Well, this post generated a lot of heat, as might be expected given the emotionally charged topic.
I asked a researcher in my group, https://substack.com/@jakobzsa , to feed the comments (as of this morning) to an LLM (Gemini) and sort comments by three questions:
1. Is Turchin biased?
2. What was the root cause of conflict: Russia or NATO/West?
3. Who will win?
See the AI summary below.
Approximately, I see that commenters tend to coalesce into two main groups. One believes that Turchin is biased, that Russia was the cause of the war, and that Russia is gong to lose. Thus, of the 9 commenters who blamed Russia for this war, 7 thought that the winner will be Ukraine/NATO (and 2 for stalemate/unclear). None of the others thought that Ukraine/NATO would win. Six of them opined that Turchin was biased (out of 9 total; the other 3 were neutral on who is to blame and what will be the war outcome).
OK, my goal in this Substack is to present empirically based opinions. On two issues of contention, we simply need to wait and see:
1. Who wins the war, whether Ukraine/NATO, Russia, or stalemate should be clear in a year or so. Let's say by the end of 2026.
2. Whether Putin intends to attack other countries beyond Ukraine, or not, will become clear by the year when he retires (in whatever way).
3. On whether Turchin is biased -- unfortunately, you will have to make up your own mind based on my writings before and after.
The perception of the author’s objectivity is sharply divided. While many commenters did not directly address Turchin’s bias, those who did split into two opposing camps: critics who see him as a biased propagandist, and supporters who regard him as a rational realist.
• Neutral / Not Addressed: 15 commenters (48%)
• Turchin is Biased: 9 commenters (29%)
• Turchin is Unbiased: 7 commenters (23%)
Turchin is Biased
• Accusations of abandoning scientific integrity in favor of a pro-Russian narrative.
• One commenter calls it "tragic to see his scientific integrity being destroyed by his pro-Russian bias."
• Another says it is "sad that Turchin reduced himself to spreading war propaganda."
• A critic rejects the realist school of thought altogether, arguing that analysts who only count physical assets are "totally ignorant of the intangible aspects of war."
Turchin is Unbiased
• Supporters view him as a voice of reason against an emotional and propagandistic mainstream.
• One praises him for standing against the "delusional and emotionalist point of view."
• Another argues that "years of dishonest media coverage have created a multitude... of people lacking in the building blocks necessary to use reason," implicitly endorsing Turchin’s position as rational.
________________________________________
Analysis of the Cause of the War
Commenters diverge sharply on the root cause of the conflict. The largest group blames the West and NATO, while others either blame Russia exclusively or acknowledge elements of both sides.
• The West/NATO Caused the War: 12 commenters (39%)
• Neutral / Elements of Both: 10 commenters (32%)
• Russia Caused the War: 9 commenters (29%)
The West/NATO Caused the War
• Western provocation is framed as the primary cause.
• Claims include "years of Ukrainian Nazis killing Russians in Ukraine" and repeated broken peace treaties.
• One commenter says Russia endured "provocation from near and far" until it became unbearable.
• Another asserts that "Russia’s invasion of Ukraine occurred because NATO’s eastward expansion violated its security interests."
Russia Caused the War
• These commenters attribute the war solely to Russian aggression and Putin’s ambitions.
• Key reasons cited:
1. Putin sees Ukraine as "lost Russian provinces."
2. He feels threatened by a Slavic democracy on Russia’s border.
3. He expected a quick win.
• They also argue that peace treaties would be meaningless, as Russia would "use any cessation of hostilities to regroup and rearm, then attack on its own terms."
________________________________________
Analysis of the Predicted Winner
The outcome of the war remains a subject of contention. The most common view is that the result will be unclear or a stalemate. Among those predicting a decisive outcome, more expect Russia to win than Ukraine.
• Stalemate / Unclear: 13 commenters (42%)
• Russia will Win: 11 commenters (35%)
• Ukraine/NATO will Win: 7 commenters (23%)
Russia will Win
• Predictors cite Ukraine’s demographic decline and societal collapse as insurmountable problems.
• One warns the current path is "leading to the complete collapse of Ukrainian culture and society and the meaningless deaths of millions of young men."
• Others call continued resistance a dangerous delay of the inevitable, arguing that "believing otherwise for too long will cost lives and bargaining chips during negotiations."
Ukraine/NATO will Win
• This minority sees Russia as fundamentally weak.
• Arguments include that "Russia is a paper tiger" and that its "top-down command doctrine is no match for Ukraine’s NATO-influenced doctrine."
• They believe Ukraine can prevail by targeting infrastructure: "If Ukraine continues bombing the hell out of Russia’s energy/fossil fuel infrastructure, Russia will lose, and lose hard."
Since we are trying to approach the topic in a completely neutral research way, I want to repeat my statement from the previous discussion, related to your quantitative forecast made in 2023, which was based on casualties. I believe such an approach should not focus so much on the losses of one side but on the difference in the losses of the two sides and correlate it with the difference in population. In addition, at least from what we now know, the number of Ukrainian deserters exceeds the Russian figures. According to the statements of some members of the Ukrainian parliament, the number of deserters (400,000 is an exaggeration, of course, but at least it gives us a sense of scale) is enormous and probably exceeds the number of those killed. And here again we have to go back to liberalism versus conservatism. Russian soldiers obviously have a disproportionately greater certainty of punishment if they desert. At the same time, in liberal Ukraine, deserters are not punished at all. They are simply urged to return (because “nothing will happen to them”).
In principle, Ukraine tried to follow the Russian path and tighten the screws, but the EU immediately reacted to such deviations from liberalism and Zelenskyy had to demonstrate active liberalism.
So a different point of view can show all the data in a different light. I'm just wondering how all of this can be incorporated into a mathematical model. Obviously, a known number of deserters can be taken into account in the model. But how can we predict the ideological impact on their numbers before the war begins (and it is this ability to predict the future that can only have real significance)?
The issue isn't that the topic is heated (though it certainly is), but rather the obvious manipulations one wouldn't expect from an honest researcher.
A key example is your extension of Lanchester's model—which applies to a single battle—to the entire war. If you read about the conflict, you'd know that only a small percentage of forces are engaged at any given time. The prevalence of drones prevents the massing of troops, making it impossible to leverage a numerical advantage in the way your model assumes.
Furthermore, when testing your model, you readily and uncritically accept any source that fits your hypothesis, supposedly proving a quadratic imbalance in losses. This uncritical approach applies to your other assumptions as well.
I have the greatest respect for both genuine emotion (and emotionalism, for the types wont to that) and genuine moral concern (including moralism, for the types wont to it).
But when it is about "people who are someone" on the social scene, or have it as a priority in life to become "someone", as well as "journalists" and the likes, that is only posturing, to upkeep social status and, if possible, gain some, in their circles if not more broadly.
All of the mainstream media is their home turf, and I haven't read, watched, listened to, or glanced at, any of that for a decade by now.
There is now the fact that since those whose job is to pose as "European leaders" are, and have not been for the least 20 years, actual deciders in charge of actually sovereign polities, they have in fact taken up the same job as the "journalists" and "media personalities": there is no reality in their public stances; reality isn't part of the game, or act, being played. For at least a decade I haven't cast a ballot, since it is more than a decade that the options to vote for aren't deciders but figureheads and actors (increasingly more often they are actresses).
The comments here (with some nice exceptions) show what the outcome is of a Unified, Centralized, "information" uniformly relaying a unique message (fiction) on each theme it has been decided it will be spoken of to the population, with the "informed" ending up as the least informed and most misinformed for the very reason they rely on the media (of course the mainstream media, which could also be dubbed as the "ego-comforting media") the most.
I don't understand either Lieven's or Mearsheimer's assessments. Both of them operate with the assumption that if Ukraine surrenders under Russia's terms, Russia will simply be satisfied with the borders they are proposing now. It also assumes that Russia will be happy with a free and independent Ukraine on its border in perpetuity.
There is absolutely no evidence that Putin would abide with the currently proposed framework in the long-term. There is ample evidence that Russia will use any cessation of hostilities to regroup and rearm then attack on its own terms. What Lieven and Mearsheimer are saying even if they don't mean to is for Ukraine to surrender unilaterally now or surrender unilaterally in the future. That makes no sense to me at all.
Of course the Russians can't be trusted. But the real question is - if you assume Ukraine will ultimately lose, how long it will take Russia to digest Ukraine? Given how hard Ukraine is fighting, I would expect decades (at least) of brutal insurgency. That will give the EU some breathing room.
You are obviously incorrect that if Ukraine had capitulated, they would only have lost Crimea and have the Donbass region become semi-autonomous. Putin clearly meant to take the country at the outset and move into Kyiv. I agree that no one is willing to send troops into Ukraine to help them, but the idea that Putin would leave a truncated but free state of Ukraine is absurd. Also, what is the purpose of “repairing our relations” with Russia? When Putin dies, they may improve but Russia is a basket case
Mearsheimer treats Muscovy as a country when it is a failing empire with an economy a bit bigger than Australia's and just as resource extractive. Eventually we will learn quality has a quantity all of its own. There's a long way to go yet. Ivan's are dying for a low affect psychopath, strategic talk is thus bunkum, especially when history is returning to the feudal model where history is just one damn narcissist after another. Is Trump dead yet? To be a realist is to to realise game theory is not a game that people with the dark triad play.
If Russia were able to win this war, it would have done so a long time ago. It should have been obvious back in February 2022 — when that Russian convoy sat on the road for days — that Russia is a paper tiger. And at every step of the way since then it's merely confirmed that notion.
People who count things — population, 155mm shells, etc. — and conclude that Ukraine cannot win are totally ignorant of the intangible aspects of war. For example . . .
Russia's top-down command doctrine is no match for Ukraine's NATO-influenced doctrine based on commander's intent. When I was on active duty during the Cold War, that difference in command doctrine was considered a huge force multiplier for NATO.
Or consider Napoleon's observation that the moral is to the physical as 3 is to 1. Ukraine began with the moral on it's side, and it's only increased with Russia's attacks on civilian population centers.
Ukraine has done a remarkable job. It's closed off the Black Sea to the Russian fleet. It pulled off one of the greatest Trojan Horse ops in history with Operation Spiderweb, back in June. And now it's doing a pretty damned good job of clobbering strategically important refineries and rail lines.
And what has Russia done in the past year (aside from killing civilians in population center attacks)? How much ground has it gained? Hell, they've had to import North Koreans to rack up what little battlefield success they've had.
And do keep in mind, Ukraine's been fighting with it's hands tied by European meekness and the U.S.'s craven kowtowing to Putin.
Whatever happens in Ukraine, Russia will have lost. The entire world will have seen what a sad paper tiger it is, and how hard it was to accomplish anything of note on the battlefield against such a minor player.
You sound increasingly like Russian TV propaganda. From the beginning, Russia openly stated its goal was regime change in Ukraine; the very planning of the operation resembled the suppression of Eastern European uprisings against Soviet control.
Russia also declared Eastern Europe to be its sphere of influence, making it clear that Ukraine is just the start. For instance, it has repeatedly threatened the Baltic states with Ukraine's fate, and Russian officials have proclaimed the typical imperial maxim that "Russia never ends anywhere." No sane person believes the objective is limited to annexing the Donbass.
Whether Ukraine's resistance is a lost cause or not, you can't seriously argue that its surrender would mean an end to the fighting.
Furthermore, your "modeling" of the conflict strongly resembles "fitting the facts to the theory."
By the way, are you aware that despite the confrontation with NATO and all the sanctions, your latest book is selling very well in Russia? Here's the link:
Judging by the comments, we in the West are completely screwed. Emotional delusions notwithstanding, years of dishonest media coverage have created a multitude (I use this word intentionally) of people lacking in the building blocks necessary to use reason.
Prof. Turchin, it would be interesting to include in your analysis the effects of propaganda in mainstream media.
It's not a coincidence if so many erroneously seem to believe Russia is on the verge of collapse and Ukraine is just short of victory.
At least get your facts straight. "America" (and some of its European sycophant friends) created this mess. Ukraine would never have undertaken this war without the support and incentives provided by "America", some European countries, and various interest groups. And if "America" and Europe stopped supporting Ukraine, they'd seek a negotiated settlement immediately.
Wow, the level of discussion deteriorated quickly. That usually happens to posts swarmed by Russian trolls and useful idiots. No surprises here. Let's look at the bigger picture.
Peter Turchin is arguably one of the most important scientists of our time. So it is more than tragic to see his scientific integrity being destroyed by his pro-Russian bias. I first noted that bias a long time ago, when reading one of his early books, War and Peace and War, where he said something like "returning control of Chechnya is the key to Russia's survival". To me it was completely obvious that the First Chechen War was the beginning of Russia's turn away from democracy, and the Second C. W. marked its complete return to being an imperialism-obsessed death cult.
Anyway, things were slowly getting worse, and now Peter is reduced to searching the internet for Russian shills pushing Kremlin propaganda, like an anti-vaxxer collecting Youtube videos claiming that vaccines cause autism and calling it "independent research".
I still hope against all odds that this is reversible and Peter's intelligence will someday help him pull out of this hole.
I agree. I used to cite his Cliodynamics theory but having seen the persistent apologetics for the Russian regime I wouldn't anymore. It's easy enough to check any of the Russian grey propaganda automatic media aggregator sites, such as Unz or Russophile, and search "Mearsheimer" (probably I spelt it wrong) and see how many posts with him in they selected to promote - if they didn't see him as an asset he wouldn't be there significantly frequently. His previous background makes him seem credible which is why he's a highly important asset for them now. Saying some critical things is also typical of those assets in bridging node positions.
Peter's views on the war have nothing to do with the theory. Newton spent the second half of his career chasing ghosts - doesn't mean his physics weren't a revolutionary breakthrough.
That may be true but I don't want to participate in spreading someone's reputation as an academic when they're also doing apologetics for the Kremlin like this and other people may not understand and keep that distinction.
I'm pretty sure that Turchin's name will be employed (or is employed) by Russian propaganda under the title 'Eminent American professor says...." etc. That's likely the reason his latest book is freely selling in Russia.
And the very likely fact he's sincere about it will make him even more useful. I'd guess it really started with a genuine horror about war and intention to avoid that at all costs - but some naivety actually about how to best avoid war. Appeasing bullies doesn't really work.
It's ironic that someone who does have an exceptionally global and long-term view still misses the global information network shape and believes Russian grey propaganda agents without recognising that they are that. It doesn't really require very advanced data skills to be get a good enough visualization of that to recognize who's coming from where or associated with whom.
In case he actually reads these comments - the one easiest starting method is to look at Russian grey automatic media aggregators, used by their trolls and botnet operators to easily find approved links. Just look around on Russophile or Unz and you'll start to see what we're saying. No need to believe us first, just look!
That's not to say Western leaders aren't also hypocrites and do their own share of serious and systematic human rights abuses by proxies through their foreign policies (I'm thinking of their violent externalisation of refugees by commissioning extraterritorial refoulement services by 20+ authoritarian or compromised democratic regimes now) but, even including their many sins, they're still not as bad as the Russian regime.
Yeah, I was stunned by his application of Ostrogradsky-Lanchester equations and inflating Ukraine's losses several times compared to Russian at the beginning of this Ukraine's series of posts. There're also important problems with his whole clyodinamics modeling but it's not relevant to the current thread. I like modeling of historical processes and it's sad that Turchin reduced himself to spreading war propaganda.
There is no reason to read Mearshhimer and the like. I hear exactly the same stuff every week from my 70 y old mother who lives in Moscow and watches Russian TV.
It is worth noting that the Russians are hurting for manpower as well. Recruiting from prisons and North Korean mercenaries are signs of depleted Russian manpower.
Attrition can be hard to forecast. In March 1918, the Germans advanced to outskirts of Paris. 5 months later the German army collapsed.
I also hesitate to blame the Russian invasion on the existence of NATO. Without NATO, Putin could have started off with Estonia & Latvia.
Talk about propaganda! Putin is strengthening Russia?!! That's a good one! Exactly how Ian Putin strengthening anything but himself. Erdogan and Modi? Seriously, you're a comedian, right? Either that or you support the repression and even murder of any kind of opposition to a ruling party cuz that's what Putin and Erdogan and possibly Modi as well, do. Just like Trump is Nkw attempting to do here in the U.S. All of the pro Putin arguments over are weak, facile, disingenuous and designed either to bait, spew propaganda or promote policies that clearly support the extermination of human rights. And that's not to say that the dear sweet wonderful "West" doesn't do the same though in a different way.
The dominant moral framework around the Ukraine war is tragic. To be moral is to "hate putler". If you care for millions of Ukrainian lives, but do not "hate putler", then you are immoral.
You argue that Western leaders were wrong not to recognize that Russia is winning, and that had Kennan or Mearsheimer been listened to, Ukraine would have lost only Crimea and avoided massive casualties. But how can we know Russia would have stopped there?
Your work emphasizes scientific and dispassionate analysis. So how can it be demonstrated, cliodynamically, that Ukrainian neutrality would have prevented a larger invasion? Otherwise this risks sounding like an unfalsifiable counterfactual rather than a scientific prediction.
Table diplomacy or battlefield diplomacy, take your pick.
Well, this post generated a lot of heat, as might be expected given the emotionally charged topic.
I asked a researcher in my group, https://substack.com/@jakobzsa , to feed the comments (as of this morning) to an LLM (Gemini) and sort comments by three questions:
1. Is Turchin biased?
2. What was the root cause of conflict: Russia or NATO/West?
3. Who will win?
See the AI summary below.
Approximately, I see that commenters tend to coalesce into two main groups. One believes that Turchin is biased, that Russia was the cause of the war, and that Russia is gong to lose. Thus, of the 9 commenters who blamed Russia for this war, 7 thought that the winner will be Ukraine/NATO (and 2 for stalemate/unclear). None of the others thought that Ukraine/NATO would win. Six of them opined that Turchin was biased (out of 9 total; the other 3 were neutral on who is to blame and what will be the war outcome).
OK, my goal in this Substack is to present empirically based opinions. On two issues of contention, we simply need to wait and see:
1. Who wins the war, whether Ukraine/NATO, Russia, or stalemate should be clear in a year or so. Let's say by the end of 2026.
2. Whether Putin intends to attack other countries beyond Ukraine, or not, will become clear by the year when he retires (in whatever way).
3. On whether Turchin is biased -- unfortunately, you will have to make up your own mind based on my writings before and after.
So now we wait and see.
AI's summary
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Turchin’s Perceived Bias
The perception of the author’s objectivity is sharply divided. While many commenters did not directly address Turchin’s bias, those who did split into two opposing camps: critics who see him as a biased propagandist, and supporters who regard him as a rational realist.
• Neutral / Not Addressed: 15 commenters (48%)
• Turchin is Biased: 9 commenters (29%)
• Turchin is Unbiased: 7 commenters (23%)
Turchin is Biased
• Accusations of abandoning scientific integrity in favor of a pro-Russian narrative.
• One commenter calls it "tragic to see his scientific integrity being destroyed by his pro-Russian bias."
• Another says it is "sad that Turchin reduced himself to spreading war propaganda."
• A critic rejects the realist school of thought altogether, arguing that analysts who only count physical assets are "totally ignorant of the intangible aspects of war."
Turchin is Unbiased
• Supporters view him as a voice of reason against an emotional and propagandistic mainstream.
• One praises him for standing against the "delusional and emotionalist point of view."
• Another argues that "years of dishonest media coverage have created a multitude... of people lacking in the building blocks necessary to use reason," implicitly endorsing Turchin’s position as rational.
________________________________________
Analysis of the Cause of the War
Commenters diverge sharply on the root cause of the conflict. The largest group blames the West and NATO, while others either blame Russia exclusively or acknowledge elements of both sides.
• The West/NATO Caused the War: 12 commenters (39%)
• Neutral / Elements of Both: 10 commenters (32%)
• Russia Caused the War: 9 commenters (29%)
The West/NATO Caused the War
• Western provocation is framed as the primary cause.
• Claims include "years of Ukrainian Nazis killing Russians in Ukraine" and repeated broken peace treaties.
• One commenter says Russia endured "provocation from near and far" until it became unbearable.
• Another asserts that "Russia’s invasion of Ukraine occurred because NATO’s eastward expansion violated its security interests."
Russia Caused the War
• These commenters attribute the war solely to Russian aggression and Putin’s ambitions.
• Key reasons cited:
1. Putin sees Ukraine as "lost Russian provinces."
2. He feels threatened by a Slavic democracy on Russia’s border.
3. He expected a quick win.
• They also argue that peace treaties would be meaningless, as Russia would "use any cessation of hostilities to regroup and rearm, then attack on its own terms."
________________________________________
Analysis of the Predicted Winner
The outcome of the war remains a subject of contention. The most common view is that the result will be unclear or a stalemate. Among those predicting a decisive outcome, more expect Russia to win than Ukraine.
• Stalemate / Unclear: 13 commenters (42%)
• Russia will Win: 11 commenters (35%)
• Ukraine/NATO will Win: 7 commenters (23%)
Russia will Win
• Predictors cite Ukraine’s demographic decline and societal collapse as insurmountable problems.
• One warns the current path is "leading to the complete collapse of Ukrainian culture and society and the meaningless deaths of millions of young men."
• Others call continued resistance a dangerous delay of the inevitable, arguing that "believing otherwise for too long will cost lives and bargaining chips during negotiations."
Ukraine/NATO will Win
• This minority sees Russia as fundamentally weak.
• Arguments include that "Russia is a paper tiger" and that its "top-down command doctrine is no match for Ukraine’s NATO-influenced doctrine."
• They believe Ukraine can prevail by targeting infrastructure: "If Ukraine continues bombing the hell out of Russia’s energy/fossil fuel infrastructure, Russia will lose, and lose hard."
Since we are trying to approach the topic in a completely neutral research way, I want to repeat my statement from the previous discussion, related to your quantitative forecast made in 2023, which was based on casualties. I believe such an approach should not focus so much on the losses of one side but on the difference in the losses of the two sides and correlate it with the difference in population. In addition, at least from what we now know, the number of Ukrainian deserters exceeds the Russian figures. According to the statements of some members of the Ukrainian parliament, the number of deserters (400,000 is an exaggeration, of course, but at least it gives us a sense of scale) is enormous and probably exceeds the number of those killed. And here again we have to go back to liberalism versus conservatism. Russian soldiers obviously have a disproportionately greater certainty of punishment if they desert. At the same time, in liberal Ukraine, deserters are not punished at all. They are simply urged to return (because “nothing will happen to them”).
In principle, Ukraine tried to follow the Russian path and tighten the screws, but the EU immediately reacted to such deviations from liberalism and Zelenskyy had to demonstrate active liberalism.
So a different point of view can show all the data in a different light. I'm just wondering how all of this can be incorporated into a mathematical model. Obviously, a known number of deserters can be taken into account in the model. But how can we predict the ideological impact on their numbers before the war begins (and it is this ability to predict the future that can only have real significance)?
The issue isn't that the topic is heated (though it certainly is), but rather the obvious manipulations one wouldn't expect from an honest researcher.
A key example is your extension of Lanchester's model—which applies to a single battle—to the entire war. If you read about the conflict, you'd know that only a small percentage of forces are engaged at any given time. The prevalence of drones prevents the massing of troops, making it impossible to leverage a numerical advantage in the way your model assumes.
Furthermore, when testing your model, you readily and uncritically accept any source that fits your hypothesis, supposedly proving a quadratic imbalance in losses. This uncritical approach applies to your other assumptions as well.
It is important to bear in mind that Russians have often lied about their motivations, aggression, and strength.
https://maksymeristavi.substack.com/p/matryoshka-of-lies-the-infiltration
https://prendergastc.substack.com/p/a-century-of-russian-disinformation-212
https://substack.com/@andrewchakhoyan/note/c-151566174
This applies to their invasion of Ukraine and their hybrid war against NATO member states.
https://roguesystemsrecon.substack.com/p/victory-in-ukraine-breaking-the-taboo
https://shevtar.substack.com/p/russias-secret-war-against-france
Additionally, Russians also make use of AI LLMs to create and spread lies.
https://beefeaterresearch.substack.com/p/is-ai-becoming-the-backbone-of-disinformation
People who have sacrificed reason to emotion can only see realistic people as cruel and evil.
I have the greatest respect for both genuine emotion (and emotionalism, for the types wont to that) and genuine moral concern (including moralism, for the types wont to it).
But when it is about "people who are someone" on the social scene, or have it as a priority in life to become "someone", as well as "journalists" and the likes, that is only posturing, to upkeep social status and, if possible, gain some, in their circles if not more broadly.
All of the mainstream media is their home turf, and I haven't read, watched, listened to, or glanced at, any of that for a decade by now.
There is now the fact that since those whose job is to pose as "European leaders" are, and have not been for the least 20 years, actual deciders in charge of actually sovereign polities, they have in fact taken up the same job as the "journalists" and "media personalities": there is no reality in their public stances; reality isn't part of the game, or act, being played. For at least a decade I haven't cast a ballot, since it is more than a decade that the options to vote for aren't deciders but figureheads and actors (increasingly more often they are actresses).
The comments here (with some nice exceptions) show what the outcome is of a Unified, Centralized, "information" uniformly relaying a unique message (fiction) on each theme it has been decided it will be spoken of to the population, with the "informed" ending up as the least informed and most misinformed for the very reason they rely on the media (of course the mainstream media, which could also be dubbed as the "ego-comforting media") the most.
I don't understand either Lieven's or Mearsheimer's assessments. Both of them operate with the assumption that if Ukraine surrenders under Russia's terms, Russia will simply be satisfied with the borders they are proposing now. It also assumes that Russia will be happy with a free and independent Ukraine on its border in perpetuity.
There is absolutely no evidence that Putin would abide with the currently proposed framework in the long-term. There is ample evidence that Russia will use any cessation of hostilities to regroup and rearm then attack on its own terms. What Lieven and Mearsheimer are saying even if they don't mean to is for Ukraine to surrender unilaterally now or surrender unilaterally in the future. That makes no sense to me at all.
Of course the Russians can't be trusted. But the real question is - if you assume Ukraine will ultimately lose, how long it will take Russia to digest Ukraine? Given how hard Ukraine is fighting, I would expect decades (at least) of brutal insurgency. That will give the EU some breathing room.
You are obviously incorrect that if Ukraine had capitulated, they would only have lost Crimea and have the Donbass region become semi-autonomous. Putin clearly meant to take the country at the outset and move into Kyiv. I agree that no one is willing to send troops into Ukraine to help them, but the idea that Putin would leave a truncated but free state of Ukraine is absurd. Also, what is the purpose of “repairing our relations” with Russia? When Putin dies, they may improve but Russia is a basket case
Not
Mearsheimer treats Muscovy as a country when it is a failing empire with an economy a bit bigger than Australia's and just as resource extractive. Eventually we will learn quality has a quantity all of its own. There's a long way to go yet. Ivan's are dying for a low affect psychopath, strategic talk is thus bunkum, especially when history is returning to the feudal model where history is just one damn narcissist after another. Is Trump dead yet? To be a realist is to to realise game theory is not a game that people with the dark triad play.
If Russia were able to win this war, it would have done so a long time ago. It should have been obvious back in February 2022 — when that Russian convoy sat on the road for days — that Russia is a paper tiger. And at every step of the way since then it's merely confirmed that notion.
People who count things — population, 155mm shells, etc. — and conclude that Ukraine cannot win are totally ignorant of the intangible aspects of war. For example . . .
Russia's top-down command doctrine is no match for Ukraine's NATO-influenced doctrine based on commander's intent. When I was on active duty during the Cold War, that difference in command doctrine was considered a huge force multiplier for NATO.
Or consider Napoleon's observation that the moral is to the physical as 3 is to 1. Ukraine began with the moral on it's side, and it's only increased with Russia's attacks on civilian population centers.
Ukraine has done a remarkable job. It's closed off the Black Sea to the Russian fleet. It pulled off one of the greatest Trojan Horse ops in history with Operation Spiderweb, back in June. And now it's doing a pretty damned good job of clobbering strategically important refineries and rail lines.
And what has Russia done in the past year (aside from killing civilians in population center attacks)? How much ground has it gained? Hell, they've had to import North Koreans to rack up what little battlefield success they've had.
And do keep in mind, Ukraine's been fighting with it's hands tied by European meekness and the U.S.'s craven kowtowing to Putin.
Whatever happens in Ukraine, Russia will have lost. The entire world will have seen what a sad paper tiger it is, and how hard it was to accomplish anything of note on the battlefield against such a minor player.
You sound increasingly like Russian TV propaganda. From the beginning, Russia openly stated its goal was regime change in Ukraine; the very planning of the operation resembled the suppression of Eastern European uprisings against Soviet control.
Russia also declared Eastern Europe to be its sphere of influence, making it clear that Ukraine is just the start. For instance, it has repeatedly threatened the Baltic states with Ukraine's fate, and Russian officials have proclaimed the typical imperial maxim that "Russia never ends anywhere." No sane person believes the objective is limited to annexing the Donbass.
Whether Ukraine's resistance is a lost cause or not, you can't seriously argue that its surrender would mean an end to the fighting.
Furthermore, your "modeling" of the conflict strongly resembles "fitting the facts to the theory."
By the way, are you aware that despite the confrontation with NATO and all the sanctions, your latest book is selling very well in Russia? Here's the link:
https://ozon.ru/t/nknlZ10
Judging by the comments, we in the West are completely screwed. Emotional delusions notwithstanding, years of dishonest media coverage have created a multitude (I use this word intentionally) of people lacking in the building blocks necessary to use reason.
Prof. Turchin, it would be interesting to include in your analysis the effects of propaganda in mainstream media.
It's not a coincidence if so many erroneously seem to believe Russia is on the verge of collapse and Ukraine is just short of victory.
Americans understand that Ukraine is in a hopeless fight, but that they will continue with or without our help
At least get your facts straight. "America" (and some of its European sycophant friends) created this mess. Ukraine would never have undertaken this war without the support and incentives provided by "America", some European countries, and various interest groups. And if "America" and Europe stopped supporting Ukraine, they'd seek a negotiated settlement immediately.
Wow, the level of discussion deteriorated quickly. That usually happens to posts swarmed by Russian trolls and useful idiots. No surprises here. Let's look at the bigger picture.
Peter Turchin is arguably one of the most important scientists of our time. So it is more than tragic to see his scientific integrity being destroyed by his pro-Russian bias. I first noted that bias a long time ago, when reading one of his early books, War and Peace and War, where he said something like "returning control of Chechnya is the key to Russia's survival". To me it was completely obvious that the First Chechen War was the beginning of Russia's turn away from democracy, and the Second C. W. marked its complete return to being an imperialism-obsessed death cult.
Anyway, things were slowly getting worse, and now Peter is reduced to searching the internet for Russian shills pushing Kremlin propaganda, like an anti-vaxxer collecting Youtube videos claiming that vaccines cause autism and calling it "independent research".
I still hope against all odds that this is reversible and Peter's intelligence will someday help him pull out of this hole.
I agree. I used to cite his Cliodynamics theory but having seen the persistent apologetics for the Russian regime I wouldn't anymore. It's easy enough to check any of the Russian grey propaganda automatic media aggregator sites, such as Unz or Russophile, and search "Mearsheimer" (probably I spelt it wrong) and see how many posts with him in they selected to promote - if they didn't see him as an asset he wouldn't be there significantly frequently. His previous background makes him seem credible which is why he's a highly important asset for them now. Saying some critical things is also typical of those assets in bridging node positions.
Peter's views on the war have nothing to do with the theory. Newton spent the second half of his career chasing ghosts - doesn't mean his physics weren't a revolutionary breakthrough.
That may be true but I don't want to participate in spreading someone's reputation as an academic when they're also doing apologetics for the Kremlin like this and other people may not understand and keep that distinction.
I'm pretty sure that Turchin's name will be employed (or is employed) by Russian propaganda under the title 'Eminent American professor says...." etc. That's likely the reason his latest book is freely selling in Russia.
And the very likely fact he's sincere about it will make him even more useful. I'd guess it really started with a genuine horror about war and intention to avoid that at all costs - but some naivety actually about how to best avoid war. Appeasing bullies doesn't really work.
It's ironic that someone who does have an exceptionally global and long-term view still misses the global information network shape and believes Russian grey propaganda agents without recognising that they are that. It doesn't really require very advanced data skills to be get a good enough visualization of that to recognize who's coming from where or associated with whom.
In case he actually reads these comments - the one easiest starting method is to look at Russian grey automatic media aggregators, used by their trolls and botnet operators to easily find approved links. Just look around on Russophile or Unz and you'll start to see what we're saying. No need to believe us first, just look!
That's not to say Western leaders aren't also hypocrites and do their own share of serious and systematic human rights abuses by proxies through their foreign policies (I'm thinking of their violent externalisation of refugees by commissioning extraterritorial refoulement services by 20+ authoritarian or compromised democratic regimes now) but, even including their many sins, they're still not as bad as the Russian regime.
Yes, that's difficult to argue with.
Yeah, I was stunned by his application of Ostrogradsky-Lanchester equations and inflating Ukraine's losses several times compared to Russian at the beginning of this Ukraine's series of posts. There're also important problems with his whole clyodinamics modeling but it's not relevant to the current thread. I like modeling of historical processes and it's sad that Turchin reduced himself to spreading war propaganda.
Obv, Peter couldn’t critically read the article he posted, and even supplied a panegyric for this old ‘realist’ cunt, mearshhimer.
There is no reason to read Mearshhimer and the like. I hear exactly the same stuff every week from my 70 y old mother who lives in Moscow and watches Russian TV.
It is worth noting that the Russians are hurting for manpower as well. Recruiting from prisons and North Korean mercenaries are signs of depleted Russian manpower.
Attrition can be hard to forecast. In March 1918, the Germans advanced to outskirts of Paris. 5 months later the German army collapsed.
I also hesitate to blame the Russian invasion on the existence of NATO. Without NATO, Putin could have started off with Estonia & Latvia.
Talk about propaganda! Putin is strengthening Russia?!! That's a good one! Exactly how Ian Putin strengthening anything but himself. Erdogan and Modi? Seriously, you're a comedian, right? Either that or you support the repression and even murder of any kind of opposition to a ruling party cuz that's what Putin and Erdogan and possibly Modi as well, do. Just like Trump is Nkw attempting to do here in the U.S. All of the pro Putin arguments over are weak, facile, disingenuous and designed either to bait, spew propaganda or promote policies that clearly support the extermination of human rights. And that's not to say that the dear sweet wonderful "West" doesn't do the same though in a different way.
The dominant moral framework around the Ukraine war is tragic. To be moral is to "hate putler". If you care for millions of Ukrainian lives, but do not "hate putler", then you are immoral.
You argue that Western leaders were wrong not to recognize that Russia is winning, and that had Kennan or Mearsheimer been listened to, Ukraine would have lost only Crimea and avoided massive casualties. But how can we know Russia would have stopped there?
Your work emphasizes scientific and dispassionate analysis. So how can it be demonstrated, cliodynamically, that Ukrainian neutrality would have prevented a larger invasion? Otherwise this risks sounding like an unfalsifiable counterfactual rather than a scientific prediction.
I have nothing against Peter and I consistently read his substack but to call what he does "science" seems to be a stretch to me.
This particular substack article isnt much of a science as it is him just stating his opinion. His books and articles are definitely science.