles and went on to say that these were not very well constructed. Even though they were supposed to be the top-of-the-line vehicles available at the time. Well, there is a reason for that, the machinery and the way they would assemble would be ancient in terms of technology, and any improvements required so much bureaucracy that the mere attempt to make it better would fall flat on its face. In other words, the Soviet government was the main saboteur for any industry. It would just promote mediocrity and blind obedience to the status quo. Which it is also funny, because then it could be used as a catalyst to demonstrate that the “western” system is flawed and unsustainable… Afterall, they tried and it failed, right? Well, no, there is a lot more to that story.
The Soviet modus operandi was redirection and what-about-ism… that still exists to this day. Because bad habits are hard to break, especially if they have been normalized for so long.
This lack of understanding on the intricacies for each industry, and the management at the macro level is what ultimately bankrupted the Soviet Union (yes, I am oversimplifying, I can speak for hours on that). Even thought there were terrific minds, a lot of those were underutilized. Especially if they had something to say against the regime. That’s why a lot of the former Soviet Republics voted for independence the very first change they’ve got. And guess what? A lot of these nations are doing quite well, given the context and struggles they had to fix from Soviet era. In other words, all these relatively young nations are still fixing stuff that a few generations of Soviet malpractice instituted in their systems.
Ukraine-Russia conflict 302 days later
Ukraine-Russia conflict 334 days later
How does this bring us to where we are today?
I said it before, Russia has already lost this war – even if they “win” – the are not wining. Much like it was during Soviet times, Russia will have to invest in the back and talent of their new generation, and likely the next generation to fix anything that has been destroyed this past year.
It begs another question. What will be the end state for this conflict? Well, that’s the trillion-dollar question, because there is so much at stake that it is hard to predict. The fate of the world lays on the hopes that people on key position don’t f–k up. Because the risk of miscalculation is already great. For better or for worse Putin is holding the entire world hostage, that’s why he gets sanctions… because the entire world is at risk of Nuclear Armageddon. And this is a real threat, and it should be a sobering point to everybody.
I’ll reiterate that not the US, not NATO, not anybody in the international community wants to erase Russia from the map, nor attack their homeland. All that is being asked of Russia is to stop this conflict and accept that this operation was not all they said it was supposed to be. Very simply put, if the people in Donbas area were cool with Russia taking this land, it would have been over by now… much like it was the case in Crimea, even though that is another geopolitical quagmire. But back then, there was more people onboard with trying to be part of Russia… although, a lot of them also realized that the deal was not exactly what they thought it would be, and some even had said on camera that they would wish they were back in Ukraine. Which it is interesting, even if anecdotally, because a lot of times the grass seems greener on the other side, until you actually visit the other side. That’s why I mentioned before that it is important to understand context… And a lot of context tends to be hidden in the abstract.
The “peace negotiations” Russia claims to promote are not a position Ukraine can accept, because it essentially implies that Ukraine becomes a subordinate country to Russia, and that the Russian regime walks Scott-free after all the death and destruction. And this is an important point, because the Russian military was the aggressor in this case. It is not unlike if a person comes into your house and starts beating the s–t out of your kids, and then says that the only way to get some peace is if you can let one of your kids go with the aggressor, and just forget about it. Friends? I know it is a bit more complex than that, but it boils down to the fact that this will serve as an accurate analogy.
I am sure that a lot of people want to welcome Russian into the rest of the international community, and so do Russians. Unfortunately, whomever is pushing and enforcing policy in every individual country will have control over the rest of the population for better or for worse. In the case for Russia, it does not matter how we try to spin it, it is not Russians fighting for their lives. However, Ukrainians have been fighting for their lives, their freedom, and everything they ever loved since Russia crossed the border 12 months ago. The rest of the international community can only do one thing, which is make it less bad for Ukraine. But the international community is not combating Russia.
Let’s uses the example I used before to better illustrate this point. Let’s Somebody barges in your house and starts beating the s–t out of your two kids, and leaves taking one of your kids with them. Apparently, your kids smiled at this person at some point and the perpetrator thought it was tacit consent for taking your kid away. The perpetrator leaves and returns the next day and attempting to beat the s–t out of your other kid and take him away again. After the first incident you told your neighbor about it.
For whatever reason the police won’t help you out… but you tell this to a friend of yours, let’s say a neighbor. He understands you’ve been wronged and then he lends you a shield and a come cuffs. Your friend tells you, “You’re on your own buddy, I can’t fight that guy if he comes back, but you can use this to DEFEND your kids if he comes back. However, you cannot use this shield and cuffs to go to this guy’s house and beat the s–t out of him at his own place.”
Next day when the perpetrator comes back to your house, you are able to stop his blows with the shield, protect your kids, after the perpetrator injures his hands hitting the shield. You use the cuffs to restrain him from hitting your kids again. This gives you an opportunity for the perpetrator to think about what he did, and so you can talk to him and find what is the best course of action to resolve the situation. However, this guy already beat the s–t of your kids the day prior and took already one of them. He has to be accountable for those actions and would have to return the child.
The international community in his example is the friend who lends the shield and cuffs to defend himself and his kids and preventing further attacks. The kids represent the regions in Ukraine (one being Crimea, the other being Donbas). The cuffs are essentially the sanctions the international community puts on the perpetrator to entice him to have a reasonable dialog. That way, even if he flexes and screams, at least he cannot do any further unmitigated damage to the kids or to your home. In this case Russia is the perpetrator and the kids and as I said are the regions being attacked during this conflict; and the premise for the time Russia annexed Crimea. The kid’s prior smiles represent the ethnic Russians who were Ukrainian citizens.
And with this example I’ll let you be today. Thank you as always for reading this far. All I can do is wishing for the best, and that things will improve. Nobody needs a senseless war. And to close, let’s remember that a regime – any regime – is not the same as the people who live under it. Today, you and I, and everybody around us are the future of our world. Let’s continue the conversation. HLC