Generational Dynamics World View News

[Guest]

Yesterday, RIA Novosti published a lengthy piece titled "What Russia should do with Ukraine", which explains in detail what Russia understands by denazification:

» The special operation revealed that not only the political leadership in Ukraine is Nazi, but also the majority of the population. All Ukrainians who have taken up arms must be eliminated - because they are responsible for the genocide of the Russian people.

» Ukrainians disguise their Nazism by calling it a "desire for independence" and a "European way of development". Ukraine doesn't have a Nazi party, a Führer or racial laws, but because of its flexibility, Ukrainian Nazism is far more dangerous to the world than Hitler's Nazism

» Denazification means de-Ukrainianisation. Ukrainians are an artificial anti-Russian construct. They should no longer have a national identity. Denazification of Ukraine also means its inevitable de-Europeanisation.

» Ukraine's political elite must be eliminated as it cannot be re-educated. Ordinary Ukrainians must experience all the horrors of war and absorb the experience as a historical lesson and atonement for their guilt.

» The liberated and denazified territory of the Ukrainian state should no longer be called Ukraine. Denazification should last at least one generation - 25 years.

https://ria.ru/20220403/ukraina-1781469605.html

[Xeraphim1]

Russian conscripts are being given 19th century rifles, made to drink from ponds filled with dead frogs due to lack of supplies and ordered to run in front of enemy soldiers to draw their fire, they reveal
Six Donbas-region conscripts, their partners or friends have told of conditions
They have painted a picture of a Russian army in Ukraine that is stretched thin
One student spoke of how he was forced to drink water from a fetid pond
He said his unit was told to repel Ukraine forces - having never been trained to fire an automatic weapon. Some draftees have been given a Mosin - a WW2 rifle
The wives of conscripts said their partners had no combat experience
All accounts spoke of how the conscripts had a severe lack of supplies

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic ... urces.html

What happened to Russia's vast stockpile of weapons? They can't even equipped 150,000 troops?

Russia doesn't throw anything away, but it also doesn't maintain stuff because it's expensive. And probably because people have stolen the good stuff; corruption is still a major problem in Russia. Russia could have sold surplus items off to other countries who would be satisfied with old but cheap weapons and vehicles. It could have disposed of them saving storage costs and maybe making something from recycling the metals. Instead Russia just let it rust and be stolen. It's typical for the country.

[Navigator]

Russian conscripts are being given 19th century rifles, made to drink from ponds filled with dead frogs due to lack of supplies and ordered to run in front of enemy soldiers to draw their fire, they reveal
Six Donbas-region conscripts, their partners or friends have told of conditions
They have painted a picture of a Russian army in Ukraine that is stretched thin
One student spoke of how he was forced to drink water from a fetid pond
He said his unit was told to repel Ukraine forces - having never been trained to fire an automatic weapon. Some draftees have been given a Mosin - a WW2 rifle
The wives of conscripts said their partners had no combat experience
All accounts spoke of how the conscripts had a severe lack of supplies

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic ... urces.html

What happened to Russia's vast stockpile of weapons? They can't even equipped 150,000 troops?

Russia doesn't throw anything away, but it also doesn't maintain stuff because it's expensive. And probably because people have stolen the good stuff; corruption is still a major problem in Russia. Russia could have sold surplus items off to other countries who would be satisfied with old but cheap weapons and vehicles. It could have disposed of them saving storage costs and maybe making something from recycling the metals. Instead Russia just let it rust and be stolen. It's typical for the country.

Just looked at some pictures.

First, these conscripts are from the breakaway Donbas republics and not Russia itself. So they are probably using stockpiles from the area they are in, which have probably been drawn from for years.

Second, while the most prominent Soldier has a Mosin Nagant rifle, it is not the regular infantry version. The one he has has a specially downturned bolt handle and a scope. This is the sniper version of the rifle, and is quite effective. (See the movie Enemy at the Gates). The regular infantry version of the Mosin Nagant has a bolt that sticks out 90 degrees from the rest of the rifle stock, and does not have a scope. I have one.

Third, the rest of the Soldiers in the photos I have seen have AK 47s. These are still quite effective for regular infantry.

[Guest]

Here is another person who is substantially more intelligent than the pathetic phonies, liars, fakes, and trolls who inhabit this forum. This forum is dead, for the living dead, who know little but the propaganda they are fed through cable news.

This post was spam, linking to a crypto site. Hmmmmmm. I deleted the link. - John

[Xeraphim1]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic ... urces.html

What happened to Russia's vast stockpile of weapons? They can't even equipped 150,000 troops?

Russia doesn't throw anything away, but it also doesn't maintain stuff because it's expensive. And probably because people have stolen the good stuff; corruption is still a major problem in Russia. Russia could have sold surplus items off to other countries who would be satisfied with old but cheap weapons and vehicles. It could have disposed of them saving storage costs and maybe making something from recycling the metals. Instead Russia just let it rust and be stolen. It's typical for the country.

Just looked at some pictures.

First, these conscripts are from the breakaway Donbas republics and not Russia itself. So they are probably using stockpiles from the area they are in, which have probably been drawn from for years.

Second, while the most prominent Soldier has a Mosin Nagant rifle, it is not the regular infantry version. The one he has has a specially downturned bolt handle and a scope. This is the sniper version of the rifle, and is quite effective. (See the movie Enemy at the Gates). The regular infantry version of the Mosin Nagant has a bolt that sticks out 90 degrees from the rest of the rifle stock, and does not have a scope. I have one.

Third, the rest of the Soldiers in the photos I have seen have AK 47s. These are still quite effective for regular infantry.

Yes, I know they ware Donbass conscriptees, however they've been equipped by Russia since 2014. It's not as though they're a real government or anything. The picture in question is not necessarily indicative of the weapons given to other conscriptees and the fact that some have more modern weapons does not alter the claim that at least some have been given old obsolete rifles. Yes, the story is probably sensationalistic, but it the Daily Mail after all and thus shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Nothing about that affects the point I made; Russia does hold on to old equipment like a miser but fails to maintain it. If these Moisant Nagant rifles did come from Russian stocks, I would be completely unsurprized.

[Navigator]

Russia doesn't throw anything away, but it also doesn't maintain stuff because it's expensive. And probably because people have stolen the good stuff; corruption is still a major problem in Russia. Russia could have sold surplus items off to other countries who would be satisfied with old but cheap weapons and vehicles. It could have disposed of them saving storage costs and maybe making something from recycling the metals. Instead Russia just let it rust and be stolen. It's typical for the country.

Just looked at some pictures.

First, these conscripts are from the breakaway Donbas republics and not Russia itself. So they are probably using stockpiles from the area they are in, which have probably been drawn from for years.

Second, while the most prominent Soldier has a Mosin Nagant rifle, it is not the regular infantry version. The one he has has a specially downturned bolt handle and a scope. This is the sniper version of the rifle, and is quite effective. (See the movie Enemy at the Gates). The regular infantry version of the Mosin Nagant has a bolt that sticks out 90 degrees from the rest of the rifle stock, and does not have a scope. I have one.

Third, the rest of the Soldiers in the photos I have seen have AK 47s. These are still quite effective for regular infantry.

Yes, I know they ware Donbass conscriptees, however they've been equipped by Russia since 2014. It's not as though they're a real government or anything. The picture in question is not necessarily indicative of the weapons given to other conscriptees and the fact that some have more modern weapons does not alter the claim that at least some have been given old obsolete rifles. Yes, the story is probably sensationalistic, but it the Daily Mail after all and thus shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Nothing about that affects the point I made; Russia does hold on to old equipment like a miser but fails to maintain it. If these Moisant Nagant rifles did come from Russian stocks, I would be completely unsurprized.

Was not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that what is reported, and what is seen, are usually different things.

[Tom Mazanec]

Seven Worst-Case Scenarios From the War in Ukraine
Most conflicts end quickly, but this one looks increasingly like it won’t. The repercussions could range from global stagflation to World War III.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... f=ZMFHsM5Z

The heavy losses of an elite Russian regiment in Ukraine
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60946340

Why Putin faces 'more NATO' in the Arctic after Ukraine invasion
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/wh ... 022-04-04/

West pledges to punish Russia over civilian killings in Bucha
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/uk ... 022-04-04/

Pundits Who Advocate Hot War With Russia Are Enemies Of Humanity
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2022/04/04 ... -humanity/

[Guest]

Why Macron might lose the election...

A far right French government would be a political earthquake.

Emmanuel Macron to Europe 1: "I am opposed to self-defense" says farmer had no right to kill a burglar who broke into his home

After a farmer shot a man who broke into his home, French President Emmanuel Macron said the French people do not have the right to self-defense, and the man should have instead let the police handle the incident.

“But I am opposed to self-defense. It’s very clear and undisputable because otherwise the country becomes the Wild West. And I don’t want a country where weapons proliferate and where we consider that it’s up to the citizens to defend themselves,” said Macron.

The president said he wants the French to rely on the police and the gendarmerie to ensure their safety, however, critics have pointed to France’s deteriorating security situation, increase in murders, and sexual assaults.

europe1

[Guest]

Just looked at some pictures.

First, these conscripts are from the breakaway Donbas republics and not Russia itself. So they are probably using stockpiles from the area they are in, which have probably been drawn from for years.

Second, while the most prominent Soldier has a Mosin Nagant rifle, it is not the regular infantry version. The one he has has a specially downturned bolt handle and a scope. This is the sniper version of the rifle, and is quite effective. (See the movie Enemy at the Gates). The regular infantry version of the Mosin Nagant has a bolt that sticks out 90 degrees from the rest of the rifle stock, and does not have a scope. I have one.

Third, the rest of the Soldiers in the photos I have seen have AK 47s. These are still quite effective for regular infantry.

Yes, I know they ware Donbass conscriptees, however they've been equipped by Russia since 2014. It's not as though they're a real government or anything. The picture in question is not necessarily indicative of the weapons given to other conscriptees and the fact that some have more modern weapons does not alter the claim that at least some have been given old obsolete rifles. Yes, the story is probably sensationalistic, but it the Daily Mail after all and thus shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Nothing about that affects the point I made; Russia does hold on to old equipment like a miser but fails to maintain it. If these Moisant Nagant rifles did come from Russian stocks, I would be completely unsurprized.

Was not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that what is reported, and what is seen, are usually different things.

There have been complaints from Russian conscripts from Russia about the lack of food, equipment, and obsolete weapons. And even if this situation was only happening in the two breakaway regions of Ukraine, it would still be disastrous. And has been pointed out: Russia has controlled these places for eight years.

My gut tells me the best weapon stocks have been sold by Russian generals to African and Latin American dictators...

[MrGuest]

Seven Worst-Case Scenarios From the War in Ukraine
Most conflicts end quickly, but this one looks increasingly like it won’t. The repercussions could range from global stagflation to World War III.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... f=ZMFHsM5Z

From the Niall Ferguson piece:

Lewis Fry Richardson was trained as a physicist and spent much of his career working on meteorology. His research on war went unrecognized in his own lifetime (his highest academic position was at Paisley Technical College in Scotland). It was not until 1960, seven years after his death, that a publisher was found for his two volumes on conflict: “Arms and Insecurity” and “Statistics of Deadly Quarrels.”

Richardson defined a “deadly quarrel” as “any quarrel which caused death to humans,” including not only wars, but also “murders, banditries, mutinies, insurrections,” but not indirect deaths from famine and disease. He reported all casualties in his deadly quarrels in logarithms to the base 10, to create a kind of Richter scale of lethal conflict.

In his analysis of all “deadly quarrels” between 1820 and 1950, the world wars were the only magnitude-7 quarrels — the only ones with death tolls in the tens of millions. They accounted for three-fifths of all the deaths in his sample.

Richardson strove to find patterns in his data for deadly conflict that might shed light on the timing and scale of wars. Was there a long-run trend toward less or more war? The answer was no. The data indicated that wars were randomly distributed. In Richardson’s words, “The collection as a whole does not indicate any trend towards more, nor towards fewer, fatal quarrels.”

This finding has been replicated by Pasquale Cirillo and Nassim Nicholas Taleb and, most recently, by Aaron Clauset (also in the Gleditsch volume). Yes, the world was less violent after World War II than in the first half of the 20th century, or in the 19th century. But, as Clauset puts it, “a long period of peace is not necessarily evidence of a changing likelihood for large wars. … the probability of a very large war [as big as World War II] is constant. … It is not until 100 years into the future that the long peace becomes statistically distinguishable from a large but random fluctuation in an otherwise stationary process.”

I wonder if this type of data would correlate with the generational cycle. For example, remove the wars and focus on “murders, banditries, mutinies, insurrections” and see if those numbers increase as a region moves towards what we'd consider a crisis period. Another thing I've been curious about are smaller incidents, like industrial accidents caused by incompetence, that could suggest members of the more serious/risk adverse generation that survived a crisis period being replaced by a more reckless/careless generation.