The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Thoughts from an American About the Invasion of Ukraine
Many people have e-mailed me to ask whether I still have family in Ukraine, so I thought I'd post briefly to say that, fortunately, no-one we're close to is still there. I was born in Kiev, as was my mother, and my father's family moved there when he was young. But we left in 1975 (when I was seven), and haven't really stayed connected.
I also don't have any real sentimental link there. To the extent I have a cultural link to that part of the world, it's to Russia, because Russian is my native language; indeed, I don't speak Ukrainian, and I don't recall even ever hearing Ukrainian spoken—Kiev was a highly Russified city at the time. I grew up with considerable connections to Russian culture, because of my parents' deep connection that culture, but none at all to the Ukrainians.
Ethnically, I'm Jewish (Jewish was an ethnicity in the old country), so if I were to have any felt connections to an ethnic group, it wouldn't be to Ukrainians. But in any event, my "mystic chords of memory" link me to my non-forefathers in America, not to anyone over there. (You might have noticed that I call the city of my birth the Russian-derived Kiev, not the Ukrainian-derived Kyiv, partly because that's how I grew up thinking about it, and partly because that's the traditional English-language term; we, which is to say we Americans, say Russia, Moscow, and Ukraine, not Rossiya, Moskva, and Ookraina—likewise with Kiev.)
I therefore approach this as an American, not a Ukrainian-American or a Russian-American or even a Jewish American. But as an American, my heart goes out to the Ukrainians, the victims of what appears to be a senseless, unjustified attack by a dictator on a flawed but basically free and democratic country. In the annals of human history, this will not go down as one of the great atrocities; the Putin-Hitler rhetoric strikes me as ridiculously overstated (though, who knows, it's early days yet). Nor is Putin a Stalin or a Lenin, and, thankfully, the Russia of today is not the USSR of 1938 or even 1970 or 1980. And the reality is that powerful countries invading their feeble neighbors, for no better reason that to grab territory or enforce obedience, is pretty much the norm of human history; the attempt (however imperfectly successful) to reject that norm over the last several decades has been the marked exception.
But even putting things into perspective, Putin's actions strike me as inexcusable, and I very much hope that they will backfire. And while I would not have faulted the Ukrainians for accepting the inevitable and surrendering (just to use one indicator of what they're facing, the Russian active military is five times the size of the Ukrainian), I am deeply moved by the gallantry of the resistance we've seen so far.
In any event, I appreciate that all this is pretty banal, which is why my first inclination wasn't to write about it. My views on the subject are probably no different, and certainly no better informed, than those of millions of others. But some people had, as I said, written to me to express their sympathies, and I thought I'd write this in response.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"To the extent I have a cultural link, it's to Russia, because Russian is my native language..."
Mine is to the United States, and not because I speak English or because my direct line paternal ancestor came to the United States over 400 years ago or because my maternal ancestors arrived whenever it was Native Americans came to America.
Being an immigrant does not exclude one from becoming an American. Look at Ayn Rand. But it isn't a piece of government paper saying that one is a citizen that makes one an American. Any Rand was more of an American than you will ever be.
Did you miss the two paragraphs concerning:
"I therefore approach this as an American, not a Ukrainian-American or a Russian-American or even a Jewish American. But as an American..."
branford - Ayn Rand was an American. Volokh is a government-employed lawyer and self-described head conspirator of a bunch of leftist lawyers.
You realize you are not obliged to act like DaivdBehar, right?
The US should outfit Ukranian teams, and provide real time intelligence, to have them visit all the Russian oligarchs.
It is high time to end the sicko, delusional, and toxic lawyer idea of soveriegn immunity. The responsible sovereign should forfeit his life before the first war casualty.
The way the federal government bought millions of vaccinations, it should buy millions of guns. It should distribute them to all law abiding citizens of Ukraine. See a Russian, kill a Russian, or face a fine. Then, do the same in the US. See a violent crime, fire on the criminal or face a fine.
He has never really had anything of substance after his first post attacking concealed carry. Now that he is resorting to completely unfounded personal attacks my mute user list has grown by one.
"leftist"
lol
Leo, thank you for your comment. LOL is right. I recently watched episode 346 of "In Lieu of Fun." I guess I'll go get my RBG T-Shirt and wear it to bed as a nightshirt.
I see you didn't answer the question. I conclude you probably did not read the pertinent part. Here it is for the third time, possibly it will be the charm:
Who is this Charles Nichols? Anyway, this is the list comment of his that I will read.
*last
He's an open carry gadfly, who thinks only open carry is constitutionally protected, and that concealed carriers are cowardly assassins lying in wait.
When I carry I almost always open carry, but I think the right to bear arms can be concealed or open.
muted
I already had him muted from...some nonsense before, I guess. Rest assured this is the only kind of stuff he has to offer it seems.
Kiss my ass, CRTC.
Who the fuck are you to declare who is or is not an American?
He's the 3rd here on VC that I've muted. But he did set a land-speed record for how few comments of his it took for me to mute him.
He's been commenting here forever. I think he may have brought some gun-related case in CA, which makes his comments above especially comical. He's a gun-rights activist who apparently considers Eugene Volokh, cited multiple times by Scalia in Heller, a deep state pinko interloper.
He's also a gun-rights advocate who believes concealed carry should be illegal because it indicates an intention to assassinate somebody.
And my memory is that he refused to cooperate with other gun rights organizations in California, then blamed them whenever his case went awry. But it's been a while.
Can't use the term gun nut even in this context, Conspiracy fans?
Orthodoxy can be a powerful governor of conduct.
Been thinking: A 2nd Amendment would have really helped Ukrainians these days, huh?
Imagine a free country with a spine where the citizens are so armed that the civilian population alone is enough to command respect from any invader.
Maybe even enough respect to cause the attacker to rely solely on long-range bombs to obliterate the target?
I was wondering if you would say that. The endgame of that argument is that, because somebody has nukes, nobody should even consider having a rifle. Instead, everyone should just transition to nukes and call it a day.
Every step of escalation comes with a moral cost and a lessening probability. For example, in the US, if tyrants wanted to attack their own citizens, they would have to resort to using higher level weapons than rifles and tanks. THIS makes the entire scenario less probable. A deterrent effect. Also a large chance that the military would stand with the people. That's why the 2nd Amendment is the best thing that has ever happened to us. You will never see Americans be repressed at gun point by their own government in any significant numbers.
And for invaders from outside, well, long-range bombs are matched by long-range bombs. And if Russia is insane enough to take it to that level, a 2nd Amendment in Ukraine makes no difference.
How probable would that be? Do you think it's that easy to remote-settle a conflict? If that were the case, why hasn't the US done it in Afghanistan?
A lot of the critics of the 2nd Amendment don't seem to have a very high resolution when it comes to thinking through scenarios of conflict in their minds.
Additionally, if you say long-range bombs just trump anything a 2nd Amendment makes available to their citizens, then there is no reason for invaders to ever show up in person. But there seem to be reasons this isn't happening in reality, and the Russians aren't currently attacking via Zoom. So something must be inconsistent about that analysis.
" That's why the 2nd Amendment is the best thing that has ever happened to us. "
Gun nuts are destined to be culture war casualties.
"Gun nuts are destined to be culture war casualties."
Idiots without a point are more likely to be casualties in any war, not only culture.
Kind of an inverse G.E.Ernst?
This war is the love child of John McCain and Putin. America has its magical printing press and NATO is welfare for the Military Industrial Complex and McCain expanded NATO to please his patrons in the MiC.
Russia is a country that graduates more engineers than America and they are developing a commercial airplane…who will purchase it other than Aeroflot and Iran Air and Sudan Air?? So I can see Putin’s side steaming that the West can’t even allow him the poorest country in Europe as a trading partner!?! The context of course is that in the end China will only import Russian energy and grain and then China will squeeze Russia out of any markets in its sphere of influence.
Are you excusing or rationalizing Putin's invasion of Ukraine?
Did you happen to hear any of Putin's rambling the other day that concerning ambitions well beyond Ukraine?
Give me a break. Putin isn’t an idiot like George W Bush—he’s not going to attempt to occupy a country and then create an economy based on handouts and then the Ukrainians call their cousins in Pakistan and tell them to come to Ukraine to get free American dollars. Putin has an actual budget unlike America because we have our magical printing press and Putin has a budget based on energy exports. And keep in mind in 2022 high oil prices are actually good for America unlike in 2003. Putin is a rat trapped in a corner because any help from China is temporary because China wants to develop all of the value added industries Russia has other than energy and agriculture.
Putin is more constrained because the Ruble is worthless internationally, when we print money we can trade it for oil, gas, iphones, and clothes, or anything else we want.
For a little while longer, anyway.
We’ve identified the Ghost of Kviv!! It’s John McCain!!! Great work Sebastian!!
Yep, it’s funny to think senators do more than just jibber jabber on TV—they actually have a day job that is impactful!! 😉
WTF are you raving about?
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said Thursday that he is drafting a resolution to support a plan to name the new NATO headquarters for Sen. John McCain.
Rubio’s effort follows a series of tributes this week to honor the Arizona Republican who died Saturday from brain cancer. In recent days, a proposal also has been floated to name the Russell Senate Office Building in honor of McCain, who served in Congress for 35 years.
NATO had no greater supporter than McCain, said Rubio, who called on the alliance, which is based in Brussels, to support the resolution.
While U.S. and world leaders mourned the death of the longtime critic of President Vladimir Putin’s Russia, Russian policymakers and media personalities openly criticized the late senator for his anti-Kremlin views.
President Trump mounted a public attack unusual even for him over the Labor Day weekend, accusing his military leadership of advocating war “so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else stay happy.”
John McCain, who is being blamed here for the invasion, is - you know - dead.
General Marshall retired in 1951–does that mean anything that happened in Europe after that had nothing to do with him??
as S.C. points to the immaculately curated nest of interconnected threads he has affixed to his whiteboard.
You’re right, our lethal aid didn’t help Ukraine hold off Russia in the Donbas. And NATO is inconsequential and of no concern to Putin…you got it all figured out. 😉
Well, Putin has certainly demonstrated that there's no advantage to NATO holding back on expansion. Any country not in NATO is apparently fair game for Russia to invade! I can see why Finland is suddenly thinking about joining up.
Anytime a leader has to resort to calling out civilians to take up arms to defend their country, defeat looks near. On the other hand, though Russia's army is 5 times Ukraine's, Ukraine's is 100% engaged in this battle, while Russia's has to defend the world's most extensive land mass.
Let's hope this backfires on Putin immensely.
Anytime a leader has to resort to calling out civilians to take up arms to defend their country, defeat looks near.
I'm not so sure. Urban warfare is hell on invaders.
The Ulrainiams clearly learned much from Afghanistan.
We will see in the long run, but only two days into the invasion, is a different story.
Not only that, guerrilla warfare can be sustained for a long time. Reference us in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq (the second time). Or the Soviets in Afghanistan.
But according to you Charlie Wilson’s War is pure fiction—Congressmen only jibber jabber on TV they don’t do anything impactful. 😉
Putin wants to take the country more or less intact. Otherwise Kiev would look like Stalingrad. That thermobaric rocket launcher we read about would be blowing up civilian infrastructure.
He's also calling for international volunteers.
I'm in Asia now, but I'm heading back to the US via the Balkans in a few weeks. Maybe I can spare a few weeks to go kill some Russians, but probably not. Even from Sofia its probably pretty hard to get to the Ukraine.
I'd recommend going in via Poland.
A common miscalculation is to compare the size of country X's army to the size of country Y's.
Ukraine is reported to have 44 million people. If only a fraction of that takes up arms against Russia, they can defend themselves quite adequately. Nothing motivates people more than defending their own land.
If the size of the military was the only indicator, the US would have won in and Iraq in 2004.
Instead we spent 20 years in Afghanistan and withdrew in defeat.
The Russians can definitely win the war in Ukraine, albeit completely ignoring the laws of war and humanitarian concerns, things they've ignored in the past.
However, successfully occupying the country is something else entirely, particularly with a large resistance fully supplied with arms and resources from bordering NATO countries. It will be far worse than Afghanistan, and Russia was a lot wealthier and more powerful back then.
I wouldn't be surprised if Putin has an "accident" or "tragic medical event" once the casualties start mounting and the sanctions start biting the kleptocrats.
I have to agree. I have no doubt that Russia will win the initial battle. The Ukrainians are strong but numbers are overwhelming. However, I don't think that they will be able to win the peace.
I doubt that the Russian people will stand for the expense of this occupation. I suspect many or most are upset with Putin risking so much for his imperial ambitions.
You're probably right that the Russians will win the initial battle and conquer Ukraine. But I'm not absolutely sure: I have to wonder how long Russian troops will be willing to fight this crazy war. Russians are used to regarding Ukranians sort of the way Americans regard Canadians: The languages and religions of the 2 countries are very similar; many Russians live in Ukraine and Ukranians live in Russia; the relative populations of Russia and Ukraine are similar to the relative populations of the US and Canada. I don't think many Russians, even those in the military, thought of Ukraine as a threat prior to the invasion; it's my understanding that Russian media hadn't suggested that such was the case, even though it was mostly controlled by Putin. And if the Ukranians keep putting up fierce hand-to-hand resistance in the cities, some of the Russian troops may start asking themselves what the hell they're doing invading Ukraine. I definitely agree with you that even if Russia does prevail, its chances of being able to win the peace are remote.
The relative populations aren't that similar, Ukraine is 28% of the size of Russia, and is more densely populate to boot, Canada has only 11% of the US's population, and the density is in the worlds bottom 10.
But you're right there are similarities, and it probably makes more sense for us to invade Canada than for Russia to invade Ukraine.
It appears that Putin mean to perform a decapitating strike, and install a puppet government. But his troops got bogged down by unexpected resistance, and now he's stuck trying to conquer the place the hard way.
While he might have enough military force on tap to defeat the Ukrainian military, he doesn't have enough to prevent a crippling resistance to his occupation, and I don't think he can afford to keep his army there indefinitely.
Worse, from his perspective, he's woken Europe to the fact that, yes, he actually IS a threat, and being dependent on his energy exports really IS a bad mistake.
I completely agree. It appears that Putin has badly miscalculated. Marco Rubio may be right in tweeting that he thinks "something is off" with Putin. That's a scary thought when we're talking about a man with a finger on a very large nuclear trigger.
It's hard to say really the Russian capabilities and the Ukrainian capabilities here.
I think you're correct that Putin thought it would be a quick, painless invasion. Akin to the US invasion of Panama. Or the Russian invasion of Crimea. And given the success the Russians had in invasion of Crimea in 2014, it wasn't necessarily crazy to think that. However, it's not turning out that way.
There are few comparisons to be drawn here, in a modern conflict like this. The most appropriate are probably Iraq or Vietnam. (Afghanistan is likely not appropriate due to the tribal nature of the area and extreme terrain). Vietnam is an example of an invasion when the invaded country has heavy foreign support (like Ukraine does). There are substantial differences though If Ukraine is more of an Iraq-like situation, Putin could succeed. So, the 2003 US invasion of Iraq may be able to be used as a pseudo-template. The US took a solid 20 days to take Bagdad there. And occupied the country of 25 million. Iraq of course was cut off from foreign support.
So...it's a tough call, especially given the uncertainties about Ukraine's ability (and will) to defend, and the new Russian army's untested nature. But I would hazard an estimation. If Ukraine can hold out a month or two....it will outlast Russia.
Yeah, it was crazy. The (ethnically and linguistically Russian) population of the Crimea was solidly in favor of the 2014 invasion. There's no way the population of the Ukraine as a whole was going to welcome the Russians in 2022.
Leo, thank you for your comment. LOL is right. I recently watched episode 346 of "In Lieu of Fun." I guess I'll go get my RBG T-Shirt and wear it to bed as a nightshirt.
"And the reality is that powerful countries invading their feeble neighbors, for no better reason that to grab territory or enforce obedience, is pretty much the norm of human history"
The cause of war is weakness. Send Ukrainian teams to visit Russian oligarchs, including Putin. End this awful sovereign immunity. Stop killing peasants and working people who just want to go home.
If not effective, every law abiding adult in the Ukraine should have been issued a gun. You would now have an army of 30 million. See a Russian. Kill a Russian. Get $1000. Over there, $100 may be enough. As a side benefit, that would end crime as well.
Then that scumbag laweyr dumbass, Biden, cut energy production. His woke betrayal of the nation gave despots the impression, they could roll. Now, the profits from rising prices will exceed the cost of the sanctions.
In social learning, one sees someone else punished or rewarded, and changes one's behavior accordingly.
China is looking. It should be the open policy to have regime change in these enemy countries. Attack, lose your life. That would include our own leaders. The weakness of the scumbag lawyer Biden will lose us Taiwan, soon.
For some crazy reason some accounts show Finland as part of the Axis, I guess because Germany and the Finns were both fighting the Russians. Probably reads that way in the Russian history books.
Finland was a signatory to the Anti-Comintern Pact with Germany, Japan, and Italy. It wasn't a formal Axis power, but they were gladly receiving arms shipments from Germany for use against the USSR until 1944, at which time Finland signed an armistice with the USSR and then initiated hostilities against Germany.
Yeah, Finland was allied with Nazi Germany during the Continuation War (1941-1944), but during the Winter War (1939-1940), it was the Soviet Union that was perceived as the German ally.
Interesting fact: even though the Wannsee Conference minutes show that the participants took note of the number of Jews in Finland who would have to be eliminated as part of the Final Solution, the Finns never got with the program. It irked the hell out of Germans fighting alongside the Finns that their allies even continued to have Jewish chaplains in their army.
Ukraine is the opening conflict of what I believe will be a prolonged conflict between two superpower alliances. Ukraine's president has displayed remarkable spirit while his country is under attack. I hope he can hold out and manage not to get caught/killed.
Other: I am amazed at the lack of satellite imagery available to the US public on what is actually happening in Ukraine. The lack of concrete, assessable information is disturbing. There are a lot of battlefield claims being made. The imagery would tell us the truth.
I don't think I'd call Russia a superpower.
That doesn't mean they don't deserve a lot of US attention, but the are certainly not China.
Indeed. Isn't their economy still about the size of South Korea's?
Roughly the same GDP (2020 excluded due to pandemic), but Russia has three times the population of South Korea.
They still have about 6000 nuclear warheads. That qualifies them as a superpower. China has only 260.
Nevertheless, I agree that China is scarier.
They're a gas station with nukes.
While they're a large country in both size and population, and can militarily overwhelm smaller countries, if they did not have nukes, we would view them as about as dangerous as we do Mexico. (By "we," I mean sane people, not people who think that dishwashers and landscapers are invaders.)
I can think of two reasons that satellite imagery is in short supply right now. First, Russia is known to attack US spy satellites -- aiming lasers at them, jamming them, and so forth. Especially for countries close to Russia (including Kaliningrad), this could make it hard to get high-quality imagery. Second, a desire to protect the details of the capability (resolution, latency, resistance to attack, whatever): we have decided, probably correctly, to avoid involving our military -- so current details on the ground do not provide significant input to the decision process or public support for it.
It bears reminding that, while China's and Russia's satellite capability is still classified and secret, ours is not.
What? No.
All US imagery vehicles are classified, as are their capabilities. In fact, all imagery is classified when produced as well.
Now, some things can't be hidden, despite the classification and general secrecy. It's effectively impossible to hide a satellite launch or one in orbit (at least, for long). Orbits and pictures of the vehicle can give you a decent idea of what the purpose of the vehicle is.
But the specific capabilities are very much classified and protected.
On August 29, 2019, President Donald Trump tweeted a spy satellite photo of an Iranian rocket site. This revealed to the world two things: 1) the existence of the satellite, and 2) the fact that our satellites can resolve to 10 centimeters per pixel.
...
Every once in a while, I mistakenly think you might have something other than TDS in your head, but then you have to go prove that he still lives there rent-free.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanocallaghan/2019/09/01/trump-accidentally-revealed-the-amazing-resolution-of-u-s-spy-satellites/?sh=5d7fc8ec3d89
Is it even possible to reveal what people had long known?
"However, the true power of these satellites is a closely guarded secret. Indeed, high-resolution satellite imagery is controversial itself; private satellites are only allowed to release images with a resolution of up to 25 centimeters. “US regulations prohibit commercial imagery better than .25-meter res and restricts it to specific wavelengths,” noted Brian Weeden from the space advocacy organization Secure World Foundation."
From the article.
"private satellites are only allowed to release images with a resolution of up to 25 centimeters. " If private satellites are restricted to releasing "a resolution of 25 centimeters", what are their true capabilities? Obviously better than 25 centimeters. If that's the case, what exactly did Trump give away? Was it even a military satellite that took the image?
Toranth is right he's still living there rent free.
Let's start with the first claim:
This is the sort of claim that can only come from an idiot educated by a moron.
There are no secret satellites or satellite launches.
Do you think it is possible to hide the giant pillar of fire and fast-moving metal tower as at rises from the Earth? Do you think that nations don't have radar? Do you think that the satellites, which is visible to a typical $200 backyard telescope, will somehow hide from observers?
Maybe you think the satellites just slip behind some vacuum, wrap themselves in nothing, or throw up a veil of empty void to prevent themselves from being noticed?
Or maybe every US satellite launched is publicly announced and added to the US Registry of orbital objects (which is a subset of the UN run one)? There are aviation warnings and range closures, again disseminated through international organizations. Why? Because the US doesn't want people running in to their very expensive satellites!
In other words, the existence of satellites is not something US can keep secret, not does it attempt to.
" I mistakenly think you might have something other than TDS in your head"
To be fair, he also still mopes over George W. Bush for winning in 2000.
The existence of that family of satellites was already public. The ability to achieve that resolution was new information, but the physical limits for that type of satellite were already well-publicized. As for Russia's satellite capabilities, plenty of detail is public. (I haven't looked for details on China's.)
The ability to explain away Trump's national security irresponsibility is endless. Next you'll tell us that it was ok for him to plan Syrian bombing raids at Mar-a-Lago in full view of the hotel guests.
You are just trying to distract from the fact that Biden's irresponsibility causes problems for international security, not only your imagined idea of "national security".
Next you'll tell us how the moon landings were faked from a sound stage in Hollywood.
I haven't said anything untrue, that can't be easily looked up. As for faked moon landings, that's something Trump voters are more likely to believe.
What is your (credible) source for Trump "plan[ning] Syrian bombing raids at Mar-a-Lago in full view of the hotel guests"? I did check both Bing and Google, and neither came back with anything remotely close to that.
You have said things that are untrue - and in fact, absolutely idiotic BlueAnon conspiracy theories.
Many in the IC think Trump should not have shared that picture, including me. It was unnecessary and foolish.
But it did not "reveal the existence of the satellite" as your own cited article makes clear: everyone with half a brain, including ignorant journalists (but not you), knew the estimated orbit and rough capabilities of the vehicle. The guesses people are making about the "true capabilities" of the satellites, based on a low quality snapshot of of a printout, are hilarious - not scientific.
For your information, various nation states received the specs and operations manuals for those vehicles from spies long ago. Brian Regan was a particular idiot that managed to get himself caught quickly, but others were slightly more successful. They now get mentioned in security training videos in the IC.
@Michael P -
This "Mar-a-Lago" BlueAnon is a conspiracy theory invented by TDS sufferers after the White House tweeted a picture of Trump getting briefed on Syria while at the resort. There were no hotel guests there, of course, and no indications that the picture was taken outside of the SCIF that was constructed there, but to people like cc, reality doesn't matter when the BlueAnon calls.
I got the (many) Trump national security breaches mixed up. I was thinking about his discussion with Japanese PM Abe about how to respond to North Korea's bomb tests. That is easily looked up.
"ability to achieve that resolution was new information"
How are any of our enemies supposed to benefit from this info?
They still have to build a camera that does that well.
We released spy pictures for the Cuba crisis and Iraq war. Its just the old cycle, Trump does normal president thing, people run around with their heads off.
They could in theory change their behavior if they know that our spy satellites can resolve objects 10 cm across rather than 15 or 20 cm. (Presumably they know our satellites have better resolution than 25 cm, which jimc noted above is the limit for commercial imagery.)
But I am not exactly sure how they would change their behavior, and nothing comes to mind except that they might use better camouflage in certain situations. I will remain skeptical until someone explains why an adversary might benefit from that knowledge.
You really don't think the resolution capabilities of the enemy's spy satellites is vital information for us to have?
Bellingcat is working on filtering out the truth from images posted online.
Good to know someone is. I prefer my information not to be 'pre-processed', massaged and narrated. I can read a damned map.
Any map bakes in an enormous amount of pre-processing, massaging and narration. Think of the differences between a road map and a topological map. "The map is not the territory", and "All models are wrong; some models are useful".
Considering the amount of cell phone video we're getting, I'm not sure we're missing much.
Historians are going to have a ball with this one, I think - they'll probably be able to assemble the most detailed record of any conflict ever.
I say Kiev for two reasons.
1. I grew up during the Cold War. I read about WW2. It was always Kiev until very recently. One day I may get over it, like one day I may be able to say "Czech" without adding "oslovakia".
2. I have heard Kyiv spoken by a Ukrainian and did not sound like the "keev" that English speaking newscasters say.
I've been following coverage at Le Monde and they still write Kiev in French. In the English language, France24's English coverage was better than watching Wolf Blitzer.
How to pronounce Київ
Thank you for that.
"France24's English coverage was better than watching Wolf Blitzer."
That is hardly a surprise.
If only there were an international organization of peace-loving states ready to rely on collective security to deter and stop aggressive war. Such an organization would have stopped Putin dead in his tracks!
Hey wait a minute…
You mean the one where aggressors like Russia get a veto over any action, and where such respecters of human rights as Libya, Iran and Saudi Arabia get a say in who is violating human rights? That organization?
It does have a nice building on the East Side of Manhattan. Good outing for school kids. Can't think of much else good it does.
Then maybe you should do some reading about it. It does a lot more than just pointless posturing in the Security Council. That's just one small part of its activities and its mission.
"one small part of its activities"
They do things like this also:
"Child sexual abuse by UN peacekeepers"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Just curious - what do you think the UN does that is important?
Peacekeeping might be on your list, but that's... questionable at best since the 1950s.
International Atomic Energy Agency? Not sure what they are actually good for, given their history of failures.
Maintain International Aviation standards? That's important, true, along with the international maritime and telecom standards.
Can you think of anything else?
"International Atomic Energy Agency? "
IAEA provides a high value center of expertise for ALL signatories of the NPT. IT has become a clearing house for best practices in accounting for and securing nuclear materials. It is not just a shell of a police force as you seem to be implying.
Ok, that does sound useful. I suspect they serve little purpose in US, France, or other nations with extended nuclear programs, but being a central repository of best practices for something like nuclear power is a good purpose.
I was incorrectly believing they mainly did safety, incident response, and NPT investigations.
I currently view this situation much as Prof. Volokh does (although I wonder what point or reasonable uncertainty would make Russia's attack and invasion an 'appears to be' situation). The courage of many Ukranians is admirable; I wish them better than well.
I have never liked nor much respected Russia. Ugly, downscale, deeply flawed country. A drag on our world, inflicting unnecessary, immoral pain on its citizens and others.
How deep is Russia's indecency? The Russian Orthodox Church is supporting the vile Putin and this immoral invasion (question for advocates of limitless special privilege for religion: If America sought to impose sanctions on the Russian Orthodox Church for its un-American and disgusting conduct, would your devotion to superstition overcome interests related to decency and morality?).
I hope Vladimir Putin is diagnosed with swiftly lethal, excruciatingly painful testicular cancer today.
I also tentatively hope the world's better nation's impose severe penalties on Russia and Russians -- take Abramovich's football club overnight, for example, and expel his yacht from the territorial waters of civilized nations.
I see little reason to appease lousy people or to pretend I do not wish them ill (if only to stop them from hurting others). If I need to pay 75 cents a gallon more for gasoline for a while as the price of moral conduct, I am ready to pay that and more, and happily.
"I hope Vladimir Putin is diagnosed with swiftly lethal, excruciatingly painful testicular cancer today."
Funny, as a few days ago, I was wondering if he actually IS terminally ill and if that's what drives his actions. What happens if a megalomaniac with nukes has nothing to lose anymore?
"If I need to pay 75 cents a gallon more for gasoline for a while as the price of moral conduct, I am ready to pay that and more, and happily."
Universal calls for moral conduct may have a tendency to spike before midterms.
I encourage you to watch Don't Look Up, with a star-laden cast, available (if I recall correctly) on Netflix. Nominated for Best Picture (although, after the provision of the award to that talentless hack Ted Kramer, it is difficult to respect Oscar-winners, a point vindicated by Shape of Water, Roma, etc.).
Got it, I might watch that. Sorry about my emotional response above, but I do believe firmly in the utility of the 2nd Amendment.
Have a good evening.
I hope you have a good evening as well.
Don’t Look Up is complicated. Heavy-handed, thought-provoking, maybe confounding. Not a light or cheery entertainment. I am still not sure what to make of it.
I believe our Constitution safeguards a right to possess a reasonable firearm for self-defense in the home. I hope backlash against gun absolutism does not overrun that right.
Don't Look Up is a terrible movie, written by someone who didn't think through for a moment what he was trying to say and thereby saying the opposite of what he intended to say, and with attempted satire so ham-fisted that it makes America's Funniest Home Videos look subtle. It is redeemed only by a good cast.
"If I need to pay 75 cents a gallon more for gasoline for a while as the price of moral conduct, I am ready to pay that and more, and happily."
The French president gave a speech warning his country that they would feel the effect of sanctions. Meanwhile, the Germans demanded the right to keep funding the Russian war machine in return for cheap gas.
I currently view this situation much as Prof. Volokh does (although I wonder what point or reasonable uncertainty would make Russia's attack and invasion an 'appears to be' situation). The courage of many Ukranians is admirable; I wish them better than well.
I agree. And on wishing Putin ill. I just want to thank you for pointing out the weirdness of "appears to be." I'm all for humility and recognizing the contingency of almost all of our knowledge, but it was odd here.
Prof. Volokh’s writing is periodically odd or awkward. Perhaps it is because English is not his first language (I would not want to have to blog in a language other than my first language). Perhaps it is because he is pulling punches, masking his genuine opinions concerning points he considers controversial or politically inconvenient. Maybe it is a conservative tic that mainstreamers can’t understand. Maybe it is something else. But it is noticeable, and unusually frequent for someone in his position.
My knowledge of the history of Ukraine is not close to EV's but maybe more to the point is also more recent. I don't know much about Ukraine before this century but I still remember what happened in 2013 and 2014.
Depending on who you believe it was a somewhat legit revolution or it was nothing more than a shady coup financed by the US and the EU. Not to mention in the run up to the revolution/coup Russia offered Ukraine fifteen billion while the US, EU, and NATO offered somewhere in the area of 635 billion (both numbers converted to US dollars at the time).
I was interested to read EV viewed Kiev as a Russian speaking and Russian cultural city when he was a small kid. There is not much question that there are lots of peeps living in Ukraine who speak Russian and view Russia as the homeland. So much so that in 2014 when Ukraine sorta broke away from Russia it was not total. The Crimea stayed in it's orbit around Russia and clearly likes it that way.
In fact that is a big part of the problem in Ukraine now. Several regions in Ukraine (sorta like states in the US) are very similar to the Crimea in that they view themselves as being in the Russian orbit and are not happy with being more in the EU orbit.
While not identical it is somewhat similar to what happened in Yugoslavia with Russia taking the place of the US in at least some ways. Which brings me to my big point. Just as Yugoslavia was a country made up of very different regions so is the Ukraine and this war/conflict will likely result in the country being partitioned into pro Russian areas and pro EU areas.
Thats my story and I am sticking to it.
Ukraine because an independent country after the fall of the Soviet Union -- not only in 2013/2014. Remember the Budapest Memorandum between Ukraine, Russia, the US and the UK?
And why do you bother posting ahistorical Russian propaganda here, of all places?
Reading comprehension is your friend. Early on I said what I posted would be limited to this century; guess you missed that. I know math is hard for some peeps but 1994 is not in this century.
Not sure what ahistorical Russian propaganda was posted, maybe you could provide details.
Bottom line I still claim there will be a partition of Ukraine when the dust settles.
What you said was that you didn't know much about Ukraine before this century. I pointed out where you said something substantially misleading (namely, when it broke from Russia/the USSR) because of that. You get no points for ignoring facts more than 20 years old.
Your claim was ahistoric and pro-Putin propaganda that exploits the ahistoricity. Therefore it is ahistoric propaganda.
Once again since you seem to have comprehension issues which claim was ahistoric propaganda.
What I actually said was it sorta broke away from Russia in 2014 but I also pointed out Crimea, with a push from Russia, broke away from the Ukraine.
I am not sure why you keep insisting the Budapest Memorandum was as big a split as you claim. The Budapest Memorandum was much more devoted with how to deal with nukes since at the time the Ukraine had the third largest number of nukes of any country. Of course the Russians were the ones who had the nuke codes so Ukraine was more like a storage locker for Russia's nukes.
But again you seem to not want to address that the end result of Putin's military adventure will be a partition of Ukraine with Russia winding up with about 1/3 of the country and all access to ports and open water. Not to mention the areas Russia will likely wind up with include the bulk of oil, gas, and minerals.
By the by my interest in the current situation in Ukraine is exclusively based on how I, and my stock broker, will act. Truth be told I really have very little interest in other aspects. But it is obvious that Ukraine will take a big hit in both energy and grain production which will affect what the US government loves to call those 'volatile food and energy prices' which in no small part will only make things worse for the dems in the midterms.
To quote James Carville 'its the economy stupid'.
The Budapest Memorandum was not when Ukraine broke from the USSR. It was an international agreement that clearly recognized Ukraine as an independent country then. Crimea has been part of Ukraine since 1954, and the Budapest Memorandum recognized and guaranteed Ukraine's integrity.
Until your buddy Putin decided to rip it up and shit all over Russia's honor.
"... it was nothing more than a shady coup financed by the US and the EU."
The behavior of the Ukrainian people over the last few days doesn't seem to indicate that they view the Russian troops as liberators.
Leaving aside the lack of real information on what is really happening on the ground your post seems to have missed the real point I was trying to make.
While the numbers are still not fixed in my mind maybe 30% of Ukrainian population are Russian speaker who voted in several elections to favor being part of the Russian orbit. A larger number of the Ukrainian population want to be in the EU orbit. This is the real issue. It is also why I posted the bottom line is a partition of Ukraine along the lines of what happened with Yugoslavia. It is easy to find fairly up to date maps showing what regions are currently under Russian control. They are all in the East and South as one would expect since this is where support for Russia is the highest. Cutting off Ukraine's access to the sea in the South would be a real blow to Ukraine's economy and my guess is that both the East and South will be part of the partitioning once the dust settles.
Gallup's out with a poll saying 88% of both R's and D's have a negative view of Putin and Russia, so there is not a partisan split of how they view Putin.
But 62% in another poll say Putin wouldn't have invaded if Trump were still President:
"A new Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll survey released Friday found that 62 percent of those polled believed Putin would not be moving against Ukraine if Trump had been president. When looking strictly at the answers of Democrats and Republicans, 85 percent of Republicans and 38 percent of Democrats answered this way. . . . A majority of Americans polled — 59 percent — also said they believed that the Russian president moved on Ukraine because Putin saw weakness in President Biden."
It's hard to call that partisan, because 62% is way above a partisan split, it's almost consensus.
The Harvard CAPS / Harris Poll is conducted by The Harris Poll online within the United States every monthly and captures the responses of over 2,000 registered voters. The results reflect a nationally representative sample. Results were weighted for age within gender, region, race/ethnicity, marital status, household size, income, employment, and education where necessary to align them with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online.
I'm not too worried about this particular poll. We'll see if it becomes a trend beyond an online poll with propensity weighting.
Separately, in my opinion Biden is leading a measured global response in a way Trump never could have.
"a measured global response"
You misspelled 'thoughts and prayers'.
So his approval rating is even lower than Biden's.
Well, since Biden's approval is higher than Trump's was at this point in his Presidency or when he left office, and he has gotten less popular since, so that should be your comparison. Even lower than Trump's.
So what's your take on the elimination of the definite article before "Ukraine" and "Crimea"? Until the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the definite article was just the way English speakers referred to those lands, just as we referred to *the* Sudan, *the* Congo, *the* Philippines, *the* Ivory Coast, *the* Upper Volta, *the* Maldives, *the* Gambia, *the* Netherlands (and before my time to *the* Lebanon, *the* Yemen, etc.).
I understand that there isn't a definite article in Ukrainian, but I never understood why that should make a difference to English speakers. After all, there isn't a definite article in Latin, either, but that doesn't stop us from referring to *the* Roman Empire. (I notice that the newspapers seem to have dropped the definite article from the Sudan in recent decades, and the Upper Volta and the Ivory Coast have mooted the issue by changing their names to Burkina Fasso and Cote d'Ivoire (though I question their right to insist on that name--do the Germans insist we call their name "Deutschland"?). For a while, it looked like the definite article was being dropped from "the Congo," but it seems to have been making its way back lately. I've even noticed people sometimes referring to *the* Galilee, which strikes my ear as every bit as odd as referring to the Ukraine as simply Ukraine.)
(Interestingly, while the Ukrainian government seems to have gotten really het up about making us English-speakers drop the "the," the government of the Gambia has done exactly the opposite, going so far as to capitalize their definite article, presumably so we foreigners don't overlook it or forget to use it. But the Gambians are entitled to dictate to us on such matters, given that English is their language too.)
What about The Ohio State University?
The United Kingdom is still current too.
You wrote the answer to your own question:
Until the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the definite article was just the way English speakers referred to those lands,
And at the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine again became an independent country. (I don't have a source for whether in, say, the 1800s it was "Ukraine" or "the Ukraine." But google ngram shows Ukraine beating "the Ukraine" handily in the early 1800s, then nobody much talked about it and then you see the recent boom in "Ukraine" and falling off of "the Ukraine"; if you use "in Ukraine" vs "in the Ukraine" then "in the Ukraine" flattened in 2013 (coincident with Russian aggression questioning their independence and forcibly occupying parts of it) and dropped off to almost nothing starting in 2017, as presumably the usage campaign favoring "Ukraine" succeeded.) But the objection is precisely "the Ukraine" was considered a region (and, yes, political subdivision) of the Soviet Union by the Soviets. Ukraine wanted to erase that interpretation. They aren't a region in Russia's neighborhood, they are an independent country. Dropping "the" was to emphasize that.
Wikipedia has a likely better informed history, but the gist of my semi-educated post was correct:
Ukraine is one of a few English country names traditionally used with the definite article the.[1] This is apparently because the word "ukraina" means "borderland",[30] and so would be translated as if "the borderlands" — the Ukraine — like how Nederlanden, meaning "nether lands", is translated as "the Netherlands".[31] Use of the article was standard before Ukrainian independence, but has decreased since the 1990s.[2][3][32] For example, the Associated Press dropped the article "the" on 3 December 1991.[3] Use of the definite article was criticised as suggesting a non-sovereign territory, much like "the Lebanon" referred to the region before its independence, or as one might refer to "the Midwest", a region of the United States.[33][34][35]
In 1993, the Ukrainian government explicitly requested that, in linguistic agreement with countries and not regions,[36] the Russian preposition в be used instead of на,[37] and in 2012, the Ukrainian embassy in London further stated that it is politically and grammatically incorrect to use a definite article with Ukraine.[1] Use of Ukraine without the definite article has since become commonplace in journalism and diplomacy (other examples are the style guides of The Guardian[38] and The Times[39]).
So the Ukrainian embassy is literally calling for political correctness. I guess Communist habits die hard.
So when we refer to "the Nethelands" or "the Sudan," that indicates that we regard those places as mere regions and not as independent nations? What bollocks. You may as well claim that when we refer to "the Philippines," "the Maldives," or "the Bahamas," we're indicating that we think of them as mere archipelagos and not as independent, sovereign nations.
And what about the Crimea? Does our omission of the definite article from that name mean that we now consider it an independent sovereign nation (something that Russia and the Ukraine, despite their other differences, agree isn't the case)?
This attempt to tell English speakers what their normal usages "really" mean is the equivalent of mansplaining on an international level.