The chips are down: Putin scrambles for high-tech parts as his arsenal goes up in smoke:
It's the microchips that look set to get Vladimir Putin in the end. Six months into its invasion of Ukraine, Russia is being throttled by a severe technology deficit inflicted by sanctions.
Having fired off (or lost in combat) way more of their missile firepower than they originally anticipated, Moscow's soldiers are now increasingly relying on ancient stocks of primitive Soviet-era munitions while Western-armed Ukrainian forces are battling to turn the tide in a southern counteroffensive with pinpoint strikes on munition dumps and key infrastructure such as bridges.
Kyiv is acutely aware that the outcome of the war is likely to hinge on whether Russia finds a way to regain access to high-tech chips, and is out to ensure it doesn't get them. In order to flag the danger, Ukraine is sending out international warnings that the Kremlin has drawn up shopping lists of semiconductors, transformers, connectors, casings, transistors, insulators and other components, most made by companies in the U.S., Germany, the Netherlands, the U.K., Taiwan and Japan, among others, which it needs to fuel its war effort.
POLITICO has seen one of the Russian lists, which is divided into three priority categories, from the most critical components to the least. It even includes the price per item that Moscow expects to pay, down to the last kopeck. While POLITICO could not independently verify the provenance of the list, two experts in military supply chains confirmed it was in line with other research findings about Russia's military equipment and needs.
At first glance, Russia shouldn't be able to acquire the most sensitive tech on the lists. With only very basic domestic technology, the Kremlin has relied on key players in the U.S., the EU and Japan for semiconductors as suppliers over the past years and these should be out of grasp thanks to sanctions. The difficulty would emerge in whether an intermediary country such as China were to buy technologies, then sell them on to Moscow. In extreme cases, Russians appear to be clawing chips out of household appliances like fridges.
Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal stressed the war had come to an inflection point where the technological edge was proving decisive.
"According to our information, Russians have already spent almost half ... of their weaponry arsenal," he [said].
He added that Ukraine estimated that Russia was down to just "four dozen" hypersonic missiles. "These are the ones that have precision and accuracy due to the microchips that they have. But because of sanctions imposed on Russia, the deliveries of this high-tech microchip equipment ... have stopped and they have no way of replenishing these stocks."
Of the 25 items Russia is seeking most desperately, almost all are microchips manufactured by U.S. firms Marvell, Intel, Holt, ISSI, Microchip, Micron, Broadcom and Texas Instruments. Rounding out the list are chips by Japanese firm Renesas, which acquired the U.S.-based IDT; Germany's Infineon, which acquired U.S.-based Cypress; microcircuits by American firm Vicor; and connectors by U.S. firm AirBorn. Some of the items can be easily found in online electronics retailers, while others have been out of stock for months as a result of the global microchip shortage.
The cheapest item on the top priority list, the 88E1322-AO-BAM2I000 gigabit ethernet transceiver made by Marvell, can apparently be sourced by Moscow for 430.83 rubles a piece, or around €7. The most expensive item, a 10M04DCF256I7G field programmable gate array made by Intel, can be sourced at a highly inflated 66,815.77 rubles or €1,107 each, according to the list (before the chips shortage, it would have cost under €20).
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday September 07 2022, @03:38PM (55 children)
... what would scupper US/Europe?
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2022, @03:49PM
Trump.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by HiThere on Wednesday September 07 2022, @04:05PM (5 children)
Chips. Almost all of our ICs are imported. Just yesterday I read an article about attempts to improve that state of affairs, but even if successful, they'll take a long time to become effective.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday September 07 2022, @08:06PM (3 children)
It's such an obvious problem that even Congress could recognize it: The US federal government recently passed the CHIPS Act, which basically is a pile of money to convince manufacturers to build semiconductor plants in the US. Intel seems to be taking them up on that with a new plant planned near Columbus, Ohio [news5cleveland.com], which admittedly will take a few years to get up and running, but it's not going to happen any faster if we don't start now.
That said, another piece of that puzzle has to be crypto, because a lot of manufacturing capacity was going towards feeding the Bitcoin bubble.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2022, @11:50PM (2 children)
The far better way to do that is to remove all their overseas tax credits which convinced them to move offshore to begin with. Giving them money for nothing is bullshit and causes more inflation, like the decades long quantitative easing for Wall Street "contributors" has already done
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday September 08 2022, @01:51AM
I agree that the way they went about doing it is not how I would have handled it, and I'm sure Intel, AMD, and whoever else paid good money for this to be the answer Congress came up with. But there's no denying that (a) they've recognized the problem, (b) they've done something about it, and (c) that something seems to be putting us on the path of solving it. Which is definitely an improvement over how they address most problems, namely by pretending they don't exist.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday September 08 2022, @02:21PM
What "overseas tax credit?"
I'm aware of a foreign tax credit but that only applies against taxes you are paying in the foreign country so I don't think that's what you are referring to.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10 2022, @03:05PM
What country could prevent an Iraq-for-Oil invasion for chips? US drums up some pretense then comes into "liberate" the chips.
(Score: 3, Funny) by nostyle on Wednesday September 07 2022, @05:15PM (1 child)
Hippies.
(Score: 3, Funny) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday September 07 2022, @08:11PM
No problem... we have Slayer to use against them.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Wednesday September 07 2022, @05:43PM (1 child)
Hippies?
(Score: 3, Funny) by kazzie on Wednesday September 07 2022, @05:54PM
(Preview fail)
Above should have read:
Chippies?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 07 2022, @06:09PM (9 children)
That would really be a great many manufactured items. When the coronavirus hit Ford Motor company promised the Whitehouse it would start making masks because of the shortage of those made in China. So, all the engineers, supervisors, union people on the line, etc. had to drop everything to do with cars and such and hit the books about the specs they needed to hit; three months later they had prototyped a half dozen different forms and were waiting on leadership to greenlight one when they ultimately told everyone to drop the whole thing.
Given enough time, America and Europe still have the depth of talent, know-how, and resources to manufacture anything that is currently imported from China, but it would not be an instantaneous process.
But one can hope that some in leadership learned in the last two years how vulnerable global interdependence really makes us, and are taking real steps to address it.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday September 07 2022, @11:20PM (3 children)
Keep in mind that global interdependence has made the US less vulnerable in a number of ways. For example, the introduction of Japanese autos into the US market greatly improved the reliability and safety of autos collectively. I think among other things, that has resulted in a few tens of thousands less deaths per year.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2022, @12:57AM
"Interdependence" (or cooperation) is civilization's way of moving past the zero sum dominator cultures of the last couple thousand years. Yeah, bumps in the road with Russia losing its shit temporarily but this is the way. Or human sacrifice to the Gods, either way.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday September 08 2022, @03:16PM (1 child)
That's a fair point.
Still, enriching and empowering China by handing them our manufacturing has been a bad idea. Just like enriching and empowering Islamic extremism via Saudi Arabia and OPEC has been a bad idea. Just like enriching and empowering Russia through its resources has been a bad idea.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 09 2022, @01:32AM
Beats just burning it to the ground without any sort of return. I still see it as among the best of a bunch of bad options. The US has become hostile to a lot of manufacturing.
I disagree. I see this as analogous to Europe in the mid 19th Century. Islamic extremism is just another ideology like Communism. The OPEC powers like those of European governments of the time. My take is that we're probably a few generations out from a far better Middle East just like Europe was back then.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 08 2022, @11:20AM (4 children)
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Thursday September 08 2022, @02:26PM
Nevada is the 35th most federally subsidize state in the country. So, without that CA tax money they would be starving to death and dying from heat stroke without that interdependence.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Phoenix666 on Thursday September 08 2022, @03:18PM (2 children)
Are Nevada and California geopolitical adversaries, or do they share an ethos?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2022, @08:57PM
I suggest you ask Jim Marchant [wikipedia.org] about the communist stronghold of the People's Republic of California and their repeated lies about real Americans [latimes.com], their invasion of Nevada [visitlaughlin.com] and the desperate attempts of Californians to escape that third-world hellhole [mylifeelsewhere.com] by scaling the wall (built by the greatest leader of our nation ever [metro.co.uk]) or tunneling under it to escape the violent, repressive communist regime ruled with an iron fist by that murderous thug. [wikipedia.org]
In an effort to lower the cognitive load for some folks, cf. Poe's Law [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 09 2022, @01:34AM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by higuita on Wednesday September 07 2022, @07:05PM (27 children)
exactly the same thing, most chips are from China, Taiwan, Japan and south Korea... a war with china could block chip supplies to almost everyone. Many or the US and Europe chip production is supplied by components from those countries.
China and Taiwan would be totally blocked, Korea could have limited supplies and ship transit, japan less problem exporting, but more problem importing the needed materials... that if the war didn't spread to those two countries.
what would be fun would be people finally recycling phones and other electronic components just to find a few lacking chips or raw supplies to fuel other chip productions
About the lack of high tech weapons, people do forget that low tech weapons are "easy", if you can't do precision bombing, you will flip to carpet bomb, arty runs, with much high damage and innocent dead. while one side having then and the other don't is a advantage, is not as critically good as Ukrainian leaders may think
(Score: 1) by rpnx on Wednesday September 07 2022, @08:45PM (21 children)
This is already happening. Most of the civilian deaths in Ukraine are because Russia doesn't have accurate weaponry so they just fire bombs in the general direction of the target. Missed and hit civilians? Oh well, fire another one.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2022, @11:59PM (20 children)
Don't be stupid, most of the civilian deaths in Ukraine are from Ukrainian artillery. Russia gains nothing by killing civilians, Ukraine (US/NATO), on the other hand, can still blame the Russians for what they themselves are doing, the PR works like a charm
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2022, @01:00AM (1 child)
I have an even better idea! If Ukraine defeat themselves then the West will throw them a pity party and and they can brag about how hard done by they are like Millenial losers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2022, @04:26AM
small variation on a theme... [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Thursday September 08 2022, @02:06AM (1 child)
Except that they totally do:
1. If there aren't any civilians in an area, they don't have to be as worried that some of those civilians might fight back against them, something that's been a real problem for them in occupied areas. Which enables them to not need as many troops for occupation, which allows them to put more into combat.
2. If they instill enough fear of death from war in the Ukrainian civilian population, they might turn on their government's leadership and demand a peace negotiation.
3. In the propaganda they send back home, they can declare any civilian they kill an enemy military casualty, increasing the support for the war among their own civilian population. If you don't think they do that, consider that the US has been playing that game since at least Vietnam, and the US government has a lot less control of its media than the Russian government does of theirs (in the US, a reporter saying things the government doesn't like mostly risks getting fired, in Russia they risk imprisonment or death under mysterious circumstances).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Friday September 09 2022, @09:47AM
1. Yeah, that worked great throughout history. Please realize that every person you kill creates a family of insurgents.
2. Again, yeah, we remember how the German bombs on London, Manchester and Liverpool led to a demand for peace at any cost.
3. You don't need to kill people for that, just do what you usually do in propaganda: Lie. It's not like anyone can verify it anyway.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by khallow on Thursday September 08 2022, @02:51AM (15 children)
Let's reverse that.
When a statement is just as true and false, as this one is, by merely reversing the parties in question, then you're taking a side. You need something better than a reversible statement to justify that.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2022, @04:09AM (2 children)
My statement is true. The information I have is less biased, from disinterested observers, nothing to do with "taking sides". You, on the other hand, are exactly the opposite, having chosen to believe one side's view and are extremely biased. As many have already said, there is no good guy to prop up, this is a war for profit, and so far, very successful in that regard. Now Europe can buy gas from us instead of the Russians, and the weaponry, well, goes without saying
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2022, @06:23AM (1 child)
Who, exactly are these disinterested observers?
No. Seriously. Claims require evidence and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Hand waving about "less biased", "disinterested observers" only tells me that you want us to accept your claims without evidence.
Pony up or you're talking out of your ass.
kthxbai!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 08 2022, @10:09AM
This.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2022, @04:15AM (8 children)
Whoops! didn't finish:
... but now we can sell to both sides, like we did in the Iran/Iraq war to keep it going for as long as practical. Don't know why people deny that war is good business
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 08 2022, @10:10AM (7 children)
Because they aren't stupid. If you're the one selling weapons, it's great. If you're the one out of home and job because that all got blown up, it's not good business. Well, in a war, there are a lot more of the latter than the former.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2022, @10:04PM (6 children)
You probably have the power to foment and incite war, for profit, like in Ukraine, whether the people want it or not, despite the denials and downmods from the war mongers here
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 09 2022, @12:59AM (5 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 09 2022, @01:36AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10 2022, @08:05PM (3 children)
Just look to the ones profiting the most from it.. The financial pages will give you a hint. The old cliche "Follow the money" still applies
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 13 2022, @12:45PM (2 children)
Putin is at the top of that list - looting Russia for decades - and weirdly enough he started the war. Think about it next time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14 2022, @07:47AM (1 child)
No, US/NATO started the war in 2014
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 14 2022, @12:41PM
By using the Russian army to invade Crimea and the Donbas region. /sarc
Come up with talking points that aren't stupid.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2022, @07:50AM (2 children)
How many Russian civilians are you claiming are being killed by Ukraine?
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday September 08 2022, @10:13AM
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Thursday September 08 2022, @11:37AM
Nobody specified Russian civilians. This is an example of a leading question where you try to shoehorn the question so that every normal answer is bad.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2022, @11:15PM (1 child)
Apparently the authors of the article belive
Isn't strange that the US military uses mostly China's chips, while Russia American's?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 07 2022, @11:21PM
What do you mean by "mostly"? My take is that it's not true of high end CPU-level chips, for example.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday September 08 2022, @10:04AM (2 children)
Those low tech weapons don't work so well against enemies that can accurately return fire. You can't just fly in with a bomber or park your artillery for hours and fire. That greatly reduces the fire rate of those low tech weapons. And lack of accuracy means you need a lot more shots to do the same damage to your military targets. The First and Second World Wars demonstrated the ability of dug in, well-supplied enemies to withstand tremendous, poorly aimed firepower well beyond what Russia is throwing at Ukraine.
A high tech advantage isn't everything, but it not only allows you to target things nicely, it greatly reduces the effectiveness of low tech systems on the battlefield.
(Score: 2) by higuita on Friday September 09 2022, @01:57AM (1 child)
yes, totally agree!
but those high tech ammo are always expensive and, and as russia is finding, they do run out, specially if you are smart and spread your mens and supplies. So if russia invest lot more mens and increase their lower tech production, they can balance the lack of high tech weapons by number. The Soviet defense in WW2 and the Korea war showed exactly that, you can burn a part of your men power, but the other side will start to get supplies problems.
Just like the Ukrainians are building tanks out of wood, so the Russians waste high tech weapons on those, later on Russia will start doing the same.
Russia is also waiting for the winter, freezing the enemy to dead is always a "good low tech" option. specially when is Russia who supplied gas to Ukraine
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 09 2022, @02:16AM
I wonder if Russia had planned for a winter campaign? Well, I guess they'll have plenty of time to prepare.
Why aren't they doing that now?
That's a big "if". Russia has already shown that it can't just "invest" a lot more men. There's political constraints here that prevent Putin from doing that. And the longer it takes for that to happen, the more high tech supplies Ukraine will have.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday September 07 2022, @11:33PM (5 children)
Keep in mind that they are. Russia has just as much opportunity to organize embargoes and such as the western world does. That they aren't is due to Russia's heinous actions and the superior consensus building of the latter.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday September 08 2022, @02:29PM (4 children)
I know you don't want to hear it but I really give a lot of credit to Biden for the success of the latter.
He was warning us all about this shit way before any of us, including me, we willing to believe it!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 09 2022, @01:20AM (3 children)
Eh, I was willing to consider it back in January 14 [soylentnews.org] and December 8 [soylentnews.org].
For me, the abysmal treatment of the US economy more than makes up for that. I get that cleaning up the Trump hot mess is hard, but the uncreative strategy is just spend more public funds. I never bought the Keynesian strategy in the first place, but we're in a Red Queen situation where the US needs to spend a growing pile of money just to stay put.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 09 2022, @04:04PM (2 children)
Yeah, that's super relevant to a Russia thread....
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 09 2022, @05:31PM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 10 2022, @03:19AM
(Score: 4, Funny) by Thexalon on Wednesday September 07 2022, @07:54PM (3 children)
Russian tank driver: "Hey man, am I driving OK?"
Tank commander: "I think we're parked, man!"
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Opportunist on Wednesday September 07 2022, @10:48PM
Next thing you know, a javelin hits and pop goes the weasel.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2022, @01:13AM
A chink of junk is coming straight toward the ISS and nothing happens. An American screams - WTF, call Russians.
Sanctions, came the reply - can do nothing - it's against the law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2022, @09:09AM
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Username on Wednesday September 07 2022, @11:26PM (5 children)
Like they wouldn't get it cheap from china.
Also, Russia is the least threatening country. I know some have a real hardon for some good ole USSR fear mongering, but they're nothing now. They can barely take back former Russian territory. Japan spends more on their military than Russia. China's spends FIVE TIMES that of Russia.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2022, @01:03AM (1 child)
In Russia, military spends YOU.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Friday September 09 2022, @09:50AM
Russia calls it a special operation, other countries would call it a war,
Russia calls it military expense, other countries would call it body count...
It's all just words in the end.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday September 08 2022, @02:26AM (1 child)
Russia is definitely a bit of a paper tiger, except for two major problems:
1. They have all 3 legs of the nuclear triad and have had them for some time, probably the #2 nuclear force in the world. While it's probably not in tip-top shape, it is still extremely dangerous when you're talking about a country that can do a lot of damage to anywhere on the planet in a matter of hours if it's suicidal enough and stupid enough.
2. They control a large percentage of the world's fossil fuels, which much of the world still depends on to accomplish anything. While there are ways to work around this, they're difficult and expensive and take time.
So not a minor power, and not one that can be safely ignored to focus on China.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Friday September 09 2022, @09:54AM
While I wouldn't ignore Russia, I certainly wouldn't call it a global player either. It's economy is, how do I put this nicely, well, cute. Hell, Germany has a larger GDP than them, and the EU is magnitudes above them. Despite the way higher resources, larger workforce and opportunity. If you don't do jack shit with what you got, you're still a nobody.
Yes, they have a nuke arsenal. But when considering the state of their regular army, and considering that whoever is in charge of the nukes very likely never thought that they'd get to see any use, ever, I highly doubt their actual ability to nuke anything. Outside of Russia itself, that is. I wouldn't want to test it, but I also see no reason to fear it in any way. If this war has shown us something, then that Russia is a paper tiger without fangs. Before February, everyone thought that Russia has the second best army in the world. Today we ain't so sure whether it's even the second best army in Ukraine.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday September 08 2022, @10:16AM
When they stop invading neighbors, get rid of that massive military and nuclear force, and go totally pacifist, then you will have a point.
Let's get them out of Ukraine first.
So what? Japan and China didn't invade Ukraine.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2022, @01:08AM
Did anybody looked at the actual list? Well, I did. With very few exceptions - I counted three - It's crap nobody would use neither in space no for military.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sonamchauhan on Thursday September 08 2022, @04:06AM (13 children)
"Winning" this war is a 'wicked problem'. Already.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem [wikipedia.org]
Restart peace talks now. At the very least make both positions clear (and make them public) and start making good faith to reach agreement with the other side.
Solve to minimise loss of life. Both sides.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday September 08 2022, @11:04AM (12 children)
You have to consider future loss of life in other wars too. It's not good enough to just stop this one, but also the future ones that Russia would start, if they had a favorable outcome to the present war.
(Score: 2) by sonamchauhan on Monday September 12 2022, @11:19AM (11 children)
Babbling peace is better than babbling war.
I acknowledge Russia started this war.
Both governments now keep it going because both have their own maximalist aims. Each side wants to land a knockout punch. Each has tremendous resources. So huge amounts of human potential will be fed into the meat grinder before this war winds down.
A 'favorable outcome' for Russia ? after all this?
A 'war to end all wars' was tried before and led to WW2 two decades after.
Remember these are human beings dying. Not dehumanised ghosts or orcs.
Push for a ceasefire (as immediately as can be done), and open real peace negotiations. Consistently make both negotiating positions public, so the rest of the world can see who to support on what. For instance, Ukraine may want recovery of all territory but offer more regional freedoms, a more decentralized structure, some sort of joint sovereignity for Crimea with exclusive leasing fees, and removal of intent to join NATO from its constitution. Russia may want to incorporate new territories -- but may have second thoughts on the headache of managing them, as well as the reaction of the rest of the world.
Solve for minimising casualties on all sides. Not just maximising Russian (and by that token, Ukrainian) deaths and casualties. Most of the dead Russian and Ukrainian soldiers committed no war crimes. And most of the soldiers that committed war crimes have not been brought to justice, and probably will not be brought to justice in their lifetime if this war continues. A peace agreement should include resolution of war crimes - by each side's own military courts if need be. Both side's militaries made sacrifices. An important sacrifice is the one yet to come - to forgo further revenge for a just peace. (Easy to talk about, I know, but still necessary to suggest)
Otherwise, both sides are well entrenched in a mutually catastrophic position. One gains, the other loses ... and then adjusts, ...and then the other gains, and the first one loses. And the cycle continues. By the time the Wikipedia page declares an 'Outcome', how many more will die? And after that?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 12 2022, @11:29AM (10 children)
Not seeing that over here since both often end in more war. Absolute pacifists are often the worst sort of warmonger.
Prove it. Even the Russian side isn't putting in as many troops and resources as they could.
Yes.
Russia wouldn't have started a war in the first place, if they had your viewpoint on war and its costs/benefits. If the war were to end right now with terms favorable to Russia (which is what you've been proposing), then that would be a win for them - not as good as the expected two week win that they were expecting back in February, but still a win. Their mistake was just chewing off too much at once. If they had done this with the Baltic states or Moldova, they would have complete control over the country before NATO could intervene.
(Score: 2) by sonamchauhan on Tuesday September 13 2022, @04:53AM (9 children)
No, pacifists may be naive, but the 'worst sort of warmonger' label belongs to real warmongers.
Prove what? That both sides badly want to win? Ukraine has basically drafted its male population. Russia has poured in men and material from its active army. It is still trying to preserve its 'war lite' facade, but may initiate a mobilisation if it sticks to its stated aim of hanging onto the ethnic Russian dominated areas of Eastern Ukraine.
The fighting can stop now and war can truly end after negotiations conclude.
The phrase "on terms favorable to Russia" is meaningless -- terms are determined in negotiations. War can restart before a peace deal if either party decides it is worth it. But hopefully people start preferring the peace and put pressure on their leaders for good faith negotiation to reach a peace that addresses the perceived drivers of the war.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 13 2022, @12:40PM (8 children)
Hence why it belongs to absolute pacifists.
Just consider the phrases you use here "poured in men and material from its active army" and "still trying to preserve its 'war lite' facade". That demonstrates the limits on the Russian side. It makes little sense to speak of "maximalist aims" without considering the constraints. And actually initiating a mobilization might result in the end of the Putin regime which is why it hasn't happened yet.
If it was that easy, then the war wouldn't have started in the first place.
Sorry, that's just stupid. This is standard game theory - the prisoner's dilemma [wikipedia.org]. A party has the choice to cooperate or defect. When you ignore the incentives, then it becomes quite mysterious why parties aren't behaving as you think they should. Here, that "on terms favorable to Russia" is not meaningless, but what drives this war. If Putin had determined that the costs of the war would exceed his expected benefits from that war, he wouldn't have initiated it.
My take is that this approach will incentivize the Russian people to put pressure on their leaders.
As to "good faith negotiation", we already have Russia breaking the most important treaty in the region - the nuclear disarmament of Ukraine which had as a key part, a Russian promise to fully respect the borders of the country which were heavily violated in 2014. Ukraine had carried out the conditions of that treaty in good faith: returning Soviet nuclear weapons to Russia, destroying the missile silos, returning highly enriched uranium to Russia, and joining the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a non-nuclear member. If they hadn't done so and instead had maintained a nuclear force, they likely would not have lost any territory in 2014.
When you ignore the incentives for war, when you ignore the bad faith actions of the past, you are acting as an absolute pacifist would, appealing for peace at any cost, but only getting war.
(Score: 2) by sonamchauhan on Thursday September 15 2022, @03:00PM (7 children)
Hmm. Your 'pacifist is warmonger' jibe would be right at home in warmonger camp.
Maybe. I also remember predictions of how Russian oligarchs controlled Putin and would get rid of him. That hasn't happened either.
Standard game theory applies to self-interested parties. People aren't simplistic caricatures. There are plenty of Russians and Ukrainians who naturally empathise with each other, or can be encouraged to. That empathy isn't strengthened by feeding both nations into a two-sided meat grinder. That just makes people angrier.
There's been plenty of "faith breaking" on multiple sides over the years, as well as missed chances for peace. We cannot change history. But we can prod people to not repeat it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 15 2022, @10:33PM (6 children)
Indeed, but not for the reasons you're thinking.
[...]
First, "might" is not a prediction. Second, I find it interesting how you downplay the power of the public in the first quote and overplay it in the second. All negative about the possibility of getting rid of Putin, but there are plenty of Russians who empathize with Ukrainians. Quite the display of cognitive dissonance with this bizarre eagerness to let some big, strong man like Putin destroy everything you claim to care about.
Game theory isn't a caricature, it's an abstraction. And it applies to anyone making decisions who has some sort of interests or preferences, not merely the self-interested ones. But having said that, many of the parties involved are deeply self-interested - such as the government of Russia for a glaring example.
What's the point of "good faith negotiation" when Russia causally broke the last "good faith negotiation" without a second thought? What "prod" are you going to use that will hold them to their word?
(Score: 2) by sonamchauhan on Friday September 16 2022, @04:43AM (5 children)
You're the one making the jibe, then agreeing with its implication.
There are plenty of ways to mobilize -- like a part-mobilization. Don't peg your hope on the Russian public is what I am saying: the Russian government isn't a dummy.
:-/ Accuse much? I try to keep my biases in check.
I am no Putin fan. If his army was ascendant now, instead of the UA army, I'd say the same thing.
It can save lives. I don't see a downside.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 17 2022, @12:14AM (4 children)
It's almost like we need more than just agreement to convey information. I'll use the classic historical example that's driving all this resistance to peace - the appeasement of Nazi Germany and other fascist/communist governments prior to the Second World War.
There are plenty of ways to mobilize -- like a part-mobilization. Don't peg your hope on the Russian public is what I am saying: the Russian government isn't a dummy.
If the Russian government wasn't a dummy, then they wouldn't have gotten themselves in this mess in the first place.
Except, of course, Putin would just ignore you and continue with the warmongering. but under the present scenario, you're protesting resistance to greater war. Doesn't matter if you're a fan or not - you're a useful idiot to Putin and attempting to contribute to greater war in the region.
World War Two illustrates the downside you don't see. It's a similar situation - the peace-at-any-cost people were allowing the war makers free reign (not just Axis powers, but also the USSR). That resulted in a war that killed over 70 million people.
There was plenty of good faith negotiation and plenty of bad faith negotiation to match it with the various totalitarian powers taking more and more each time. Timely interventions - which you would consider warmongering - early on would have stopped this mess in its tracks.
The downside is that peace now creates greater wars in the future because you're dealing with bad faith actors who will just take any peace offer and use it to advantage in their next war.
(Score: 2) by sonamchauhan on Friday September 23 2022, @02:39PM (3 children)
>>(paraphrasing) Why do you consider peace-seekers to be the worst warmongers?
> "...appeasement of Nazi Germany..."
Your comparison with Nazi Germany (re: appeasement) may be a useful starting point. But if stretched too long it misleads. For example, Russia hasn't the will (nor the capability) to march into the rest of Europe. Neither does Russia want (or need) "Living room in the West" like Nazi Germany did -- it has way too much room if anything. And I may be wrong, but Russia seems to be actively avoiding occupation of regions with comparatively fewer ethnic Russians. Practically, they cannot manage occupation of a population that is mostly unsympathetic.
Ultimately, there is little risk of peace-seeking to be considered appeasement, at least now. Appeasement is typically done to avoid a conflict. With 40K-80K Russian casualties, seeking peace now is not appeasement.
>> Russian government may do part-mobilization ... they arent' dummies
> No the Russian government are dummies
Even dummies learn.
> (Paraphrasing) "You useful idiot ... you advocate of greater war".
I'll let God be the judge of that.
> WWII ... peace-at-any-cost people were allowing the war makers free reign ...
...
> peace now creates greater wars in the future
No - REAL peace (i.e. peace with justice) in the present does not increase the risk of greater war in future. The things that create more war are:
1 - a current war
2 - an unjust peace (e.g., WWI and hyperinflation in Germany)
3 - unpunished war crimes (e.g., Bucha)
The path you are on leads to things # 1 and 3.
The path I advocate may just lead to a just peace. Maybe even punishment for war crimes.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday September 24 2022, @01:42AM (2 children)
I find the weasel-speak here interesting - "march into the rest of Europe". Well, how much of Europe does Russia need to march into before it's a problem for you? "Neither does Russia want (or need) 'Living room in the West' like Nazi Germany did". Nazi Germany didn't need that either. Obsessive acquisition of territory doesn't need a need.
But the best is the "but Russia seems to be actively avoiding occupation of regions with comparatively fewer ethnic Russians", writing off a large portion of Europe in the process. Let us note that Nazi Germany marched into a bunch of comparatively more ethnic Germans before they started marching into countries that didn't even have that silly pretext for invasion. And there's Russia's games in Syria which demonstrate that having ethnic Russians isn't the only thing that will trigger an invasion.
It's not Russia's job to invade countries that have ethnic Russians in them. This ethnic argument is complete nonsense and it reflects poorly on you that you are accepting this prior, especially since they can just pay some marketer to come up with new pretexts when the old ones don't fit even poorly.
What are you basing that risk assessment on? For example, what explicit actions can you do that will keep Russia from invading you? Right now, it's a pretty short list: 1) have nuclear weapons, and/or 2) don't live anywhere that Russian troops can get to. Sorry, the pretexts for the Ukrainian invasion were shoddy and half-hearted. And even a mere week before the invasion, Russian leaders were claiming they weren't going to invade.
Everyone else has to worry that they're next.
Also, the whole reason you're whining is because the conflict hasn't stopped. You're trying to end the continuance of this conflict by appeasement. Well, at least that's the narrative you're spinning.
Didn't say that. I said:
And my take is that "learning" will mean they figure out that they don't belong in Ukraine.
By REAL Scotsmen no doubt. I'm fine with calling your proposal here FAKE peace - if only because it does nothing to prevent future war and rewards Russia for starting the present one. I think that's accurate. My take is that REAL peace provides serious negative consequences for things like starting wars.
(Score: 2) by sonamchauhan on Sunday September 25 2022, @12:41PM (1 child)
Peace is peace. War is war. Justice is Justice.
Our respective positions:
- I want a quick peace (Ceasefire!). With as much justice as is obtainable in this world. (Some justice will only be delivered in the hereafter.)
- You want continued war. Your take on justice boils down to spilling Russian blood and making the Russian economy tank (Make 'em pay! Then they'll learn!)
Tell me, how will the real culprits of this war be punished? ... (*)
I'm a peace seeker. I am unapologetic. I surely have my blind spots, but you ....
Your insecurity is palpable. Or is it anger against the Russian government? It's hard to say. Whatever it is, it is not good as it muddies the true picture.
Again you misunderstand. Equating Russia with Nazi Germany muddies the picture similar to how Russia fudges data by insiting Ukraine is filled with neo-Nazis.
I am neither fan nor apologist of Putin's government - he's been a lying thug. His government has been a massive dummy in starting this invasion. (We agree on this, so please don't split hairs). He tried to do a repeat of the Prague Spring invasion -- a bully show of force to bring Kyiv to heel. That didn't work, given Ukraine's learning from Crimea. He didn't want to raze Kyiv so he's pivoted to making the Russian-majority areas part of Russia. Involving very high losses and cruel war crimes. Again, I am no expert. That's just my reading of the situation.
> My take is that REAL peace provides serious negative consequences for things like starting wars.
(*) From this, I take it that you mean REAL peace must involve delivering REAL justice - to the perps, not to proxies. If so, you speak truly. But tell me, how will slaughtering Russian (@ 20/day - 200/day, UA and RU figures respectively) and Ukrainian soldiers (@ 50/day - 400/day, same range) deliver REAL justice to the culprits behind this war? Or do you believe that punishment by proxy is justice? Or do you think Russians will revolt against Putin if you make them suffer enough? And won't rally behind the flag instead?
You are on the same side as the military-industrial complex on this one. The military promotes this war because it degrades the declared enemy without putting their own soldiers at risk (at least, not for now). Industry loves this war because they profit producing weapons whose demand has gone up.
But war is a very blunt tool. There is great human suffering in the path you insist on cheerleading. Maybe I am wrong. But if this was your country and your family at risk of death, would you be so black and white about the necessity to continue the war?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 25 2022, @03:02PM
A ceasefire is not peace.
I want peace not merely the temporary appearance of peace. An important part of the solution is that war needs to cost more than peace does. This is how you make war cost more. And yes, Russia is learning contrary to your narrative.
My insecurity didn't invade Ukraine. Russia did that. You can speak of peace, insecurity, etc. I instead speak of solving real world problems.
Not at all. What again were Russia's flimsy pretexts for invasion? Why did they lie that they weren't going to invade a mere week before? Bluster with the threat of nuclear weapons? Callous disregard for human life? Those war crimes where they couldn't even wait a few months for propaganda purposes before they started executing Ukrainian citizens? Those are classic Nazi Germany moves - for example, the invasion of Poland and Russia were very similar in these aspects. There's no muddying here.
What keeps him from doing that again?
Terrible argument. I'll note you are on the same side as Putin and his military industrial complex. They need peace on their terms so that they can continue this acquisition process with low cost. You've already acknowledged you'd give it to them.
You completely miss the point. Russia reached for that tool not me. Of course, there's great human suffering. My purpose here is to prevent greater suffering in the future. The way to do that is by making the cost of choosing the tool of war greater than the cost of more humane tools. Nothing else works.
And yes, my country and family are at risk of death, but that risk would not be lower, if we chose peace at any cost.