I'm not as sure about the civil war analogy, Erik. Before the conflict I'd entirely agree (the chart of voting patterns was especially geographically stark) and the different histories and even architecture of the place (Austro-Hungarian or Russian) was plain s day. However, ironically, I do think the war has done more to unify the country than anything else. The schism you mention is there but Putin has unwittingly lessened it. But on the demographics you re entirely right; in a war of attrition this matters definitively, unlike a war of movement. As I've said for years, attrition greatly favours Russia: 45 year old Ukrainian conscripts won't cut it. Sorry id like to continue, but must pack and get ready! thanks for your comments as ever, fondly, John
Hi Fred, you have a good eye! Yes, I read and took some notes on Walter's fine and thought provoking piece. Although I dint entirely agree with him (I always knew from talking to him he was a Hamiltonian) exploring how what he says fits in our Jeffersonian-Jacksonian world view is a great idea. We will do a substack on it soonest, once the DC dust settles so thanks!
Changing the subject ( or, on a macro level, perhaps not) interesting piece on Hamiltonian statecraft by Walter Russell Mead in the current issue of Foreign Affairs). Any thoughts?
Ukraine's top military commander Olegsander Syrsky has one brother, who lives in Russia. So do both his Russian parents. They don't speak with each other anymore.
Maybe they don't agree on speaking Russian Russian or Ukrainian Russian to each other, although "Olegsander" speaks the Ukrainian dialect quite poorly. No surprise, "Alexander" was born in Russia and studied in Moscow.
For Ukraine, the drama is losing men, which they did in Orikhiv, in Krynky and now in Sudha. The attrition is a net positive to Russia.
Ukraine have a demographics that is so horrible, that time will extinguish them. Half Ukraine is Russian speaking, the other half speaks a Russian dialect, Ukrainian. Most emigration from Ukraine is to uncle Vanya in Russia, not to Poland or Germany. It peaked at 52.5 million in 1992 (Russian *immigration* then, to support the Soviet industry) and went downhill ever since.
For Russia, the drama is the same. But, they have 7 times more people after you count the net emigration from Ukraine. So -1 for Russia is less dramatic than -1 for Ukraine.
This is really a civil war. The closest analogy (but far from perfect) is the Spanish guerra sucia (the dirty, civil war between army & Church against communists & international support).
Interesting issue: Bulgaria is turning pro-Russian, while being an EU member (like Hungary and Slovakia). Bulgaria spotted that a hook-up with the Volga economy to supply Middle East, Africa and Asia might land them more than Von der Leyen's Brussels bubble. They also don't like the woke agenda of the EU.
I'm not as sure about the civil war analogy, Erik. Before the conflict I'd entirely agree (the chart of voting patterns was especially geographically stark) and the different histories and even architecture of the place (Austro-Hungarian or Russian) was plain s day. However, ironically, I do think the war has done more to unify the country than anything else. The schism you mention is there but Putin has unwittingly lessened it. But on the demographics you re entirely right; in a war of attrition this matters definitively, unlike a war of movement. As I've said for years, attrition greatly favours Russia: 45 year old Ukrainian conscripts won't cut it. Sorry id like to continue, but must pack and get ready! thanks for your comments as ever, fondly, John
Hi Fred, you have a good eye! Yes, I read and took some notes on Walter's fine and thought provoking piece. Although I dint entirely agree with him (I always knew from talking to him he was a Hamiltonian) exploring how what he says fits in our Jeffersonian-Jacksonian world view is a great idea. We will do a substack on it soonest, once the DC dust settles so thanks!
Changing the subject ( or, on a macro level, perhaps not) interesting piece on Hamiltonian statecraft by Walter Russell Mead in the current issue of Foreign Affairs). Any thoughts?
Here's another one.
Ukraine's top military commander Olegsander Syrsky has one brother, who lives in Russia. So do both his Russian parents. They don't speak with each other anymore.
Maybe they don't agree on speaking Russian Russian or Ukrainian Russian to each other, although "Olegsander" speaks the Ukrainian dialect quite poorly. No surprise, "Alexander" was born in Russia and studied in Moscow.
For Ukraine, the drama is losing men, which they did in Orikhiv, in Krynky and now in Sudha. The attrition is a net positive to Russia.
Ukraine have a demographics that is so horrible, that time will extinguish them. Half Ukraine is Russian speaking, the other half speaks a Russian dialect, Ukrainian. Most emigration from Ukraine is to uncle Vanya in Russia, not to Poland or Germany. It peaked at 52.5 million in 1992 (Russian *immigration* then, to support the Soviet industry) and went downhill ever since.
For Russia, the drama is the same. But, they have 7 times more people after you count the net emigration from Ukraine. So -1 for Russia is less dramatic than -1 for Ukraine.
This is really a civil war. The closest analogy (but far from perfect) is the Spanish guerra sucia (the dirty, civil war between army & Church against communists & international support).
Interesting issue: Bulgaria is turning pro-Russian, while being an EU member (like Hungary and Slovakia). Bulgaria spotted that a hook-up with the Volga economy to supply Middle East, Africa and Asia might land them more than Von der Leyen's Brussels bubble. They also don't like the woke agenda of the EU.