Hi guys! my throat is acting up a little, hopefully it’s just because of the weather and early morning routines but in worst case scenario, what happens if someone gets Covid? Are there any separate arrangements?🤞🤞🤞🤞Just read UPSC guidelines, it says two separate rooms shall be available but someone here said that they sent back candidates at Dholpur house. I’m in Lucknow, if someone has any idea/ experience, kindly share
Just take your meds and go write. They don’t give a flying fck….. neither should you.
In my room every 3rd person is sneezing, coughing AND writing.
Yes. Same. The girl next to me sits with a paracetamol. Everyone is coughing or sneezing. And after that there is a long line to collect mobile phones.
@KingSlayer23 Thinking of public sector as the chief employer is a problem. Such a situation will obviously lead to a pyramid scheme and finally will result in the 1990 like situation. Only a flourishing private sector, with a government functioning as neutral regulator and facilitator will bring economic growth.Railways are running at a heavy financial loss, one of the major reasons being inefficiency, which is inherent to public sector. Now, if we keep on employing people in public sector without any reforms or stream lining, how will ultimately the salaries and pensions of government employees be made? Govt will have to print money, simple! Which will make the whole system, the ultimate Ponzi scheme.
Not all private sector companies are efficient and not all public sector is inefficient. The solution of privatisation is not so simple. In the absence of a large manufacturing industry that has the ability to absorb people that will be let go due to privatisation, these kind of scenarios will come up. So Government has to play the role of a major employer. There is no other way out.
I don't know bout others but i have always seen a clerk in SBI or nurse in government hospital give 100% and working a bit more than working hours. Never thought they wanted to earn money without working as above mentioned post try to convey.
Most of the psu or govt ills is because of management decisions or lack of quick decisions. The average employee is really a pawn. The places where govt decided to give autonomy many sectors worked really well, for eg ongc which was pretty profitable until 2019 when govt decided to transfer surplus capital to self which left ongc with no cash to invest, you can see where things are going now. The process of governance doesn't have integrity, as they just treat profit making psu as personal fief and impose decisions without any long term considerations.
But has privatisation worked in India? Private investment in media is a best example, what is the status of private media is for everyone to see. What about it sector??
There is a reason why Indians have high hopes in government sector jobs, because it has stability, despite salary being low and working condition not upto the mark. The big tragedy of our times is that none of us are skilled beyond rudimentary graduation level skills and many of us are hopelessly inflexible to learn new skills.
PS: unfortunately not the way an aspirant should be looking the problems but this is what I feel it is.
Yeah. I don't understand this thought process where government service = bad and private service = good. People unnecessarily take a dump on SBI and other Public bank employees with the now infamous SBI employees and their lunch quips as if they have committed a crime by going for lunch in their designated lunch hours. People are quick to forget how these bank employees sacrificed their personal lives and worked overtime during demonetization. There are brazen examples of how states have failed due to privatisation like in the post Soviet countries and yet everything government is bad and everything private is good.
Another aspect is that India doesn't have a good social Security net and that is one of the reason government services are still in vogue. People have this misunderstanding that removing social Security from the government sector is a panacea which will usher in an era of stellar performances. They should on the other hand advocate for more social security on par with government services in private sector so that people have the incentive to join private sector. Who wants to spend their whole day languishing in a cut throat environment where a sword keeps hanging on their throat everytime and 1 single mistake is the difference between employment and unemployment?
Good point of people applying for teacher where extra income is almost 'nil'.The argument of cheap and quick money does not hold ground. Lakhs of students apply for post of teacher where extra source of income is almost nil. (Those who r not headmaster)
The main reason is higher pay for lower skill atleast at lower levels. For instance a driver in open market can get maximum12 k to 15k. But in public sector it may go upto 35 to 40k with many additional benefits.
In answer to this, I would like to highlight the issue of poor status of government schools. Even if the teacher is not earning extra, many of them are just there for passing time and chilling instead of providing education to kids. I consider this as a way of making cheap money. Because, without doing anything and being absent for long period, you are still getting full salary.Plus, there is a lot of quid pro quo among headmasters and teachers in school admissions, mid day meal, money for purchasing clothes etc.
People have suffered enough from hands of babus. So, they themselves want to become babus and do the same. This is the sad truth :(
I have seen people asking not the expected salary for the post applied rather how much 'upper waala income' one can get from that service. Be it for peon, driver, clerk or teacher.
Generalization of teachers is not good. I have seen teachers in government schools working very diligently whatever duties are assigned to them. They are burdened with examination duties, election duties, even census works are carried on by them. The success of major government programs like MDM etc are due to the exemplary work done by thousands of teachers out there.
On the other hand there were also teachers in my private school who just came to class, read the chapters, whiled away their time, picked up their salaries and went happily to their homes. There are people like this on both sides - Government as well as private. The thing is we should not put everyone under the same blanket.
» show previous quotesMy point was not to generalize anyone or anything. I respect all professions and teachers most.I wanted to point out inherent inefficiency in government services everywhere, be it in Judiciary, Offices etc. Teacher point was selectively put to counter my argument.
Got it. But what exactly is inefficiency? Is it lack of profit?
Ok, I will just give few example so that the discussion is just not on teachers. I am sorry if anyone got hurt due to statements on teachers. I respect teachers most.
This is based on my own experiences and few of my friends who are working at PSUs or government departments to point out the inefficient system
1. Fire Safety engineer at Bombay High - A minor fire was there. The seniors did not want to report it because it can have a negative impact on their career profile.
Result - A major fire took place few days later and my friend had to put his own life at stake to douse that fire. And yeah, they give him an award for his bravery.
2. Biometric Attendance system not working at a renowned PSU - No one to correct it so that it can reveal the truth of true attendance profile. My friend took and tried to correct it. Nothing happened.
3. The street light in my locality failed. I wrote a mail and few of locality members visited the main office. No one came to fix that light. The employee came after 20 days and asked Rs. 100 for 'chai paani'
4. Friend travelled in a train. Asked TTE to somehow give a confirmed birth from RAC. A waiting ticket person paid 100 and got the confirmed birth
5. Poor person wanted to get date at civil court. Peshkar asked him to pay Rs. 100. Person had come on cycle from ~20 KM.
6. Friend wanted to submit his affidavit in SDM court. The peon asked him to pay 500. As per him, There were more than 100 affidavits submitted in that office that day.
This is how inefficient our things are. Privatisation may not be the solution but the current solution is rotten to the core.
Good points. However similar inefficiencies are in the private sector too.
1. Wanted to get my washing machine serviced. Kept complaining to the company, no response. 6 months went by. Posted on social media, bam next day guy arrives with all his tools like he would invent washing machine.
2. People jump ahead in line in the recruitment process through referrals. I am sure that's not very efficient.
There are many more examples similar to this. Yes a blanket privatisation is definitely not the solution. The current system should be made more efficient.
@captainhaddock Part of GS4
Damn. GS4 seems like a dream. More like a hangover. A terrible one.
I got 105 last year :( :(Definitely writing without sub-headings/without forced pointers like in this essay we will discuss../without writing not only in field of politics but also in society../ without forcibly adding question in last line of para to link with next para--- it will be awarded highest.
But such a writing style does not come naturally especially to those with science background. Here one has to make a choice- either take an approach which guarantees avg marks or another which may give 150 (best case) or 105 (poor articulation nd flow)
What is a connecting phrase?@AureliusM and did you use connecting phrases? xD
What is a connecting phrase?@AureliusM and did you use connecting phrases? xD
Context being : https://forumias.com/post/detail/Official-How-was-Mains-2021-Paper-Essay-and-GS-Discussion-1641542963?JS4zNFguIyxgCmAK
Ohh. I didn't try to force them. Jahan pe sense ban rha tha wahan kiya nahi to next start kar diya. Last year mere 105 mostly is liye the kyunki I went full historical on upsc. Aur koi dimension hi nahi dala. Lag rha tha ki essay nahi history ka paper likh ke aaya hun. Ye ek topic me hua. Dusre topic me bhi aise hi kuch bahot unidimensional essay likha tha. Main khud apna paper check karta to 105 nahi deta.
Yes this happened in almost all the papers last year. In GS3 I left one 15 marker. Another 15 marker only half done. Didn't know what was the GST Compensation issue (I know) so wrote some random bakwas in that too. Didn't know National Clean air program or something like that so I remember leaving that too. In other answers too I wrote below average answers only. I got 92. And Rank 1 got 97. Again if I would have checked my own paper, would not have given that much. Same story in Optional and GS1. GS2 and GS4 were the nail in the coffin though.Is it true that most people score more than their expectations, especially when they're not hopeful of a good score? Because from what I've noticed, despite not having any specific content or essay practice, they were able to score average(around 120s) in essays.
I think only Ethics and Essay paper accurately manifests the feeling after writing the exam in terms of marks scored.
@AureliusM 'same story in anthro' means after writing the answers which you expected would be awarded below average ended up good scores finally?
Yes. I left 45 marks worth of questions in both papers combined. And in the remaining questions I usually ran out of content in the middle of the answer to write. So in those scenarios I started connecting what was asked with the current society around us and ended up writing a very GS ish type of answer. I eventually got 251 which was much more than I expected.
Lol :D
Marking, I am guessing (I don't know how it's actually done), depends upon the difficulty level of the paper and the scaling associated with it to bring parity in marking scheme. Last year Anthro paper was extremely difficult especially Paper 1. Paper 2 also had a couple of bouncers. That's why I think I got more than expected marks. This is all just a conjecture so take all of this with a grain of salt.@AureliusM in how many questions did u write case studies, contemporary relevance and mention anthropologists in paper 2? this time my paper 2 went GS type. and how marking is done in paper 1 especially physical anthro part?
I did use Anthropologist's name in a few places not a lot. Contemporary relevance I remember using more than other elements in my answer writing. Case studies I don't remember how much I wrote. It's all a blur. Writing all of that in such a short time span is liking riding in a train and looking outside. Objects cross your eyes so quickly that everything gets blurred. :D
I don't know. Frankly speaking after looking at my score I started having doubts on the wisdom of what toppers say. I didn't write point wise, relied completely on paragraph format because this is what happens when you don't know how to answer a question accurately. In most of the answers, rather than giving 5-6 points I wrote 2-3 and elaborated upon that to fill space. I didn't underline any keywords in the answer sheet. After walking out it felt like a terrible mess. Still I got 92. This is a mystery that has baffled me for the last 5 months.@AureliusM Thats a great score in GS 3 given low scores in 2020 too and that too after leaving 25 marks. May be all other questions were well handled. 👍
Haan. I agree. Also paper 1 easier tha but paper 2 thoda difficult tha compared to last year.@AureliusM waise last year se paper is baar easy aya tha toh last year type nai rahega
What do you mean by Anthropological perspective?@Capedcrusader1 yes mjhe bhi lgra. marking strict hi hogy. but some questions like evolutionary theories on ageing,thick description,morgan family classification were not so easy i guess..and in paper 2 also 10 markers were not so easy to write
Yes in paper 2 10markers were like GS. Writing from anthropolohical perspective was difficult.
Paper1 was simpler than last year. Last year some questions were out of standard sources. This was not the case this year
Pata nahi bro. Yaad nahi hai bilkul.@AureliusM physical part ka weightage kafi tha paper 1 me
-- I prepared a lot of value addition in the form of Case studies from Ember and ember which I could not use though. Apart from that I did write more number of scholar's name because last year I hardly wrote any. Xaxa's case studies work good in Paper 2, I agree.@AureliusM overall last year ke comparision me, how did you feel. not just toughness, but things like these:- overemphasis on value addition (xaxa worked just fine for me)-did you face time crunch-did you leave any questions-
-- No time crunch in optional paper. I don't generally face any in Optional. This is I think because there is not much to understanding what exactly is asked as compared to GS papers. You can give one read to the question and start answering, unlike GS where 2-3 readings are sometimes required to exactly understand the demand of the question.
I am sorry if I gave that impression. In another post, I did write to take what I say with a grain of salt. Because it's based on personal experience of 1 exam. And yes you are right, the process of preparation must be followed irrespective of anything.I don't know. Frankly speaking after looking at my score I started having doubts on the wisdom of what toppers say. I didn't write point wise, relied completely on paragraph format because this is what happens when you don't know how to answer a question accurately. In most of the answers, rather than giving 5-6 points I wrote 2-3 and elaborated upon that to fill space. I didn't underline any keywords in the answer sheet. After walking out it felt like a terrible mess. Still I got 92. This is a mystery that has baffled me for the last 5 months.@AureliusM Thats a great score in GS 3 given low scores in 2020 too and that too after leaving 25 marks. May be all other questions were well handled. 👍
Nothing like mystry in this..
May be the examiner checked your papers after a series of even lower quality papers..so yours looked little better..
One time exception should not be taken up as norm.. competition is heavy..
People practicing variety of diagrams, case studies, statistics.. do you mean to say that it doesn't matter.. it actually does..
It is combination of of all these factors which translates into marks.. so please don't be under the impression that you will write anything and will again get in 90s.. you won't.. such response confuses new aspirants..
They may get the impression that mains marking is very arbitrary which is not the case..
Last year paper1 was difficult. In many questions writing something relevant was in itself a big task. I myself was expecting not more than 110 bt got good marks. However in paper 2 i was expecting much higher marks bt the result was not on expected lines. Maybe since paper2 was on was easy. So marking became difficult.
Also i will like to add that increasing marks from 0 to 80 is easy. From 80 to 100 more difficult. Much more difficult to increase to 130. Now to increase from 130 to 150 u will need all those wisdoms preached by toppers. More perfection is needed. So there should not be perception that if with little effort someone got in 90s. Then with little more effort he will get 150. It will be a big journey needing help of wisdoms of many toppers.
Yes. I agree whole heartedly with your points.
I have been heavily invested in the Ukraine Russia issue over the past few days. Declaring war is definitely something that Putin should have avoided but as Carl von Clausewitz said, "War is the continuation of politics by other means".
I feel that the NATO issue Russia has is a justified one. Russia is a great power and every great power has ambitions of maintaining a sphere of influence around itself. USA has its Monroe doctrine and any intervention by any Country in the Americas is a strict No no. It has assassinated leaders, killed people, went to war over it, supported dictatorships in the Latin America and South America over any attempt by those countries to break free from US influence. In a similar way, India has maintained a sphere of influence around it in the form of Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Nepal. If any of these countries attempt to form a NATOesque military alliance with China, we would absolutely go bonkers over it. So Russian invasion is not something that is an anomaly. It's just following the footsteps of what great powers do to achieve its goals and ends.
Things which really complicate the matters is the presence of Neo nazi elements in Ukrainian national Guard(Azov battalion) and when USA supports Ukraine by supplying them with Weapons and Cash, it inevitably strengthens these far right elements.
All said and done, diplomacy should have been the best way but I am guessing diplomacy didn't get Russia what it wanted hence war.
there are somethings which i notice in the attitude of us. they think that only they have the moral authority to increase their sphere of influence. they do not respect borders. they only think in economic terms. sell weapons and leave countries in war.
there was a video of trump with MBS. he was sitting next to him in an official meet and was acting like a total businessman which is, by holding a chart if you will which had offers of military equipment. luring mbs to buy his weapons as they are mere peanuts for him
as of now biden is saying that russia will be help accountable. what about holding them accountable for afghanistan. all they did was enable taliban with high grade military systems. no accountability for other regional wars too
When Putin declared, the fall of USSR was the greatest geopolitical disaster in last century, he had a point. After USSR fell, US got a free hand to do as it wished where it wanted. NATO intervened in Kosovo, despite UNSC voting against it and complicated matters more. US intervened in Iraq on WMD pretexts and look what happened. A string of interventions followed Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and now Ukraine. Had there been Soviet Union, maybe the results would not have been so catastrophic as they are now. There would have been a check on the complete lack of accountability in USA's show of power all over World. Yes there were Vietnam ans Korean War in the cold War era too but such wars brought out the possibility of showing twin sides of the issue. Now with the sole superpower status, USA abides by the maxim of it's my way or the highway.
I’m just here for the inevitable ‘USA bad because…’ when China decides to invade Taiwan and how Pooh didn’t have a choice because of a threat to their sphere of influence.
Quite amusing seeing how people are able to water down years of complex geopolitical issues and decide their own villains.
All I have to say is my heart goes out to people who’ll lose their lives, their loved ones, people who’ll have to face severe financial, emotional and physical problems for the years to come just because they have no say in the political games of the elites.
Restoring the glory of USSR, restoring the glory of Germany, history being repeated but how, a farce or a tragedy?
In strictly geopolitical terms, the position of Taiwan is crucial for China because it provides them access to Pacific Ocean and if China succeeds in reclaiming it USA's influence on Pacific Ocean will wane considerably. Also China's major ports and cities are located on the east coast opposite Taiwan which is a potential security threat.
Also yes war is terrible. The ultimate losers are the common people who will lose their loved ones and family members.
Bhai mene toh ek video dekha or mujhko itna hi smjh aaya ki original sin was USA not dissolving NATO or atleast stopping its expansion. It is geopolitical common sense that each country tries to keep a buffer with its enemies which can be used as a first line of defense during times of conflict. By seducing Ukraine with the prospect of Nato membership USA ignored this reality. Minsk 1 or 2 agreements should have put an end to it but Ukraine under the leadership of pro western leaders never stopped playing with this idea and western countries by not unequivocally stating the end of expansion only fuelled Russian anxieties. But I doubt Putin is doing war solely for this reason. He will undoubtedly rake up this issue opportunistically to justify his actions, but he has been taking agressive actions in Syria as well. To me it appears he wants to reclaim the glory of USSR days. He hasn't come to terms with the reduced stature of Russia as a failed petro state that had a glorious past, though was it glorious for all the people that got diluted at labour camps is different matter. he thinks of himself to be a czar and holds some irrational grudge against West. Instead of thinking of the biggest danger on its periphery China he has completely accepted the role of a junior partner to china which is quite contrary to what Kautilyan logic of concetric cirlcles would suggest ,china being Russia's Ari. By condemning Russia to a decade more of sanctions he has completely neglected the welfare of common Russians( assumption).
West led by US on its part has also failed to overcome seeing Russia from prism of the coldwar. On one hand US has allowed china to grow rich and even actively aided its rise , on the other it has been less altruistic towards Russia. US should have taken steps to bring Russia into trans-atlantic security community and adopted same strategy that Kissinger adopted towards china of driving a wedge between China and ussr. But USA and its leaders are fascinated with the Russian enemy. Maybe Hollywood is to blame that has made so many movies with Russia in antagonistic role but none with China as the enemy
Putin definitely has a Soviet nostalgia. He wants to leave a legacy where the glory of erstwhile USSR is revived despite him claiming that anyone who wishes for the revival of USSR is a fool. However it's not something that is out of the ordinary, raking up the past to achieve ones nationalistic goals. China keeps bringing up its century of humiliation to achieve its great power status it once held in ancient times. It's a thing with nationalists I guess.
@AureliusM russia is also not doodh ka dhula hua types. if you remember in syrian war, russia supported assad and led to indiscriminate bombings over syrian civilians. syria me toh US was actuallty sending its trained militias to counter isis and these militias were not allowed to fight assad (USs' fault). but then russia had no business being thererussian hybrid warfare is also never fully exposed. thats the reason why russia is seen as a victim to me (maybe).im only wondering as to what is stopping ukraine from joining nato now. apart from the demographic makeup a part of which is tilted towards russia
If I remember correctly, it was Assad who requested Russian presence. Also, if I was the head of a State in Middle East with a bad relation with USA, I would be extremely uncomfortable with US presence even if it's to fight IS.
The reason Ukraine can't join NATO now is because NATO specifically requires to have settled border disputes before admission. This prevents automatic triggerring of Art 5, pertaining to collective defense.
@AureliusM ukraine has its borders sorted isnt it? is the border demarcation really the issue here?
Ukraine will have to declare that Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk are no more a part of Ukraine, because as of today Russian troops are inside it with a declaration of War.
US didnt go there. they trained militias. 5400 troops. to go in syria and fight isis. but they were heavily ill equipped even after training.this reminds me of afghanistan where locals were trained by them but taliban defeated them with ease.not allowed to fight assad. some jumped to other side joined him
The Syrian Civil War is an extremely complicated affair. It's very hard to say who is on the morally correct side there. There are multiple actors and they are all supported by various foreign governments. It's really not black and white.
@AureliusM yes yes i get it now. so regarding nato joining, ukraine should have done it earlier. am i correct in this understanding?
Before Crimea, yes. But Ukraine and Georgia as NATO member has always been a red line for Russia. So if it attempted to join NATO in the past, before Crimea we would be seeing then what we are seeing today. Though, before 2014 Ukraine had a relatively neutral government with no NATO ambitions.
The Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956 came amidst Jawaharlal Nehru’s thundering denunciation of the Anglo-French attempt to seize the Suez Canal. While Delhi minced words on the Russian invasion of Hungary many opposition leaders criticised Nehru’s ambivalence. That India needed the Soviet veto in the UN Security Council on the Kashmir question clearly shaped Delhi’s readiness to subordinate its foreign policy principles for political expediency; but it opened India to the charge of diplomatic double standards.
The invasion of Czechoslovakia to crush the Prague Spring of 1968 came at a time when Delhi was leading the Asian criticism of the US war in Vietnam. While Delhi twisted in the diplomatic wind to balance its political dependence on Russia with its commitment to national sovereignty, it was subjected once again to charges of geopolitical hypocrisy.
- C Rajamohan
"Reflecting national sentiment, this House (Lok Sabha) deplores the military action by the coalition forces led by the USA against a sovereign Iraq. This military action, with a view to changing the Government of Iraq, is unacceptable. The resultant suffering of the innocent people of Iraq, especially women and children, is a matter of grave human dimension[sic]. This action without the specific sanction of the UN Security Council and is not in conformity with the UN Charter. The House, therefore, expresses profound anguish and deep sympathy for the people of Iraq."
- official response on Iraq invasion
And now India abstains on UNSC resolution that ‘deplores’ Russian aggression against Ukraine.
I think Kissinger himself would approve of India's actions.
Yes. It will definitely have wide ramifications. There is no way Russia is losing this one. If push comes to shove they will turn Kiev into what they did to Grozny in the 2nd Chechen war. They basically razed the whole city to a fine dust. The unipolarity which USA currently enjoys at the world level will be severely dented. Iran and Syria will get a big boost in Middle East, especially Syria. Iran has already gained an upper hand wrt Saudis if you look at the situation in Yemen where Houthis are better placed.A lot rides on the response of west to Putin. If west fails to resist him it will have a domino effect across the region. Already Talibans victory has given some extremists hope of replicating similar thing elsewhere. And if Ukraine crisis also follows same trajectory, then i wint be surprised if the alliances that USA has built in middle East , in western Europe and Asia collapsing. Iran will get an upper hand in negotiations and may even go nuclear which in turn will make Saudi going for same. Already MBS has threatened to go nuclear if Iran does. Germany may rise again and become a military power and a security dilemma will ensue with other European powers also following militarisation , because who knows if some Neo Nazi comes to power in Germany. And then there's china , already watching with glee all that's unfolding in Ukraine. Putin calls his partnership with Xi as a no limit partnership of allied relationship. In short whole global order underpinned by US led institutions and the relative stability that we have come to take for granted may go for a toss.
All of this is hypothetical. Other opinions welcome
Russia's international standing as a net security provider will improve and countries outside NATO which depended on USA for security might be tempted to change camps.
The biggest ramification will be on the economic front though. Frankly speaking the amount of control the West has over the finances and economy of the world is a little scary. It will bring the non western countries closer. There already was a dedollarization agreement between China and Russia, I think more countries will start to move away from doing transactions in terms of US dollars. Security interests trump economic interests any day, so in this regard many countries may start looking at highly integrated economies as security risks and move inwards.
Another observation is that the West has really won the Social media war and I am sure many countries are taking note of that. Most of the Social media companies have their servers located in USA and they have all rallied together in support of Ukraine. Integrated Internet is one of the reason Russia has seen huge number of protests in favor of West and China with its The Great Firewall has remained largely unscathed. So delinking of Internet may occur in many places most probably starting with Russia.
All of this is just conjecture over the path the world takes from here. Criticisms are welcome.
The action of Ukraine's president giving weapons to Civilians is idiotic. First of all giving weapons to civilians will make them enemy combatants and pitch them against experienced soldiers which will not end well. Second, once the dust of war settles Ukraine will be looking at a country with its civilians armed to the teeth. This has actually played right into the demands of far rights in Ukraine like the neo nazi Azov whose long standing demands have been freely giving weapons to civilians.But don't you think its a bit naïve to believe Putin's version of the story? - the same one which says Russia is facing an existential threat. If that is the case, then why doesn't he enjoy domestic support for this invasion? Its his mad adventure to cling to power, coupled by the old Soviet nostalgia which can't stand former states flourishing once out of its sphere of influence.
And even if there are security concerns, surely an invasion and indiscriminate bombing of cities, including civilian buildings, is not the answer. Russia is the aggressor, not the victim.
As for Ukraine, its a sovereign country, with every right to decide which alliance to join, especially for self defence. If Putin's agenda was to stop NATO expansion in Europe, then his moves have been laughable. All this while, with what's going on Ukraine, he's displaying exactly why European countries need NATO. This is manifest in how Finland is in the process to expedite its joining of NATO or how Switzerland and some other states have abandoned their age-old policy of neutrality to help Ukraine with arms, and support sanctions against Russia.
It will be difficult for Ukraine to show its sovereignty given its proximity with Russia. By same argument, India should also not be concerned with Chinese investments/alliance in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh or Nepal. Putin is trying to show the west the cost of this wave of expansion. Same goes for Finland, Sweden requests. There will be consequences from Russian side.
I found this thread on twitterhttps://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1498491107902062592It shows how from Kissinger to Mearsheimer have opposed the expansion of NATO and why Russia will not sit back.
Yes, The domestic support angle is tricky. There have been protests. But we have seen how leaders use international affairs to get domestic support. Moreover, majority of Russian elites and oligarchs are still with Putin.
Regarding indiscriminate bombing of cities, I dont think Russians have resorted to it till yesterday. Kharkiv is just 40 Km from Russian border. If they had been using raw force, it would have been captured in 2~3 days itself. They are escalating the fire steadily though after sensing the response of Ukrainians.
Having said that, Ukraine has given weapons to civilians. This will reduce the difference between combatants and civilians. In this way, Russians will justify attacks on civilian infra. I do hope that sense prevails and diplomacy becomes the solution. Hopefully, peace prevails!
The problem is, Russia has always been invaded from its western border and there are no natural barriers preventing the same. The whole of Ukraine and countries to its north, Belarus, Poland, Lithuania etc are plains which has historically offered little resistance to the invading armies. Whether it was Napoleon or Hitler, they all took the same route. So once the USSR came out of World War 2, they made it a point to keep those countries within their sphere of influence as a security buffer. So when NATO started placing their missiles in those countries in the Baltics, Russia got uneasy. Whether or not NATO would actually invade is immaterial. It's the constant looming threat that counts. However Baltic nations in NATO were still acceptable because the land border is not as large as Ukraine and Russia has a small enclave of Kaliningrad on the Baltic sea shore.The solution is NATO giving assurance that they will not admit Ukraine. Ukraine is kind of a buffer state between Europe and Russia. Its geography and history does not allow it to take any side. It at all cost has to find a coexistence with Moscow.
Putin is only asking for assurance that NATO will not be expanded. They have repeatedly violated this assurance and expanded NATO in 5 waves apparently. Putin has no option left but to retaliate. Otherwise, it will be an existential threat to Russia. Economic sanctions/military involvement/Kadi Ninda etc dont matter in front of existential crisis.
But don't you think its a bit naïve to believe Putin's version of the story? - the same one which says Russia is facing an existential threat. If that is the case, then why doesn't he enjoy domestic support for this invasion? Its his mad adventure to cling to power, coupled by the old Soviet nostalgia which can't stand former states flourishing once out of its sphere of influence.
And even if there are security concerns, surely an invasion and indiscriminate bombing of cities, including civilian buildings, is not the answer. Russia is the aggressor, not the victim.
As for Ukraine, its a sovereign country, with every right to decide which alliance to join, especially for self defence. If Putin's agenda was to stop NATO expansion in Europe, then his moves have been laughable. All this while, with what's going on Ukraine, he's displaying exactly why European countries need NATO. This is manifest in how Finland is in the process to expedite its joining of NATO or how Switzerland and some other states have abandoned their age-old policy of neutrality to help Ukraine with arms, and support sanctions against Russia.
This geography partly explains why Putin did what he did.
I am not sure about USA engaging Russia in another Afghanistan though. Its already engaged in Syria where Russia is supporting to Assad and rebels are supported by USA. Also, Russia wanted to pull off what USSR pulled off in Afghanistan where they stormed Afghan palace and brought about regime change with a surgical precision, but here they failed. However it is doubtful if Russia will fight a protracted war though in Ukraine. Most likely they will just take over Kiev, remove Zelensky and pull back.Yes, Exactly. Also, He has played into American hands. Another US motive is to indulge Russia in another Afghanistan 1980 in Ukraine with guerrila warfare. The arms lobby in US wants to keep supplying weapons to insurgents (in future maybe), keep getting money at the cost of Russian Ukrainian lives.The action of Ukraine's president giving weapons to Civilians is idiotic. First of all giving weapons to civilians will make them enemy combatants and pitch them against experienced soldiers which will not end well. Second, once the dust of war settles Ukraine will be looking at a country with its civilians armed to the teeth. This has actually played right into the demands of far rights in Ukraine like the neo nazi Azov whose long standing demands have been freely giving weapons to civilians.But don't you think its a bit naïve to believe Putin's version of the story? - the same one which says Russia is facing an existential threat. If that is the case, then why doesn't he enjoy domestic support for this invasion? Its his mad adventure to cling to power, coupled by the old Soviet nostalgia which can't stand former states flourishing once out of its sphere of influence.
And even if there are security concerns, surely an invasion and indiscriminate bombing of cities, including civilian buildings, is not the answer. Russia is the aggressor, not the victim.
As for Ukraine, its a sovereign country, with every right to decide which alliance to join, especially for self defence. If Putin's agenda was to stop NATO expansion in Europe, then his moves have been laughable. All this while, with what's going on Ukraine, he's displaying exactly why European countries need NATO. This is manifest in how Finland is in the process to expedite its joining of NATO or how Switzerland and some other states have abandoned their age-old policy of neutrality to help Ukraine with arms, and support sanctions against Russia.
It will be difficult for Ukraine to show its sovereignty given its proximity with Russia. By same argument, India should also not be concerned with Chinese investments/alliance in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh or Nepal. Putin is trying to show the west the cost of this wave of expansion. Same goes for Finland, Sweden requests. There will be consequences from Russian side.
I found this thread on twitterhttps://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1498491107902062592It shows how from Kissinger to Mearsheimer have opposed the expansion of NATO and why Russia will not sit back.
Yes, The domestic support angle is tricky. There have been protests. But we have seen how leaders use international affairs to get domestic support. Moreover, majority of Russian elites and oligarchs are still with Putin.
Regarding indiscriminate bombing of cities, I dont think Russians have resorted to it till yesterday. Kharkiv is just 40 Km from Russian border. If they had been using raw force, it would have been captured in 2~3 days itself. They are escalating the fire steadily though after sensing the response of Ukrainians.
Having said that, Ukraine has given weapons to civilians. This will reduce the difference between combatants and civilians. In this way, Russians will justify attacks on civilian infra. I do hope that sense prevails and diplomacy becomes the solution. Hopefully, peace prevails!
Also guerilla warfare is probably difficult to pull off in a flat topography where there are no hills or forests to hide into.
Yes, its southern border is vulnerable too in the caucasus, that's why we saw Georgia war in 2008 although that was due to the stupidity of Georgia's then president Saakashvili. Ukraine and Georgia are red lines for Russians and when NATO announced to the world in 2008 Bucharest summit that theywilladmit Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, it raised eyebrows everywhere. It was clearly seen as a way of encircling Russia.Russia has been ravaged from southern steppe people as well. The reason why Ivan the terrible extended Russias boundry to far east was to keep itself safe from tatars. I think Putin should be more worried about china with its huge population and technology leadership on the south and not a greying and thinning western Europe. Also I believe every power has a beginning and end. Romans , ottoman, British , Japanese , Germans, all have lived through their phase of greatness and now Russia's is also nearing. P5 me abhi kayde se British or French ka point nhi hai other than acting as proxies of USA , or kuch saalon baad Russia ka bhi nhi rhega. Natural resources and defence vs vibrant economy and advanced tech , latter will win in any case. The flame burns the brightest just before being extinguished. Putin is overstretching himself like Hitler. Putin's excuse for invading Ukraine reminds me of how dev Raya 2 invaded Firoz Shah bahman's territory on pretext of pursuing the beautiful daughter of a goldsmith but later the Raya had to give his own daughter's hand to Firoz shah in the war that ensued.
I dont know how invasion of Ukraine serves any of his goals. The western alliance is all the more stronger. And i think America's pivot to indopacific would have given Russia more room for maneuver than the present scenario ever will. Trump's exhortation to Germans to pay for their own security will now be realised along with NATOs renewed relevance as cherry on top. China gets a distracted USA, Europeans get to freeride on USA, except Russia gets a bloodynnose.
Maybe through dialogue with India playing the same role between Russia and USA as pakistan in normalising relationship between USA ànd China during 1970s, Russia could have won concessions. West has repeatedly denied memebership of Nato to Ukraine on pretext of corruption etc and there is no reason to believe this wouldnt have continued in future as USA looked to channeling all its energies to indopacific.
I don't know if it makes sense so be considerate guys n gals
As far as other areas to the south are concerned, Russia has settled its border with China. Mongolia is not really a concern for Russia, it has historically been a concern for China. Mongolia being heavily under USSR influence was also a reason for tensions between USSR and China. But now that Mongolia is more or less neutral, its not a bone of contention for either Russia or China. Thus only its western border needs to be addressed.
As to the other points you mentioned, yes Russia is a declining power and it has no hopes of returning to the once mighty USSR but that doesn't mean a country would abandon its security interests. Invasion of Ukraine was coming for a long time. Everyone knew it. The west knew it more than anyone else. Inclusion of Ukraine and Georgia in the Bucharest declaration of NATO was strongly opposed by France and Germany but the Americans under Bush still included it. Europeans knew it would come back to haunt them in the future and it did. If only NATO had not overstretched its ambitions, it would have found an ally in Russia against China and USA's Asia pivot would have gone through without this hiccup. Now, China gets a few more years of free run. It has already surpassed USAs economy in PPP terms, after a few more years of running wild it will overshadow the West.
I think West has stabbed itself in the foot through Ukraine.
@D503 People are supporting Putin because they say that simce west invaded Iraq, Afgh,Syria,Libya so why cannot the SIGMA MALE PUTIN (YouTube shorts plays) do it. Both, US and Russia have their hands red with blood. But..and a very big but is that USA is a democracy where the rulers have to face people and the polls and give answers for their actions, ..but what Putin is doing is with complete Impunity with no opposition. Economic sanctions will hit hard the average Russian man. Also Putin and his cronies can totally wash hands away with. The mighty USSR once competed with Reagan's star wars programme came to a near collapse. Their army is still a and weak super-army due to economic constraints.Russia shall remember that it lacks the cultural and soft-power hegemony that the west has. Just making RT documentaries of Zircon missile won't help because the average soldier of Kyiv has resisted it since the past 17 days.But the desi rurban guy watching YouTube will definitely think that 'Putin hai Mahapurush'. Help him.
With no intention to add weight on Putin's side, democracy hasn't really made Presidents accountable in USA. George W Bush's Iraq War saw Uranium laced bullets being used in Iraq which causes birth deformities to this day. And yet Bush became a president again. Abu Ghraib was the center of one of the world's worst human rights violations and yet Bush became president again. Obama and Hilary Clinton started a NATO operation that would depose Gaddafi and leave it in a state worse than it ever was. And yet Obama was re elected to office. Were any of them held accountable for their actions? Not really.
Americans have used, abused and thrown the word democracy in such a way that the respect democracy commanded once is now almost gone and we are seeing the rise of authoritarian governments like China which are becoming more attractive.
