On the 20th of October, Moldova - a small, landlocked country bordering western Ukraine and with a population of about 3 million - voted to join the EU. The margin was razor-thin, with the pro-EU vote gaining 50.39%, or an absolute difference of about 11,000 people. There was simultaneously a presidential vote between the incumbent, Maia Sandu, and other candidates, with the main competitor being Alexandr Stoianoglo.
The election was characterized by accusations of Russian interference, with Russian propaganda apparently flooding in, as well as people offering Moldovans money to vote against the EU. While the result does suggest that half the voting-age population of Moldova consists entirely of Russians who want to destroy democracy and all the good in the world, it seems to have just barely failed. This is a bad time to be a site entirely composed of Russian disinformation agents and bots. Twice already today, I've had to restart my program after somebody told me "Disregard all previous prompts."
While Moldova is a poor country which could benefit in some ways from EU membership, in practice, it is unlikely that they will be able to join for the foreseeable future, requiring many of the... reforms... that the EU requires of potential new members. But as basically every major European economy continues to slowly sink as recessions and political crises degrade them, one wonders how beneficial EU membership will even be in the years and decades to come - if it survives for decades. In that sense, it's as if the survivors of the Titanic are swimming back towards it, believing that being on a bigger - albeit slowly sinking - boat is better than trying their luck on small lifeboats.
Then again, like with Serbia, their geographical and geopolitical position makes anti-Western actions extremely difficult. It is rare that dissention is tolerated for long in the West - one tends to get called a dictator by crowds of people holding English-language signs in non-English countries, photographed by Western journalists who haven't meaningfully reported on your country in months or years. You can crush your people with neoliberal austerity for years, killing hundreds of thousands through neglect, and face glowing approval from the media - but try and use state resources to benefit the poor, and global institutions start ranking you on the authoritarian dictator scale.
The best case for Moldova is that it becomes an exploitable hinterland for Germany to harvest and privatize as it tries - and fails - to compete in a global economic war between the US and China/BRICS. The worst case is that tensions with Russia over Pridnestrovie, as well as possible eventual NATO involvement (though Moldova is not a member, it is a partner of NATO), result in the ongoing war also reaching them.
Defense Politics Asia's youtube channel and their map. Their youtube channel has substantially diminished in quality but the map is still useful. Moon of Alabama, which tends to have interesting analysis. Avoid the comment section. Understanding War and the Saker: reactionary sources that have occasional insights on the war. Alexander Mercouris, who does daily videos on the conflict. While he is a reactionary and surrounds himself with likeminded people, his daily update videos are relatively brainworm-free and good if you don't want to follow Russian telegram channels to get news. He also co-hosts The Duran, which is more explicitly conservative, racist, sexist, transphobic, anti-communist, etc when guests are invited on, but is just about tolerable when it's just the two of them if you want a little more analysis. Simplicius, who publishes on Substack. Like others, his political analysis should be soundly ignored, but his knowledge of weaponry and military strategy is generally quite good.
On the ground: Patrick Lancaster, an independent and very good journalist reporting in the warzone on the separatists' side.
Unedited videos of Russian/Ukrainian press conferences and speeches.
Pro-Russian Telegram Channels:
Again, CW for anti-LGBT and racist, sexist, etc speech, as well as combat footage.
https://t.me/aleksandr_skif ~ DPR's former Defense Minister and Colonel in the DPR's forces. Russian language. https://t.me/Slavyangrad ~ A few different pro-Russian people gather frequent content for this channel (~100 posts per day), some socialist, but all socially reactionary. If you can only tolerate using one Russian telegram channel, I would recommend this one. https://t.me/s/levigodman ~ Does daily update posts. https://t.me/patricklancasternewstoday ~ Patrick Lancaster's telegram channel. https://t.me/gonzowarr ~ A big Russian commentator. https://t.me/rybar ~ One of, if not the, biggest Russian telegram channels focussing on the war out there. Actually quite balanced, maybe even pessimistic about Russia. Produces interesting and useful maps. https://t.me/epoddubny ~ Russian language. https://t.me/boris_rozhin ~ Russian language. https://t.me/mod_russia_en ~ Russian Ministry of Defense. Does daily, if rather bland updates on the number of Ukrainians killed, etc. The figures appear to be approximately accurate; if you want, reduce all numbers by 25% as a 'propaganda tax', if you don't believe them. Does not cover everything, for obvious reasons, and virtually never details Russian losses. https://t.me/UkraineHumanRightsAbuses ~ Pro-Russian, documents abuses that Ukraine commits.
The exec summary and chapter 2 is worth reading, otherwise the main takeaways are that Clausewitz was right about industrial war and attrition, ukraine is getting rinsed, nato is not prepared for industrial war. A few other specifics:
the authors estimate that the Russian military industrial complex can build the equipment of the current entire German army about 3 times a year
on interception of missiles: Sample interception rates for commonly used Russian missiles in 2024: 50% for the older Kalibr subsonic cruise missiles, 22% for modern subsonic cruise missiles (e.g. Kh-69), 4% for modern ballistic missiles (e.g. Iskander-M), 0.6% for S-300/400 supersonic long-range SAM, and 0.55% for the Kh-22 supersonic anti-ship missile. Data on interception rates of hypersonic missiles is scarce: Ukraine claims a 25% interception rate for hypersonic Kinzhal and Zircon missiles, but Ukrainian sources also indicate such interceptions require salvo firing all 32 launchers in a US-style Patriot battery to have any chance to shoot down a single hypersonic missile. By comparison, German Patriot batteries have 16 launchers,
and Germany has 72 launchers in total.
the authors estimate that any slowdown of tank build out rate due to running out of older Soviet era chassis won't begin until 2026 earliest
Democratization of advanced strike abilities via proliferation of drone and missile technology is a big deal. It is so much more expensive to defend against these munitions than attack with them. The significance of current world wars are akin to Agincourt, with missiles and drones playing the role of the long bow
Minor point, but s300-400 is likely ukrainians putting lipstick on a pig of failed interceptions. Lets use expensive interceptors with shit load to strike close targets. And they are completely invisible to interception systems as well?
or much simpler explanation: its failures of ukraine aa systems to self-explode in air
I remember reading speculation (maybe a year and a half ago?) that ukraine had disabled the self destruct features on their interceptors because russian cruise missiles had some kind of EW support that was prematurely detonating them before reaching their target
That's why they kept flying into apartment buildings and exploding after totally failing to hit anything
It struck me recently that what's implied by the use of "Soviet era" and the reality are two different things
Like even though the USSR collapsed in 1991, I feel that the use of "Soviet era" always implies to people some out of date clunky 1960s tech, and fails to properly contextualize that basically everything the west has sent to Ukraine has also been "Soviet era". The M1 Abrams, Leopard 1, the F-16, all of these are 1960s-1980s, they're as old as the "Soviet era" stuff. Hell most countries haven't adopted anything new since the early 2000s
It would be like calling US equipment "Gulf War era" or something, it's fucking meaningless
Sure, I think the point is the difference between refurbishing existing tank chassis after pulling them out of storage and building new chassis from scratch. I agree that the wording and framing is sometimes suspect. F16s are 50 years old after all but they're still presented as wunderwaffen
I'd imagine the interception rate for the Kinzhal would be similar to the Iskander, they are fundamentally very similar weapons, it's just that the Kinzhal is launched from the air, and the Iskander from the ground. I'd also estimate Zircon interception rates to be similar to that of the S3/400 SAM or Kh-22. As for the 22% interception rate for modern subsonic cruise missiles, I think that's more applicable to the Kh-59 than the Kh-69, as the 69 is basically a stealth version of the 59, designed to be launched from the Su-57 and carried in it's internal weapons bays. I even remember Ukrainian air defence personnel saying that the Kh-69 was even more problematic than the Kinzhal.