All of Dojan's Comments + Replies

Hmm, I didn't know about that, thanks for the tip. Very busy right now, and moving shortly anyway, but I'll look into it in a while :)

No, I think Zvi meant that Ukraine isn't paying Russian soldiers enough money for defecting. 

On the prize of fertilizer, Peter Zeihan explained on Feb 15 that "Russia and Belarus are the worlds second and fourth largest suppliers of potash. Nitrogen fertilizer is disappearing because of what is going on in energy markets. Phosphate fertilizer is disappearing because of what is going on in China. And if this war happens [this was on Feb 15], potash fertilizer globally has a shortages as well."

Peter Zeihan is prone to hyperbole and overstatement in pursuit of clarity. I have no problem with this, but it should be labeled as such.

More typos:

Cumulation --> Culmination x2

I don't have anything to say just.... Know that the world is with you.

Don't blame yourself for what you can't do. Rarely is the question of who to blame so simple.

I shall! Thank you :)

You interpret that as being specifically a warning against overt deployment of troops to Ukraine?

I think it was deliberately vague. This allows Putin room to choose his response due to exact later consequences, without being bound to his own word. The way NATO is interpreting it sure seems to be that weapons are ok but troops are not, and Putin has accepted that, with only some non-committal grumbling. I think the fact that NATO was already providing that before the invasion makes a strong "status quo" argument. Also it has historically counted as "not par... (read more)

I'd rather see counterpoints to my arguments than blanket assertions

My apologies. I found myself convinced of these very points after reading the article, but I can see now how my words could come across as standoffish. No insult intended :)

Failure to perform the fait accompli means that options other than nuclear retaliation are possible.

My reading of both the text quoted and reality as presented, is that this line of thinking only applies when operating inside or very close to the opponents red lines. The next paragraph starts:

Avoiding this problem is wh

Thank you :)

See also this much more in-depth and well researched analysis of nuclear deterrence in general, and how it applies to the situation in Ukraine in particular. And this other post by the same author posted on the day of the invasion, already then presenting a picture clearer than I hold now.

Did you read the linked article? It argues extensively and precisely why what you suggest is not something that NATO can risk. 

It is a total war for Ukraine, not for Russia. And even less for NATO.

No one doubts that NATO could obliterate Russia's conventional forces, if it were guaranteed not to escalate beyond conventional warfare. Putin knows that too. Which is precisely why he couldn't and wouldn't leave any such guarantee.

Thank you for posting this! AAA++, 11 out of 10, would recommend, will read again!

See also another post on the same blog about chemical weapons: acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/

I have already started searching through the archives over there. Any more such gems?

"But I don't even think this discussion has been really adversarial"

I'm relived to hear it!

re:Ulterior motives

I believe we are mostly in agreement over the underlying forces behind this conflict then. 

"That's exactly one of my suspected ulterior motives"

Then we are in agrement here.

"If we believe that it is not a solvable problem"

I didn't say that it definitely isn't solvable, I conceded that it might not be. It certainly won't be if we aren't even trying, and I'm claiming that we aren't really trying. This would naturally include perpetually ongoing work on the world stage to prevent such developments as you describe. To be clear: I am not calling for unilateral disarmament. I understand that this would not be helpful. I am calling for gradual, univers... (read more)

Thanks for your feedback :)

This is a good point, I have been using that term very loosely. I guess what I mean is a massive loss of support and legitimacy, as we have indeed seen already. I agree that for a dictator this probably means a shift to a more authoritarian style before it means being ousted, and that the likelihood of a coup depends in large part on things like palace security. 

North Korea is indeed a chilling example, and Russia's new economic reality has already been widely compared to North Korea in mainstream media. I think Russia has enough widespread internet a... (read more)

Meta-discussion sidenote: I didn't intend for this discussion to escalate and become adversarial. Please see the first part of this comment. No ill will garnered, and no offence taken :) If you think this is discussion is less than constructive, I'm perfectly willing to drop things here. 
That said:

"A quick google search can easily disprove that"

I only claimed that they are trying. And that this is a significant escalation since pulling out of the treaty. If they think they'll succeed to some significant extent in 15 years, that sets a hard time limit ... (read more)

"why aren't I allowed to have doubts, and mistrust the official justifications? 
Sorry but this comment of yours just doesn't make any sense. What it seems to me is that you, and others, are maybe trying a little too hard to play devil's advocate with Putin. Or, I don't know, oppose me just for intellectual fun?"

Of course you are! I think this conversation has been constructive, if a bit adversarial. Sorry about that! It has helped me shake down my picture, and I guess playing devils advocate is the best I can do to understand what is going on. This (o... (read more)

I'll grant that it'a an optimistic take. I have certainly seen military analysts say that Putin won't be able to keep it up for very long, or won't be able to hold the territory even if he does manage to grind the cities to rubble, like retired US Lt. Gen. Hodges, or indeed the linked article. But I'm sure the Russian armed forces could just keep shelling and bombing, and never really loose in the conventional sense, barring large scale desertion. But it's political suicide for Putin to do that. Just like it is suicide for him to give up right now. One pot... (read more)

Yeah, I guess that sums it up and explains why I felt a little bit uneasy with it. After taking Lsusr's comment into account, I think the title would have been more like "Why a No-Fly-Zone might benefit Putin, and Why Zelenskyy keeps asking for it".

How do you feel about click-bait-adjacent titles? I can't make up my mind.

"he was an actor. I don't see any reason to believe he understands this"

This is of course true. But surely he has people around him who are experts? And foreign advisors? And surely the specifics of what gets delivered is negotiated behind closed doors (excepting certain Polish Mig29s), when it can be explained in full detail. I mean, every mainstream news outlet has explained this again and again for over two weeks, it's not missable. And it sure seems to be working.

Ahh, interesting, so the English version is not just a translation then, but rather a very different version, is that right? Very cynical, for the same new agency to write different articles for different audiences.

In that case I would think a fair bit of information could be extracted from the difference between the different versions, even for someone who is more likely to trust an official Russian news source. 

Unfortunately it also means that my window into the Russian media landscape is less clear than i hoped. 

Thank you! 

I am very open to any recommendation for sources from within Russia, whether for or against the war. I don't know Russian, unfortunately.

You are of course entirely correct. 

I suppose the would-be-good-for-Putin take relies on a limited conflict with the US, which feels unlikely at best. 

That Russia's conventional armed forces is entirely outclassed in every conceivable way by the US, virtually guarantees that it wouldn't stay conventional.

"But it's a very hypothetical one."

Putin believing it to be real makes it real. That's all it takes. The physical nukes in their physical silos are not hypothetical.

"current war is a much more probable threat"

This only holds if you don't consider a long-term loss if influence as bad as utter defeat. Putin has explicitly stated as much.

"They joined 18 years ago"

18 years ago Russia didn't have the power, it was still a mess (even more of a mess). The fact that he didn't escalate to nuclear threats then speaks very well of him. (Not well enough. Not by a mile... (read more)

I would add that overt US intervention might trigger a wave of patriotism in Russia too, and enable Putin to spin the whole thing as a war of survival. Which it very well might be at that point, I for one do not think a No-Fly-Zone -like conflict would stay restricted to Ukraine, or to the sky for that matter. Seen in that light Putins trade off matrix before the war might have looked like a win-win; Either the US doesn't intervene, and then he can take Ukraine easily: Or, the US does intervene, and then he can blame the capitalist world order. The worst outcome is Ukraine repelling him without the US.

"that's what he has been saying all along"

So you are basically saying that you agree that his words matches his actions, but since you don't believe his word and can't find any ulterior motive, you are confused by his actions. I don't understand. If you agree with this, his actions should be evidence that he does indeed believe what he says. Not counting all his surface level lies and obvious propaganda here.

I think this might be the crux of this whole debate to be honest: Me and several others have tried to explain different takes in different words, and ... (read more)

I agree. The rest of the world does too. It would be very nice if everyone were nicer. 

But can't you understand the perspective of how a more and more unbalanced Mutually Assured Destruction is a threat to Russia? I think MAD is mad, and that every effort should be made to dismantle it. But in lieu of that, it works to keep the peace to the extent that no-one wins in case of war, and thus no-one wants war. If one side has more modern delivery systems, more forward bases, and better missile defenses, that tips the power balance massively, and at some p... (read more)

Trying to map hypothesis space of the Real Reason (tm):

1: Basic western narrative. Putin feels backed into a corner, like he is slowly but surely loosing influence to the West. He has the Mafioso-nature, and thought that taking back Ukraine would be easy, popular at home, a real show of force to the rest of the world short term, and could even be an economic win long term after consolidating the new territory and work force, plus it would cement his legacy as a Great Russian Tzar. But he has lost some of his touch and miscalculated, and is now a dangerousl... (read more)

"That's not a good example", "Soldiers usually know little"

Fair.

"the war could last years"

Now that Putin is bogged down, apparently unable to make militarily advances, but politically unable to back out, it might well drag on for years. I didn't hear anyone predicting that until after the advance seemed to stall out though (again, me not hearing about it is not proof of absence. I'd be very interested to find an analyst who predicted this from the start.).

"All it takes is a bit of common sense"

This is not how it looks to me. But if grant that it is obvious... (read more)

I certainly believed that Russia could take Ukraine in a few days. That Ukrainian forces would be simply overwhelmed with heavy weaponry. So did the alleged Russian soldiers who packed parade uniforms rather than food, their alleged schedules of orders printed on paper in lieu of radio communication, and the apparently pre-prepared Russian media reports of Russian victory after only a few days. I acknowledge that some of this is probably propaganda, but I note that both sides seems to have been essentially saying the same thing here, and also that it seems... (read more)

The way the war is currently turning out does not seem to be a benefit to Putin at all, almost regardless of what happens next. Thus I don't think it is going according to his plan, whatever his motives were. I don't think that is in question, and I'm not seeing anyone arguing differently. They question as I understood it is rather about why it might have seemed a good idea in the first place, and that is what I tried to address.

By the way, this is a good thread that has helped me clarify my own thoughts on the subject :) Don't be discouraged by the fact t... (read more)

1. If Ukraine can sell gas to the EU, then Russia looses an immensely strong advantage. The size of Russian gas reserves in Siberia makes no difference for that. All that is needed is for Ukraine to have enough gas to supply Europe for another few years/decades, until the Green energy revolution comes along further.

1. I totally thought at first that Russia would gobble up Ukraine in a few days. Now that it didn't work out that way, everyone agrees that Putin made a bad move, presumably Putin too. And there will never be a satisfying explanation for why it was secretly a smart move, aside from counterfactuals. Had Ukraine indeed capitulated and in large part welcomed the Russian forces, the whole war would have been over by now, and Putin would in many ways have been proven right, and would have to weather some sanctions etc, but that worked ok for him last time. But it didn't pan out that way. I agree with you that Putin is a smart guy, but that doesn't mean he will never make mistakes, and mistakes never look smart after the fact.

I don't think Putin fears a NATO invasion of Russia. I think he fears a decline in Russian influence.

Consider the British Empire. It was a superpower of it's time, and is a nuclear power today. Yet it is not a superpower anymore. Influential; sure, powerful; yes, but not even remotely comparable to the US, China or the USSR of old. Yet it was. And it's decline happened entirely without invasion of it's homeland. Portugal and Spain has similar histories.

Putin might think of that as loosing utterly, utter humiliation. If you regard Russian loss of superpower... (read more)

I fully agree. My point was not that NATO and the Warsaw Pact were morally comparable or equivalent. They are not. They were comparable in a strategic, power-balance sense however. For some people, that is all they see. See also longer response above.

I basically agree. My aim was to provide a-way-to-see-the-war-that-makes-sense, not a solid argument for it's moral validity. Which I don't think is possible. Obviously. But doing my very best to steelman it might give hints as to the real reasons. 

With that in mind, here are some further thoughts/nitpicks:

"The US can't be compared to the Warsaw Pact and the USSR." 
Can you compare apples and oranges? Well, famously not. And they taste very different. But they are still both food. As a matter of history, I totally agree that "the free state of Flo... (read more)

Zelenskyy knows that a No-Fly-Zone is both untenable tactically, and impossible politically. Surely, he knows all the arguments against, and also that it wouldn't even work. Yet he keeps repeating it.

Of course, for Ukraine the war is already there, whether or not it will be called WW3 in the history books, so he has everything to gain and nothing to loose from draging NATO into the war at this stage. (Except that WW3 would presumably be vastly more destructive, especially for Ukraine if it becomes it's first/major battleground. But the logic still holds.)

Y... (read more)

I think the idea of NATO as an ideologically neutral, purely defensive alliance is a very western perspective. I think Putins perspective of NATO is more akin to our picture of the Warsaw Pact: Neutral defense on paper, but blatant ideological warfare and power projection in practice and intent. If you view NATO in that light (whether accurate or not), NATO's expansion eastward following the fall of the USSR looks like a blatant power grab while Russia was weakened. If you also have a view of all the former parts of USSR as essentially part of the "real" G... (read more)

This is the analysis I like the best so far. 

Published 29th of January, 3 weeks before the invasion: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJNtfyq3TDE

And followup, published 5th of March:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ4hvLqNfqo

I don't have any great recommendations, and I don't have any primary sources. But a few of the sources I have found myself coming back to are:

SpeakTheTruth - Two US vets with a youtube channel. The are not trying to be neutral in the conflict, but I've found their commentary on the strategic and tactical situation more informed and in-depth than most other sources. One of them speaks some Russian, and have previously visited Ukraine. I don't know or care about any of their other content or opinions.

James Acton - Has seemed like a generally sane commentator... (read more)

Sweden does not have a sponsorship program like you describe, but seems positive to taking refugees (in Swedish, sorry. Suggestive, but in no way firm confirmation. I strongly believe refugees from Ukraine would be let into Sweden at this time, though I have no special knowledge beyond being a Swedish citizen.)

Stay safe, and good luck.

If anyone here happens to end up in Sweden due to the current conflict, and needs a place to stay, let me know at johan.domeij@gmail.com.

Thank you for uploading this. 

Please do upload any further conversations that take place (you or anyone). 

This feels like a good start, but there are many subjects left untouched. In fact, this feels like context rather than addressing the core issues brought up by Zoe Curzi and Jessicata and others.

How many roads must a man walk down?

Plus a million points for "IMO it's a reason for less secrecy"!

If you put a lid on something you might contain it in the short term, but only at the cost of increasing the pressure: And pressure wants out, and the higher the pressure the more explosive it will be when it inevitably does come out. 

I have heard too many accounts like this, in person and anecdotally, on the web and off for me to currently be interested in working or even getting to closely involved with any of the organizations in question. The only way to change this for me is to believ... (read more)

You are worthy of love.

And also (separately), I like you. 

(I mean, I've never met you; but I have read a lot of what you write around here, and I like your reasoning, your tone, and what you choose to write about in general.)

"And if I ended up in a conversation where it was obvious that someone hated me, yeah, that wouldn’t be fun."

That sounds just about right. I strive to have accurate feelings: Being actively disliked isn't supposed to be fun. But also, it's not supposed to threaten the very core of my sense of self-worth. 

Thank you for writing this. You're not the only one working on it.

Software: OpenCPN

Need: Chart plotting software for navigation at sea; integration with AIS, radar and other NMEA connections; displaying GRIB files.

Other programs I've tried: Garmin, Simrad, B&G etc proprietary solutions (only sold with GPS plotter hardware); Navionics, Isailor, Nimble Navigator, ZyGRIB (only does GRIB files).

I do a fair bit of ocean sailing on small sailboats (between 1 and 3.5 circumnavigations so far, depending on how you count). Unlike on land with Google Maps or Maps.me, at sea most modern navigation solutions center around ... (read more)

Klaus was my first thought too! I found this when I first got my Forklift license :P

This is an amazing initiative! Even aside from providing an excellent service, and also lowering the bar for those of us who feel less than confident writers, I also think it will help center the community around Lesswrong.

I am by no means a professional-level proof reader, but I might still find some errors here and there. I would be really excited to provide what help I can, as long as I don't feel like I'm the only one looking and all the expectations (and thus obligations) are on me. Is there a way for me to be one-among-several proofreaders? If crowd-sourcing isn't the model you are going with for now, then I fully understand.