slowly taking the fight into Russia?
Other than the spectacular bombing of the Nord Stream pipelines last year, the first year of this Russian invasion of Ukraine was well-confined to the territory of Ukraine. The US & NATO, while supplying tens of billions of dollars in military and economic aid to Ukraine, insisted that Ukraine keep the conflict within its own territory.
[The persons and/or government(s) responsible for bombing the Nord Stream pipelines remain disputed.]
More recently, the number of incidents occurring inside Russian territory has been increasing, although they have been blamed on irregular "anti-Russian" forces and "terrorists" rather than the military of Ukraine.
A major risk of the ongoing conflict is that the field of battle will spread outside of Ukraine and lead to escalation, either by dragging other countries into open warfare, or by pushing Russia into greater mobilization. As Russia is a nuclear power, direct threats to Russian territory risk a nuclear response.
From afar it seems the situation is stuck in a WW1-like stalemate, with Russia occupying only part of the area it claims to have annexed, while neither side can deploy superior offensive capability. A stalemate like this can grind on for years until either a ceasefire is agreed upon, or one of the sides becomes weary of conflict.
Although it is tempting for anti-Russian forces to fight back inside Russia, the history of modern warfare has shown that pinprick attacks on the home front do little to change conditions along the main front, and do little harm to morale. Even significant attacks on the home front may have little effect on the overall war -- one example is the occupation and burning of Washington by the British during the War of 1812, another is the German bombing of London during WW2. Ukraine is unlikely to cause that level of damage in Moscow with conventional weapons.
-----
I was thinking of war and crime as "intraspecies violence" yesterday during my walk break. Trying to think of it as an alien observer might, without feeling the need to take sides. Although our intraspecies violence gets better at times and worse at times, and not all of us engage in intraspecies violence, it seems impossible to eradicate. There is crime in all societies -- even the smallest of countries have police -- and nearly all existing countries have fought in wars (the few exceptions all have fewer than 400,000 residents).
Switzerland is famous for being a peaceful country, but it fought a war as recently as 1847. And Swiss military units did shoot down both German and Allied planes during WW2 as it tried to defend its neutrality -- it also captured soldiers who violated its borders. And Switzerland recently broke its long-standing precedents in sanctioning Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
-----
There's a theory of intraspecies conflict on the anarchist wing of the Left, that our conflicts arise from injustice & poverty, that we would not need police or military forces if we built a more inclusive and equal society.
I find little evidence supporting this theory in the real world. Mainly because rich people also commit crimes and wealthy countries also start wars. You might imagine that envy results from inequality, but the deeper problem is that no matter how much stuff people have, they still want more. So we see the country with the largest GDP adjusted for purchasing power -- China -- building up its military to threaten its neighbors over territorial disputes. And we in the US, having the largest GDP measured in USD, remain pointedly unsatisfied with our level of world dominance, as we rank 5th in number of homicides.
I support a more inclusive and equal society, not because it will reduce violence, but because I feel empathy for other living beings. But most people, no matter how much stuff they have, want even more.
-----
OK, Bug, time to get up and stretch, then eat breakfast, then I'll look at the air quality map and decide whether I'm running this morning. Right now it is Code Yellow at the house. Maybe I'll limit my run to 3 miles to limit the smoke irritation. We'll see.
[The persons and/or government(s) responsible for bombing the Nord Stream pipelines remain disputed.]
More recently, the number of incidents occurring inside Russian territory has been increasing, although they have been blamed on irregular "anti-Russian" forces and "terrorists" rather than the military of Ukraine.
A major risk of the ongoing conflict is that the field of battle will spread outside of Ukraine and lead to escalation, either by dragging other countries into open warfare, or by pushing Russia into greater mobilization. As Russia is a nuclear power, direct threats to Russian territory risk a nuclear response.
From afar it seems the situation is stuck in a WW1-like stalemate, with Russia occupying only part of the area it claims to have annexed, while neither side can deploy superior offensive capability. A stalemate like this can grind on for years until either a ceasefire is agreed upon, or one of the sides becomes weary of conflict.
Although it is tempting for anti-Russian forces to fight back inside Russia, the history of modern warfare has shown that pinprick attacks on the home front do little to change conditions along the main front, and do little harm to morale. Even significant attacks on the home front may have little effect on the overall war -- one example is the occupation and burning of Washington by the British during the War of 1812, another is the German bombing of London during WW2. Ukraine is unlikely to cause that level of damage in Moscow with conventional weapons.
-----
I was thinking of war and crime as "intraspecies violence" yesterday during my walk break. Trying to think of it as an alien observer might, without feeling the need to take sides. Although our intraspecies violence gets better at times and worse at times, and not all of us engage in intraspecies violence, it seems impossible to eradicate. There is crime in all societies -- even the smallest of countries have police -- and nearly all existing countries have fought in wars (the few exceptions all have fewer than 400,000 residents).
Switzerland is famous for being a peaceful country, but it fought a war as recently as 1847. And Swiss military units did shoot down both German and Allied planes during WW2 as it tried to defend its neutrality -- it also captured soldiers who violated its borders. And Switzerland recently broke its long-standing precedents in sanctioning Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
-----
There's a theory of intraspecies conflict on the anarchist wing of the Left, that our conflicts arise from injustice & poverty, that we would not need police or military forces if we built a more inclusive and equal society.
I find little evidence supporting this theory in the real world. Mainly because rich people also commit crimes and wealthy countries also start wars. You might imagine that envy results from inequality, but the deeper problem is that no matter how much stuff people have, they still want more. So we see the country with the largest GDP adjusted for purchasing power -- China -- building up its military to threaten its neighbors over territorial disputes. And we in the US, having the largest GDP measured in USD, remain pointedly unsatisfied with our level of world dominance, as we rank 5th in number of homicides.
I support a more inclusive and equal society, not because it will reduce violence, but because I feel empathy for other living beings. But most people, no matter how much stuff they have, want even more.
-----
OK, Bug, time to get up and stretch, then eat breakfast, then I'll look at the air quality map and decide whether I'm running this morning. Right now it is Code Yellow at the house. Maybe I'll limit my run to 3 miles to limit the smoke irritation. We'll see.