A Very Special Military Operation

In this Very Special Episode of Putin, he explains why Ukraine is not a country and invades with 180,000 troops

There are interesting parallels (and differences) between Vietnam and Putin's ‘Very Special Military Operation’ in Ukraine. 

In both cases, the occupying / invading army consisted largely of poorly motivated conscripts, experienced discipline problems, relied on overwhelming, indiscriminate firepower (artillery or bombing) and had an unrealistic assessment of the situation (and of both their own and enemy capabilities). 

By contrast, the invaded countries (Ukraine and Vietnam) were highly motivated while being numerically inferior; both were also backed by a super power (the United States and the USSR/China). 

I've been doing some reading and this is what I've come up with. I'm putting it down mostly for my own sake, to make sense out of what's happening, and try and understand where it may be headed.

The end of a Roland Emmerich movie or Ukraine? You decide

Background

Ukraine had one hell of a tumultuous 20th century. Towards the end of World War I, Ukraine made a pact with the Central Powers to provide grain in exchange for driving the Bolsheviks out. Cossack General Skoropadsky established a Ukrainian Hetmanate in April, 1918, but fled with the German surrender in November. 

A French military expedition to Odessa and Crimea followed, but quickly withdrew ahead of a Soviet invasion. That was rolled back by a Polish-Ukrainian alliance, which collapsed when Poland made peace with the USSR. Ukraine officially became a Soviet in 1922.

The Holodomor followed in the 1930s, during which 3 to 5 million Ukrainians are estimated to have died during an engineered famine. 

World War II killed almost 7 million Ukrainians (1.5 million of them Jewish, often killed with the help of their neighbours), roughly 16% of the entire population. The UPA (Ukrainian Insurgent Army) assisted the Germans. Some 80,000 Ukrainians joined the Waffen SS, while others served as concentration camp guards. Anti-semitism ran deep across Eastern Europe. This is where the Nazi slur against Ukraine comes from. A total of around 250,000 Ukrianians assisted the Axis (although arguably some were fighting more for Ukrainian independence and amorally using whatever ally was convenient).

World war II casualties broken down by nation: Russia gets almost half the pie

To put it in perspective, 4.5 million Ukrainians fought for the Soviet Union. And to be fair, hundreds of thousands of Russians fought for the Axis (600,000 Hiwi under arms in 1944 alone), including the Russian General Vlasov. A quarter of the troops in the German Sixth Army were former Soviet subjects. Given the barbarity of the German occupation, that's astonishing. 

The German General Plan for the East called for a reduced population employed as slaves, with the majority being killed off through starvation (grain would instead be shipped back to feed Germany). Nothing but the most rudimentary education (reading sign posts, for example) was to be provided for the population moving forward. The Nazis were taking a page from the Spartans, who kept uneducated Helots to do the hard work. By 1944, the Nazis had been driven out of Ukraine, although Ukrainian nationalists continued fighting an insurgency in Western Ukraine against Soviet domination until as late as 1954. Timothy Snyder, no relation to Zach, dubbed the region between Berlin and Moscow ‘The Bloodlands’, because armies kept running over it, then backing up and running over it again and again. It inspired George Orwell’s depiction of conflict between the superstates Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia in 1984. I wrote about that here.

Shoot that guy: inspirational Soviet propaganda poster

In 1991, Ukraine became an independent nation again. It retained Crimea, assigned to it by Nikita, and a large nuclear arsenal. Clinton persuaded them to give the nukes up in 1994 in exchange for pieces of paper guaranteeing Ukrainian security. 

The piece of paper that guaranteed Ukrainian security, in exchange for surrendering their nuke arsenal

In 2014, 'Little Green Men' occupied Crimea and pro-Russian insurgents seized part of the Donbas (The NVA infiltrated South Vietnam all while also denying they were there). Russia also began funding gangs to rabble rouse across Eastern Ukraine. 

The rest is current events: Russia has attacked on at least four fronts (North, South, Northeast and East) against a numerically comparable enemy, without unified command. The have failed to establish air superiority, adequate logistical support or even discipline amongst their troops.

Like Ukraine, Vietnam spent decades subsumed in a foreign political unit, as part of the French colony of Indochina. Ho Chi Minh initially approached the Americans for support for Vietnamese independence, as there had been an anti-colonialist streak in American foreign policy before the Second World War, but that died the minute the Cold War began. 

Japanese occupation broke any mystique the French had, and when France attempted to reassert control over Indochina, Minh declared independence. Despite the Americans footing the bill, by 1954 the French were ready to call it quits. Indochina split into three new nations: Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam.

Vietnam was divided into a communist North and an ostensibly democratic, but in truth deeply corrupt and autocratic, South. 

During the Advisor Period that followed, with up to 16,000 American military consultants backed by airpower. Viet Cong attacks on American airfields dragged in American ground troops, ushering in Johnson's War. Tet finished Johnson politically and shattered American morale, even while annihilating the VC, who never again fielded troops at battalion level. NVA command had expected their attack to inspire an uprising against the Americans across South Vietnam (rather akin to how Bin Laden expected an uprising after 9/11); they were out of touch and projected on to the South their own values and beliefs. No mass pro-communist uprising occurred. On the other hand, the result they got was almost as good. It's one of those rare occasions where a military won the war by losing the battle(s). 

Nixon was up to bat next, but even as he bombed the crap out of Cambodia and the North, he was looking for a way out. By 1973, US troops had vacated the arena. In 1975, North Vietnam plowed into the power vacuum and South Vietnam imploded. In less than two months, NVA tanks rolled into Saigon, just like Russian tanks didn't in Ukraine. 

American troops visit a Vietnamese village

The 'Imperial' Armies

The Russian army has a history of stumbling out of the gate. The Russo-Japanese war of 1905 resulted in total humiliation, which was followed by a disastrous performance in World War One. That resulted in mutinies, revolution, defeat at the hands of Poland in 1920, and stunning failure in the 1939-40 Winter War with Finland. 

Stalin gutted the officer corps in 1937. Some argue this purge was to replace old cavalry officers with more forward thinking ones. This doesn’t explain why Tukachevsky, an innovative thinker, military theorist, and advocate of tank warfare and deep penetration operations, was arrested and shot, along with thousands of others. He was rehabilitated and absolved of all charges in 1957. Their replacements were more noteworthy for political reliability than forward thinking tactics, and their lack of ability was on full display during both the Winter War and the Nazi invasion of the ussr in 1941. Over the next two years, large numbers were retired and replaced with the battle proven.

Russian troops relaxing in the Winter War

That’s the Russian Army’s general pattern: get a bloody nose, or beaten within an inch of it’s life, then reform and regroup (already underway in Ukraine), and attack again. It’s an iterative approach that grinds through Russian soldiers, but Russia has always been willing to suffer high casualty rates. Their system is designed that way.

Putin cannot afford to lose. He's a strongman, and he maintains his position by being the toughest mofo in the neighbourhood. If his war fails and he's turfed, it won’t be to a cozy retirement at his billion dollar dacha. More like a mud pit with a bullet at the back of his skull. Apparently Putin has been obsessed with watching videos of Gaddafi's demise.

As such, it would be folly to count the Russian army out. Russia suffered 11 million casualties in World War Two, and still went on to crush the highly trained Nazi war machine, like some kind of gestalt zombie Rocky Balboa. 

Ukraine, however, is not the Great Patriotic War; it’s an unprovoked 'very special operation' of choice against a fellow Slavic nation. Russian troops are not fighting a genocidal force bent on extermination of the majority and enslavement of the remaining, the Azov Battalion notwithstanding. Some policy wonks say Lukashenko refrained from entering Belorussia into the fray because he knew he’d be overthrown if he did. They Belorussian Army just isn't into it.

Russian conscripts have understandably low motivation, and a few units have refused to fight in Ukraine, against their fellow Slavs. 

The United States military in the early Seventies had numerous problems (including low motivation) but logistics wasn't one of them. To meet the troop requirements for Vietnam, however, they needed conscription. That wasn't popular with affluent American kids, who objected to being shipped off to fight in far away, deadly jungles against an unseen enemy. 

George Lucas famously based The Emperor on Richard 'Tricky Dicky' Nixon, and cast the Viet Cong as Ewoks in Return of the Jedi. 

A kinder, cuddlier Viet Cong: The Ewok

For Lucas, The United States was The Evil Empire. 

While the US Marines experimented with pairing units and villages, then funneling in cash to build infrastructure to benefit the locals (a strategy later adopted in Iraq and Afghanistan), Westmoreland thought this path was folly, and preferred mass sweeps through jungle. Against the agile VC, this was both futile and time and resource consuming.

Russian forces in Ukraine have been filmed handing out a few meal kits, but there are no reports of extensive support or community outreach in occupied territories. It is also unclear what efforts, if any, have been made to restore electricity or water supply to damaged neighbourhoods. The Russian army is having difficulty feeding its own troops, much less tens of thousands of civilians and refugees, and they may not even want to: famine has been a weapon of war for the Soviets in the past.

This has the makings of a large scale humanitarian disaster. 

Get yer billion dollar APCs here!

Superpowered support

The United States backed South Vietnam to the tune of $18 billion. Eventually Congress cut off the war juice and the AVRN collapsed in 1975. The war scarred the American people as well as Congress, and numerous amendments were passed to ensure such a disaster didn’t happen again. The Nixon Doctrine called for supplying arms to regimes important to American security in the hope of avoiding the commitment of American combat troops later. Restrictions were put in place to weed out human rights abusers. 

We all know how that's worked out.

In 1968, the United States had 549,000 troops in South Vietnam; China had 320,000 troops in the north; they were supplying guns, ammunition, artillery and food, as well as manning the anti-aircraft guns. That dropped off as the Sino-Soviet rift developed, with the USSR picking up the slack. The USSR (Vietnam's preferred supplier) contributed 300 million rubles worth in 1965, including planes, tanks, artillery, ammo and anti-aircraft guns. They also shipped hundreds of factories to north Vietnam. Ultimately, little war production was actually done in Vietnam, so the American bombing campaigns may have accomplished little. Most equipment was shipped in by sea by the USSR or rail by China, and the US refrained from bombing those routes or mining the ports for fear of sparking a larger war. 

The US and European Union are currently pouring hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weaponry into Ukraine through Poland. Without these weapons, Ukrainian resistance would be severely hobbled. 

Political leaders of North Vietnam wanted a quick victory, but Giap felt the only way to win was through a longer guerilla war which China supported. Vietnamese leadership were highly suspicious that China wanted to fight to the last Vietnamese citizen. The same accusations are now being levelled by many (including John Mearsheimer) against the United States in regards to Ukraine. 

Ukraine has a lot of military age males, and there doesn't seem to be any cap on the funding of the Ukrainian war effort by NATO. Russia, on the other hand, is under heavy sanctions and will have difficulty replacing smart bombs and high tech vehicles (Amarta tanks and fighter planes) as time goes on.

Soviet forces roll into Afghanistan

Moh motivation

Hi chi Minh famously said, you can kill ten of us to your one and we will still win.

A famous anecdote has an American officer observing: “They are fighting against helicopter gunships with pointed sticks. How can they expect to win?” To which another replies, “If they’re willing to do that, how can we hope to defeat them?” It's an interesting point. Against that kind of determined resistance the only victory is a Roman one: kill (or enslave, the Romans were big on enslaving) everyone and sow the earth with salt. 

Of course weapons (and terrain) still make a difference. The Soviets were gaining the upper hand (using attack helicopters) in Afghanistan when stinger missiles, supplied by the Americans, helped turn the tide. But as Napoleon apparently said, "The moral is to the physical as three is to one."  

We've heard of cases where Russian troops have 'fragged' their own officers. There were cases in Vietnam where American conscripts did same. Neither war was existential to the invader, and troops resented being sent in for less than compelling reasons. 

Ukraine, on the other hand, is fighting for its very right to exist, which is a much more powerful motivator.

Civilian casualties and dumb bombs

The MCAV (Military Assistance Command, Vietnam) required body counts from units in the field: that was established as the measure for success in Vietnam. Not the smartest decision the US military has ever made.

According to Gunter Lewy (and Wikipedia) 1/3 of enemy KIA were civilians, for a total of 220,000 civilian deaths over the course of the war. That's not including bombing casualties in Laos, Cambodia or North Vietnam.

Soldiers were encouraged to make up kill counts if they didn't know the actual numbers. Accuracy wasn't the paramount concern: the military bureaucracy had a box to check, and everyone going up the chain of command needed a number. But who's going to comb through dangerous jungle, or tunnels, for bodies? The numbers were often pulled out of thin air.

American troops used helicopters to bypass jungle and ambushes

Free Fire Zones were established in which anyone who was unidentified or out after curfew could be shot on sight. Given the incentive system, civilian casualties seem inevitable. 

According to Vietnam: 50 Years Remembered, American infantry averaged 240 days of combat per year in Vietnam, but only 10 days in WWII. An incredible statistic which, if true, suggests enormous psychological stress on the GIs in Vietnam, contributing to poor decision making.

In Ukraine, Russia has deliberately shelled residential neighbourhoods, causing mass casualties. Body count may not be a success measure, but terror seems to be part of their modus operandi. Russian troops have also (reportedly) engaged in extensive rape, looting, torture and murder. 

To be fair, that's pretty common in war. US troops committed atrocities in Vietnam (My Lai was just the most publicized example) and there were unintended strikes against civilians in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Even so, the modern American military exhibits both a significantly higher level of professionalism, and avoidance of civilian casualties, than the RF. 

The Russians are deliberately targeting civilian neighbourhoods with artillery. Mariupol has been flattened, with an estimated 5,000 civilian casualties. Mass graves have also been uncovered in areas evacuated by Russian troops north of Kyiv.

Troop levels

At it's peak, the United States had 543,000 personnel in Vietnam, supported by roughly 700,000 ARVN troops. The population of South Vietnam was 16 million. North Vietnam had a slightly larger population of 18 million. And yet, even with over 1.2 million men at their disposal (six times the number of Russian troops in Ukraine, a country almost three times the population of South Vietnam), supported by air power and artillery, the US and South Vietnam could not solidify their control. 

The NVA and VC had some 100,000 troops in South Vietnam, virtually all of whom were replaced annually due to extremely high casualties. Giap said that by 1969 the North had already suffered 500,000 casualties, but that wasn't going to stop them: "The life or death of a hundred, a thousand, tens of thousands of human beings, even our compatriots, means little."

Iraq has a population of 40 million; US troop levels ranged between 130,000 to 187,000 between 2004 and 2009, not including private contractors or Iraqi security forces. Prior to the invasion, General Shinseki estimated that 260,000 troops would be required to successfully occupy Iraq. They never came close, and until local militias were co-opted, the country was notoriously unstable.

The Russian army entered Ukraine, a country of 44 million, with roughly 180,000 troops and 2,840 tanks. That's comparable to the troop levels the Americans deployed in Iraq, but there's a marked difference in capabilities and professionalism. America's all volunteer army has higher morale and greater dedication, along with the support of NCOs and contractors.

Deployed against the Russians are (were?) 215,000 active Ukrainian military personnel supported by 2,550 tanks. 

So far, Russian forces have suffered the verified loss of at least 450 tanks and over 800 supply trucks. Ukrainians have ambushed Russian columns (the Russians aren't screening their tanks with infantry) as they advanced, which is the same strategy the VC used against the French in Vietnam. They attempted it against the Americans too, but the US moved troops via helicopter and leapfrogged over the ambush sites. 

Livemap of war in Ukraine

Russian casualty figures range from 8,000 to 20,000 for the first month. By comparison, 6,990 Americans were killed in Vietnam in the first nine months of 1967. It took ten years for the USSR to suffer comparable casualty figures in Afghanistan. 

Are these fair comparisons? Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were all counter-insurgency wars, with great force disparities, so lower casualty figures for the dominant side would be expected. And of course casualty figures should be taken with a massive grain of salt. Both sides are trying to spin the stats.

Compared to American troop levels in Vietnam and Iraq, it's difficult to believe Russia will be able to successfully occupy Ukraine given the forces it has deployed (if that even is the intent, which it probably isn't). 

B-52 bombers drop freedom

Interdiction of supplies

The connection to NATO through Poland is crucial to the survival of Ukrainian resistance. Ukraine would not have managed to rearm and retrain so effectively since 2014 without American (and NATO) support. 

So far, Russia has refrained from firing missiles at rail cars crossing into Ukraine, but that may change if the war continues to go poorly for Russia.

The Ho Chi Minh trail was the lifeblood of the Viet Cong, pumping in weapons and supplies, although American Intelligence estimated only 10 to 15 tons was necessary to sustain the VC daily (Ukraine needs far more). Nixon ordered a bombing campaign in Cambodia, Operation Freedom Deal (no, seriously), to cut it off. Over 250,000 tons of freedom bombs, more than everything dropped on Japan in World War II, was pasted across southern Cambodia. 

This was before America entered the era of smart bombs, which Russia has only dipped it’s toe in. Russian stockpiles of smart weapons are extremely limited. Having failed to obtain air superiority in Ukraine, Russia is relying on their much vaunted artillery forces, which cause a lot of collateral damage (in many Russian wars, that's part of the point and policy). 

Nixon believed in the Mad Man theory (no, not advertising), and sought to intimidate his opponents with irrational and crazy escalations, like flattening Cambodia behind the back of Congress. Putin’s taken a page from Nixon’s play book with his pointed threats of nuclear retaliation if anyone even thinks of looking at him sideways. Does it work? It didn't for Nixon.

The USAF claimed their bombs killed 16,000 Khmer Rouge troops besieging Cambodian capital Pnom Penh in 1973, saving Cambodia from falling to the communists… that year. Others say the bombing galvanized Cambodians to fight and led directly to Pol Pot's victory. Civilian casualty estimates range from 30,000 to 300,000; it’s very difficult to know for certain because there were so many other active efforts to kill people going on at the time. 

Interdiction efforts failed in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. In every case the invader eventually withdrew, but only after a great expenditure of money, equipment and human lives.

While American withdrawal from Vietnam may have been a kick in the nuts, Russian withdrawal from Ukraine will be unbearable. NATO supplies are empowering Ukraine and blocking Russian victory. Sooner or later the RF are going to try and cut Ukraine's war juice off, risking a wider war.

Bang! You just shot your propaganda war in the head.

The media war

The Tet offensive in 1968 was covered extensively by American media. Every night Americans in the comfort of their living rooms watched gut churning footage of fighting in Vietnam, culminating in an AVRN officer shooting a captive Viet Cong soldier in the head, on video tape. It was a truly shocking moment. Walter Cronkite, the most trusted man in America, turned against the war, and doubt about the narrative peddled by politicians and the military grew much more intense. Protests at home reached a height with Kent state and the national guard gunning down American citizens. 

Strictly speaking, Tet was a military failure: the Viet Cong suffered casualties at a rate of 20 to 1, devastating their strength in south Vietnam. And yet it was a massive success on the ideological and media fronts. It broke already flagging American support for the war and finished LBJ politically; a few weeks later he declared he wouldn’t run for re-election. 

It bears mentioning that when US and AVRN forces retook the city of Hue, which had been occupied for a month after Tet by the VC and NVA, they found mass graves of officials and dissidents. But the AVRN officer brutally executing a prisoner is what was caught on camera.

Nixon escalated while looking for ways out ‘with honor’ to save his political hide and American pride. It’s very important to provide a fig leaf to embarrassed world powers when they get caught with their military pants down. American strategy from then on was heavily influenced by media perceptions, and this problem led to reforms and a much more curated media involvement in Iraq. Many lessons of Vietnam were forgotten, but that was okay so long as it wasn't caught on camera. 

Putin is in no danger of the media turning on him, because he literally owns it. Russians will have to glean what is going on by what is not said. Opposition to the war will likely build slowly, as it becomes increasingly difficult to justify the lack of progress or cover up the extent of Russian losses.

Since Putin cannot afford to lose, if his military forces continue to be stymied, he may feel compelled to escalate, without limit, for the sake of both victory and his own self-preservation. 

That would bode very badly for Ukraine, Russia and quite possibly the rest of the planet.

Look! Lyndon Johnson's Daisy Girl is back!

Final thoughts

I see the war going on for some time, and eventually escalating. If Putin were to pass away of natural causes, it might provide the fig leaf Russia needs to withdraw, but then again, national interests (and pride) may make that an unacceptable option. Mearsheimer insists that Russia would want to crush Ukraine, with or without Putin. A disturbing thought.

Russia will solidify the land corridor between Crimea and the Donbas, and possibly seize the Eastern half of Ukraine, where there is a Russian majority, and less likelihood of an insurgency. The war would then grind on until both sides are exhausted and the Ukrainian economy is completely wreaked. 

Eventually Ukraine will be forced to ask for terms.

No one will be happy, not even Putin.

War is like gambling: not just who has the better hand, but who is willing to sacrifice the most lives without folding. Can a democratic country match a dictator's disregard for his own people?

I get Mearsheimer's realpolitik arguments, and justifiable Russian paranoia around border security and buffer zones, yet I can't help but think this war is a massive and completely unnecessary waste, that NATO does not present an existential threat, and the ongoing fighting will ruin millions of lives. 

Honestly, is this how one should treat brothers and sisters? 

Delusions leading to disaster

Vladimir Putin explaining how Ukraine is not a country

Delusion has played a large role in military misadventure, including Putin's invasion of Ukraine. 

Which just makes me wonder: do leaders make decisions subconsciously, using their gut, and then apply reason's fig leaves? Or is the pre-war uncertainty fog is so great leaders (and intelligence analysts) can't make accurate assessments of possible outcomes?

The world infamously barrelled into World War One thinking it would be a jolly Fall romp, over in a few months. People enlisting were worried it would all be over by the time they reached the front. So not what they needed to worry about.

The Japanese Empire attacked the United States in 1941 and rampaged across South East Asia without an exit strategy. Their foremost military thinker, Yamamato, told them they'd be able to run amok for six months and then get rolled back. Japan could not match the industrial capacity, manpower, or resources (especially oil) of the United States. Well, screw the facts, the leadership went ahead anyway, confident the Americans were weak willed and would meekly accept Japan's fait accompli. 

Not a great plan, as Iron Man might say. 

Nazi General Paulus war gamed the invasion of Russia and declared it unwinnable. Hitler disagreed and insisted that all you had to do 'was kick in the door and the whole rotten structure would fall down.’ He didn’t allow troops to be provided with winter uniforms (for an invasion of Russia. Russia!!!): he was that confident the war would be over in a few months. 

Paulus’ last message from his frozen bunker in Stalingrad was, ‘ Ich habe es dir doch gesagt, du Idiot!' (I told you so, you imbecile!) followed by a series of expletives. 

Okay, probably not, but he should have.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident

Robert McNamara admitted that the second Gulf of Tonkin attack, for which retaliation (and the subsequent massive escalation) was authorized, never happened. It was as real as those 1999 apartment bombings in Moscow. McNamara even met with Giáp personally in 1995, and confirmed it was based on bad intel and misinterpretation. Boy, I bet he felt like a dunce that day. On a personal level, that’s so relatable and easy to do. I’ve rushed to judgement many a time, but man, never with such a horribly high price. 

As John Kerry said, who wants to be the last man to die for a mistake?

With Iraq, the United States was flat out delusional about how things would go. The invasion was also sold with a house of cards, pitched by Secretary of State Colin Powell. According to Thomas Rick’s book Fiasco:

‘The official bipartisan conclusion of the senate select committee on intelligence’s review of the prewar handling of intelligence was, “much of the information provided or cleared by the CIA for inclusion in secretary Powell’s speech was overstated, misleading, or incorrect.” 

Powell sold his reputation away with that speech. Intelligence officers who believed the intel was weak accepted it because Powell said it, and they assumed there was higher level intel they were not privy to.

Putin’s speech on the eve of invasion of Ukraine was even more fantastical, alleging that it was more akin to Narnia than a real nation.

In all the above cases, leadership was living in a fantasy projection. Neo-conservatives believed the fall of Hussein would usher in a new era of peace and prosperity, while Putin believed his armies would be met with cheering crowds. The Americans massively underestimated the 'primitive' Viet Cong in Vietnam. Hitler flat out ignored the professional advice he got and went with his gut. Imperial Japan's end game was Wishful Thinking. 

Whoops.

Colin Powell (left) with proof of WMDs in Iraq

Realistic evaluation of what you’re getting into is the most important thing for military planners. Unfortunately, senior leadership lives in an ideological fog, impervious to reality, and the result is millions of ordinary people die. The intense mental constructs needed to rise to power within a country may also contribute to faulty evaluations of the external geopolitical scene.

Maybe they should have bought a copy of The Secret.

To avoid calamity, open and intense criticism is absolutely necessary. And it’s most necessary with people who are immune to it.

Author David Brin has put forward his own acronym, CITOKATE: criticism is the only know antidote to error. When it comes to contemplating invasions, they could do worse than operating on that principle. This must be self evident to military planners. Whatever processes have been implemented to avoid disaster haven’t been refined enough to eliminate huge miscalculations and probably never will be. 

We may be dealing with systems so complex they cannot be accurately assessed, or individuals so deep in their own subjective reality they're immune to feedback from the objective one.

Boba vs. Peacemaker smackdown

I recently watched both Disney's The Book of Boba Fett and HBO's Peacemaker. Both shows are escapist fantasy: one a Space Western, the other a... uh... dysfunctional superhero investigation / alien invasion show.

The bonkers opening sequence for Peacemaker is not to be missed. It's definitely different and it epitomizes the unrestrained creativity of the showrunner.

The Showrunners

Jon Favreau

I like Favreau. He directed the first Iron Man movie, which was a ton of fun. He's been involved in pushing forward effects technology in Hollywood, after growing frustrated with green screen while shooting The Jungle Book. The result is The Volume, a stage surrounded by a solid, seamless wall of video screens upon which anything you like can be projected. They use the Unreal 3D engine to project environments and creatures. Incredibly, they are high fidelity enough to be used on film as moving backgrounds, allowing actors to respond in real time to events/monsters/etc. It also allows reflections to be captured on The Mandalorian's shiny armour.

From barren worlds...

When I first saw The Mandalorian, I thought the light was especially good. Characters were bathed in the light of the environment they appeared to be in, so I thought it had to be shot on location. Some clean up work is need around things like the break between the wall and the ceiling, but that's about it. 

This makes shooting an effects intensive show like The Mandalorian feasible on a tight TV schedule. I'd say a tight budget, too, but The Mandalorian still costs an arm and a leg to produce. Without The Volume, though, they probably couldn't.

To forest planets, The Volume can do it all!

Favreau wrote, along with Dave Filoni, a good deal of the first two seasons of The Mandalorian. It's a fun, diverting show with lots of atmosphere that evokes samurai films and old westerns. It gave us Baby Yoda, the cute, blatant merchandising opportunity. 

The show does feel kind of slight narratively. Scripts are more about exploring technical capabilities than character. 

James Gunn

I've been keeping an eye on James Gunn since his Dawn of the Dead collaboration with director Zach Snyder. Gunn has an edgy sense of humour, and is one of the funniest, smartest writers in the pop culture film space. The Guardians of the Galaxy Marvel films are my favourites in the MCU (along with Watiti's Thor: Ragnarok): a perfect blend of comedy, adventure and heart. Of all the big, bloated super hero films out there, for my money, his have the strongest characterization. 

How would you describe DCEU heroes? They seem more defined by their powers, except Batman, who's brooding and emo.

Marvel heroes have personality by the bucket full, and that's the main appeal of their films. They may be based on archetypes, but Gunn fleshes them out, and mines them for situational, contextual humour. 

Gunn doesn't abandon the adventure angle and make everything a joke. He brings flawed characters to extreme situations and lets the humour roll out of that. It keeps the action on track while providing comedic release. 

It's great stuff.

The Shows:

The Book of Boba Fett

A spinoff from The Mandalorian, it centres on the eponymous, helmeted bounty hunter from the original Star Wars trilogy. A man of few words who was ignominiously dropped into a giant maw, he accrued a reputation as a bad ass over the years thanks to The Extended Universe. I can't say he's ever been a big favourite of mine; there was never much there to begin with. The Mandalorian, in many ways, has already supplanted Boba, being essentially Clint Eastwood's Man with No Name in Spaaaace. 

Another bad ass team status meeting. There are a lot of meetings.

Well he's back. He survived the Sarlaac pit, got enslaved by Sand People, won his freedom and became part of their cute ROOOIK! ROOOIK! family (hey, they wear helmets, too! So much in common), then decided to take over Jabba's crime empire for... reasons. Because. 

Peacemaker

Gunn resurrects our favourite egotistical, self-righteous vigilante crusader, and his quest to bring peace, no matter how many people he has to kill to do it. Gunn throws in a racist father, a disturbing childhood, a rogues' gallery of supporting characters for Peacemaker to bounce off of, and then sets them against an alien invasion by blue butterflies. 

The Characters:

The Book of Boba Fett has no characters. It has plot devices and empty shells, but characters? Not so much.

Okay, there is one exception that proves the rule: The Mayor's Major Domo. He's unctuous and obsequious, but also conniving and duplicitous. Yet he's also completely peripheral, a secondary or even tertiary villain.

You could argue that Fett learns the importance of family by being enslaved by The Sand People, but even that arc didn't work. 

Fennec Shand's flat as cardboard, only there to explain plot points and kill people. She acts stern and bad ass, but it's entirely superficial. There's nothing underneath. No motivation. No heart. Nothing but marketing and merchandise. 

The other 'characters' are worse: the gumdrop bike gang are defined by their colourful speeder bikes. Fett's ship has more personality. 

The repair lady at the spaceport gives it her all, admittedly, but she doesn't have much to work with. The humour feels out of place and forced.

Peacemaker, on the other hand, is overflowing with characters, motivations, and arcs. There's emotion, motivated conflict, and growth. Not just growth for the main character, but for all the characters. 

It's a shock going from bland Book of Boba to Peacemaker, as it makes it so strikingly clear what's wrong with Boba: the writing. 

Worse, for two episodes Boba turns into Season 2.5 of The Mandalorian! Bold move, in a way; I don't think I've ever seen a show sidelined like that for the parent program. 

Fett's not decisive, he waffles and sits in meetings while others speak for him. 

He hovers, for example, over the Sarlaac pit while it attacks his ship, paralyzed and incapable of acting.

Fett would benefit from being more proactive, and letting mystery remain around many aspects of who he is. His actions should define him, not his board meetings.

Fett's desire to become the Mr. Rogers of crime lords, just and benevolent, is very Disney, but entirely out of character. Making your protagonist the friendly neighbourhood drug kingpin is an odd choice for a children's show. 

Peacemaker, on the other hand, gets fleshed out over the course of his show. We learn why he's so messed up (a holy hell of a childhood dominated by a psychopathic, racist father and accidentally killing his own brother). 

Peacemaker's supporting characters are all given time to shine, snappy dialogue and a distinct voice. You get a sense of who and what they are, even Eagly, a bird. 

Even the bird on Peacemaker has more personality than anyone in The Book of Boba Fett.

To be fair, Boba's Book looks stunning' it's pushing ahead visual effects a couple decades. Every element of the production is first rate to the point of mind blowing. 

Unfortunately, it just underlines how essential writing is. I have been to sci-fi conferences where there were Lucas Film employees on panels. I remember one, a very prominent and talented guy who does concept art, deriding screenplay writing as so simple that any idiot can do it, and then proceeding to create a screenplay with the audience. A mega block buster concept in five minutes! He was tongue in cheek, or at least I thought he was...

The Verdict:

Watch Boba for the visuals, then watch Peacemaker for a fun story with outrageous characters and (a twisted) heart. Plus, it's very funny. 

The great COVID lockdown DS9 rewatch: The Way of the Warrior Commentary (Season 4 Premiere)

Klingons doing what Klingons do

The Klingons drive up to DS9 soda shop with a massive war fleet. They circle the station like a biker gang, turning on and off their cloaks so you can’t tell how many there are. And Klingons being Klingons, they immediately make trouble on DS9, beating up Garak and giving Odo serious attitude. 

Why are they there? They won’t say. 

So DS9 has a problem… and who do you call when you have a Klingon problem?

WORF!

Welcome aboard, Big W

Our favourite pithy bon mot dropper, Worf, has joined the DS9 crew. Was there a need for another colourful character on an already crowded station? I’m not so sure, but if they HAD to add someone, good ol’ deadpan Worf is a great choice.

Worf quickly out honours everyone and discovers the crafty Klingons are there to invade... Cardassia, and BAM! They do. 

The status quo of the past 3 seasons is rent asunder.

The whole sector is going to pot! 

Sisko heads out to save the Cardassian government council from the Klingons because why not, only Dukat’s ship is intercepted by the Klingons. They’re merrily pounding it to bits and are all screw you when Sisko asks them to stand down. 

So… Sisko opens fire on the Klingons, targeting their engines at first, as if that won’t start a war. It doesn’t work. 

So they blow a couple Klingon ships apart.

Which is big. 

Really, really big. 

It's WAAAAR, as starship troopers would say.

Picard would have pulled Sisko aside for a serious chat about now.

Does Sisko have the authority to start war on a whim? He's gonna be in big trouble when StarFleet finds out what he went and done did.

Would Picard have? I’m not so sure he would, but then Picard’s wisdom was backed by writer room immunity.

Sisko flies back at the station with two Klingon attack ships hot on his tail. 

Dukat scoffs; they are no match for DS9! No problem, people.

Then a whole FLEET of Klingon vessels uncloaks, probably breaking the whole season’s SFX budget.

Worf: “What are you orders, captain?”

Sisko: “Battle stations!”

The shit has hit the fan, people. 

Gonna need a new fan soon, if this keeps up.

There’s lots of great character moments in the build up to a galaxy shattering battle. It’s well done, but that doesn’t mean it makes sense. 

Sound and fury signifying manufactured conflict for the sake of drama!

As defenses are prepared, civilian Quark uses Root Beer as a lovely metaphor for the Federation in a scene with Garak: Root Beer is bubbly and cloying and happy, and the worst part is that, if you drink enough of the disgusting stuff, you begin to like it. Insidious, responds Garak, just like the Federation. 

And they both lament that the Federation is their only hope.

Oh, how goodie two shoes grow on you.

Of course, I yell at a show that was filmed over 20 years ago, what are you thinking? It’s transparently obvious that any battle between Klingon and DS9 only weakens the military forces of the Alpha Quadrant, and serves the interests of The Dominion. The dastardly Dominion is following British Empire policies in relation to Continental Europe, and/or their divide-and conquer-Colonial approach, if you want to draw a distinction between the two! 

Don’t you read history?

Don’t you remember the previous episode, where the douche Dominion tried to jump start a war in the season three finale between the Federation and the…er... whatsitname space power I’ve never heard of before (and never hear of again)?

Wait! It’s a loss of short term memory episode we’re in, isn’t it?

Sisko bluffs (or is he?), but Gowron calls him on it and unleashes his dogs of war. DS9 then reveals that it is now bristling with weapons. It was no bluff!

Explosions blossom like a very special episode!

Two powers that should be allies are falling into a pointless, self-destructive battle and likely a larger war.

It’s epic scale senselessness. 

Forget Worf! They needed Picard!

I guess my whole theory that Classic Trek avoided conflict and aimed to be reasonable wasn’t so reasonable a theory.

The shields go down and Klingon assault teams beam aboard the DS9 bridge. A phaser and batleth battle breaks out. Klingons are all over the station!

And actors use.. cover! Cover! Amazing. A concept lost to the Star Wars universe. 

Garak and Dukat make a stand, protecting the Cardassian civilian government. An odd couple indeed. Too bad this backdoor pilot for their sitcom didn’t work out.

The odd Cardassian couple

On the bridge, Kira’s wounded. She’s a main cast member, so you know this is serious.

Worf, ever the bad ass, kills Klingon after Klingon in hand to hand combat. But Sisko’s no slouch, and neither is Dax, and both kill plenty.

Finally the entire Klingon assault force is dead & done.

All those completely ineffectual cannon fodder extras could have been uselessly deployed against the Dominion.

It’s sad.

Perhaps this whole conflict was engineered by the Changelings? But nope, no reveals of changelings in Klingon ranks. Would that be too easy?

Gowron demands a surrender, but Federation reinforcements are on the way and Sisko says, no way Jose.

At long last, Sisko elaborates and reminds Gowron that this is what the Dominion wants. They should be fighting the Domion, not each other. 

Well, duh. 

You might have mentioned that earlier, but better late than never.

Gowron stands down. It’s over. The actor playing Gowron is awesome. He can slip from bombast to whispered persusasion in a single sentence. And his bulging eyes are so expressive!

In the post-battle wrap up, Sisko convinces Worf to stay in StarFleet (His intention to resign was the subplot running through all this, echoing Sisko in the show premiere). Hey, it rhymes! 

Sisko admits he wanted to resign to deal with the pain of his wife’s death. Aha: as noted earlier, the cast are all (or almost all) grappling with their own past & personal suffering. Running away only delays the inevitable.

It’s good stuff.

Worf then swaps the gold uniform for red and becomes the station’s chief operations manager. Whatever that entails. Maybe he'll handle trade negotiations?

Overall, an epic introduction for Worf, worthy of a song... so long as I don’t have to listen to it. 

Klingon songs suck.

Just don't.

Can't wait for what's next!

The great COVID lockdown DS9 rewatch: Season 3 wrap up

Look out, it's the Season 3 finale!

Season 3 has seen a huge shift in the nature of the show: it's always had a bit of Buffy to it (episodic, seasonal, and show story arcs running all simultaneously), but this is really upping the ante. 

For the first time, there's a truly epic story is being spun out in what will become The Dominion War.

A mighty fine ship you have there, sir

Explorers (Season 3, Episode 22)

So right after the Cardassians and Romulans provoke the Dominion with the fabulous two parter,Improbable CauseandThe Die is Cast, Sisko decides to build a Bajoran solar sail ship and go on a father & son trip into deep space. Gul Dukat rings him up to warn Sisko this is a batshit crazy idea and not to go, and when Sisko asks what kind of hazards he might run into, Dukat does not mention The Dominion! 

Bizarre, given what happened just an episode ago, and what will happen in a few episodes hence.

So there’s long form narrative intermingling with the episodic, making the show a little schizophrenic. Honestly, if war was imminently looming, I’m not so sure Sisko would build his solar sail ship and fly away. 

Seems quixotic. 

The greatest threat to the Alpha Quadrant since The Borg, and people keep forgetting all about them. Like Churchill, during the Blitz, deciding he’s going to build his own yacht and sail to France.

The story is charming anyway, and the interior design of the solar sail ship is fabulous. The CGI work not so much.

I do appreciate is how infrequently they use special effects compared to the newer iterations of Trek. They didn’t have the budget to fill the screen with hundreds of ships and a bajillion laser beams. Hence you can still follow what’s going on. The new shows have so much spectacular shit on screen at any one time it just becomes a great big flashy smear. 

O’Brian admits in this episode that he HATED Bashir at first. And then he says, ‘and now… I don’t.” Talk about tepid endorsements ‘from the heart’. 

It’s hilarious.

DS9 is at it’s funniest when it leverages the characters flaws. There’s one episode where it tries to do farce, and it’s… not that good. Nor is it that funny. The understated humorous moments between Quark, Odo and Garak are a real gas, and they’re based on character. They don’t break the bubble of disbelief or undermine the character (much). 

The episode ends with Gul Dukat welcoming them to Cardassia. They’ve managed to make the trip and prove the ancient Bajorans could have. The Cardassians then put on a fireworks display to welcome them with. It’s a really nice moment; it even makes you like Dukat, if only for a moment. He’s a bad man, no doubt about it, but still believes he’s the hero. Far more nuanced than many villains in Trek, and certainly more so than anyone in Star Wars.

It’s ironic that Obi Wan condemns Anakin for being binary in his thinking: “Only a Sith thinks in absolutes!” Hello? This is a universe that divides itself between Light and Dark sides, and even the people in-between inevitably cut one way or the other (Jabba, Lando, etc). 

Talk to me more about bad absolutes, Obi Wan. Trek owns you on nuance, hands down, every which way to Sunday and beyond, you Basic spewing laser brain.

Curzon-Odo oozing obnoxiousness

Facets (Episode 25)

Dax has the spirits of her former host inhabit her friends on DS9. It gives us a better picture of Curzon, whom we've been hearing about for three seasons. He comes across as a selfish, willful blowhard, and far less appealing than the writers evidently think he is. Charisma matched with lack of care for others. Yikes. Curzon and Odo decide to cohabit in the body of the shape shifter. 

Apparently Odo feels this is an educational and beneficial arrangement for himself, and in the short term, I imagine it would be. The idea of the Trill is pretty interesting, how they merge with their host, rather than having two competing consciousnesses, and yet, once separated they are very much independent. Just what goes on in Jadzia/Dax’s head?

It’s hopefully not as bad as what Sisko experienced with Dax’s murderer host. That was downright creepy. 

But what happened to that short term host dude who abducted and implanted Dax a season ago?

No idea.

Getting up close and too personal

The Adversary (Season Finale)

Sisko is finally promoted to Captain! I kind of thought he was a captain already, but a commander is a rank below captain. I wasn’t sure if that was just the designation for the head of a Starbase. There is much celebrating, during which a Federation ambassador pulls Sisko aside to let him know there’s been a coup on an allied world. 

Time to show the flag and head in with the USS Defiant. Except, there’s been no coup, and that’s not the ambassador. It’s, as one famous space admiral once said, a trap! A changeling has orchestrated it all, in an attempt to start a war between the two powers, thereby weakening the Federation. 

This is Star Trek meets The Thing: a shape shifting alien gets loose aboard the Defiant, impersonating people and objects, and making everyone paranoid. It’s not as horrifying as the alien in The Thing, but it is set on blowing the ship apart and killing everyone aboard. 

The Dominion agent offers to save Odo, but he’s having none of it and, for the first time ever, a changeling kills another changeling. 

Before the dastardly ambassador impersonator flees this mortal coil, he tells Odo that it’s too late, changeling imposters are everywhere.

Queue the fourth season!

The Great COVID lockdown DS9 rewatch

I’ve not been really enjoying the new Trek. It’s flashy, fast paced and has lots of explosions, and yet... it doesn’t feel like Trek to me. I like the slower paced and (to my mind) more thoughtful TOS, TNG, VOY and DS9. 

I guess this means I'm getting old. And, hey, you kids, get off my lawn!

TOS has wonderfully campy charms, such as theatrical lighting, vaseline lense soft focus on love interests, doomed Red Shirts, Kirk wrestling with his shirt off, Bones blustering about not being an escalator, and over the top melodrama. Yet it also tackled social issues in ways that straight up dramas at the time often could not. 

TNG is cup of cocoa comforting; it follows a nice bunch of people on progressive adventures in space. Picard was written as a thoughtful, reasonable leader. It’s the one show I’ve seen where they’re on the brink of a massive space battle (Kurtzman and JJ would salivate at the prospect!) and God Damn Picard goes and talks them down from the precipice, ending the episode without the required cathartic explosion adorned climax, and we were all better off for it. Peaceful resolution! Who'da thought?!?

Would Discovery ever veer away from pyrotechnical cataclysms? I think not. 

TNG is a gem among sci-fi chaff. The whole set of old Trek shows really hold together well, and feel consistent. Well. Consistent enough!

I’d lump the original Stargate in with this set as some of the best sci-fi series ever done (I'd also add The Expanse, the first couple seasons of BSG, Firefly, and umm... my brain fails but there are others).

I’ve seen TNG intermittently over the years, but haven’t watched a DS9 episode since it was originally on TV. 

So I thought, why not go back and rewatch the whole thing, right from the start?

It’s the one and only long arc show of the original set. Discovery is doing ongoing stories, of course. I watched the first season, which was all about the Mirror Universe. I like the Mirror Universe, just not THAT much of it. 

So buckle in for a journey into nostalgia!

Episode One:

Sisko arrives on DS9 with his son, reluctantly set to take command of the station. He gets all bristly with Picard, who’s dropped by to give him his marching orders. Sisko isn’t too happy with ex-Locutus of Borg, whom he holds responsible for killing his wife at Wolf-359. 

It's actually unusual in classic Trek to show such hostility between Star Fleet members, and it’s a sign of things to come.

Because the whole station is chock filled with people who absolutely can’t stand each other. 

In other ways, it’s an innocuous start: the first two entire seasons are Planet-of-the-Week, self-contained stories that can be run in any order, just the way syndication likes them. The real changes start seeping in during season 3, and just keep coming. 

Sisko’s set on turning down the assignment, when all of a sudden, a wormhole opens up near Bajor, making the assignment significantly more interesting for Sisko (who also discovers he is The Emissary, a representative of The Prophets, who live in the Wormhole), and he decides to take the assignment after all. 

And we’re off and running.

The character collection here is actually really good and designed for conflict. We have (with tonal rating for how compromised they are, with 5 being a perfect grey):

Sisko

Brusque and no nonsense, he has a softer side that you see only at first with his son. He blusters, but also has a sly side. He’s a steady straight man who has to manage all the looney characters on the station. 

Tone: 1 (He's been in war, fought the borg, and has likely made difficult compromising decisions in the past, although in the first few seasons he doesn't have to get his hands very dirty).

Miles O’Brian

Transported over from Next Generation, Miles is the Chief of Operations for DS9, which is constantly breaking down. We get to see through him the struggle of the Twenty Fifth (?) Century Everyman in his Sisyphean effort to get through the day. He’s temperamental and rather put upon, but with good reason. He’s another station straight man. Can’t stand Bashir at first, whom he’s often paired with.

Tone: 4 (He's a borderline rageaholic who hates Cardassians and was traumatized fighting them; he's been bringing that under control over the first few DS9 seasons, but man is he grumpy).

Kira

Hard nosed, aggressive, ornery and always spoiling for a fight, Kira’s the First Officer of DS9, and a former Bajoran terrorist. Now there’s a character background full of dramatic potential. She can be grating, but the actor imbues Kira with enough of a soft side, and heart, that she grows on us. Her bouts of temper (frequently directed at Quark or any convenient Cardassian) are her defining characteristic. Often paired with religious figures from Bajor, Sisko, and Odo. 

Tone: 8 (She's done terrible things fighting the Cardassian occupation that have seared her soul; the only reason I'm not rating her higher is that her 'freedom fighter' arguments hold water).

Bashir

An earnest blowhard, Bashir’s the station’s genius doctor. He’s full of himself, yet the actor brings nuance in the performance, and disarms us with vulnerability. He can’t help being a bit of a boor,  as he’s oblivious to his off-putting self-centredness. At root, though, he’ll go to the matt for his friends. The show has a lot of fun with his self-centred side, and easily bruised ego.

Tone: 1 (He's a blowhard but a well meaning one, and he doesn't do anything too reprehensible in the first few seasons).

Dax

A chill Trill, Dax has multiple lifetimes under her/his/its(?) belt, and acts as a kind of emotional calm point for the station crew. They try to build a lot of interest in her past lives, and while she’s cool, and the idea of Trill is kinda cool, she’s a little too chill to be really interesting. Or, at least, in comparison to some of the other more over the top characters she tends to fade a bit.

Tone: 4 (She's made blood oaths with Klingons and had a host who was a murderer; even if each Trill is a new being, I'm rating her a four because the show strongly hints she's seen her share of serious shit over the years, and had to make difficult compromises). 

Jake

Sisko's son, and an entry point for younger viewers. He's a typical kid, not a prodigy, and he gives an endearing performance. He builds an unlikely friendship with Nog, the son of the Ferengi, Rom.

Tone: 0 (He's not seen shit... yet). 

Quark

An unscrupulous capitalist who has no moral he won’t compromise for profit. As a stereotypical Ferengi, he veers between grotesque caricature, cunning, and comic relief. The actor, however, performs Quark with gusto and manages to inject enough nuance that he grows on us. He’s thankfully not one note, in the end. A lot of mileage is gained out of his schemes and ongoing conflict with Odo.

Tone: 9 (He's got no qualms about selling defective merchandise that will kill the user, runs guns to anyone who wants them, and worse; I'm leaving a sliver of light because he only hurts others as a side effect). 

Odo

Odo’s a ton of fun: a shape shifter and head of security for the station, he’s Quarks foil and arch-nemesis. Beneath their rivalry, there’s a very buried affection. Very buried. They each make the life of the other more interesting, and if Odo didn’t have Quark’s schemes to foil, he’d be bored out of his mind. Gruff and detached, he warms up over the course of the show. 

Tone: 5 (He was head of station security for the Cardassians, who are well known for atrocities, extrajudicial executions and war crimes. Fun! He remarks that he never killed anyone (late in season 3), yet he was security chief for a station filled with Bajoran slave labourers. He often complains Starfleet doesn't allow him police state levels of freedom in cracking down on the station populace. At the same time, he is genuinely concerned with justice. How that really fits with his time working for the Cardassians is an open question...). 

Garak

Like Quark, Garak is part comic relief, part cunning. Ostensibly a Cardassian tailor who’s decided to remain on DS9, he’s actually a ruthless spy (hey, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy) and former member of the feared Obsidian Order. There are a lot of tailoring jokes, and his dissembling never ceases. Even when it’s obvious he’s a former spy, he never fully admits to it, which is part of the fun. Of course, under all the surface Machiavellianism, there’s a heart buried... somewhere. The actor is obviously having a grand old time, and it shows. Frequently paired with the endlessly earnest egotist, Bashir.

Tone: 10 pitch black (As the former right hand man of Tain, the head of the Space Gestapo, he likely didn't limit all his interrogations to staring contests. Hard to say how much, or what, is true of his past, but odds are it wasn't pretty). 

There are a lot more sparks flying between this set than you'll ever witness with TNG's pleasant character collection. 

I've already plowed through Season 1 & 2 and I'm deep into Season 3.

So far, they've played a lot with Quark as the avatar of capitalist excess, Kira and Sisko with post-traumatic stress (Kira's freedom fighting years, Sisko surviving Wolf-359), and multiple-bodies one consciousness with Dax. 

Many of the characters are decidedly grey. Unlike the well adjusted crew of the USS Enterprise, these are compromised, wounded people: Odo pushes everyone away with gruffness, but secretly he's quietly suffering in a private sea of loneliness. Garak is in agonizing exile, which he hides behind pretzels of evasiveness, never saying anything directly. Quark hides his feelings behind untrammelled greed, hoping you won't see them. Sisko buries the pain of losing his wife deep inside. Bashir shields himself with ego. Kira doesn't defend her vulnerability at all; instead she attacks, attacks, attacks. 

Pursuit was one of my favourite episodes of Season One. It pairs O'Brian with an alien who's been bred to be hunted and killed for sport (we'll see hunters again with the Hirogen of Voyager). The two put upon, expendable worker bees form a bond, and O'Brian helps the genetically engineered target escape to fulfill his purpose (giving a good chase). It turned out to be one of the most heart felt of Season One episodes. The makeup on the alien was excellent, but the costumes of his pursuers was kind of laughable. 

For a Trek show set in one location, they manage to mix things up a decent amount. 

One recurrent theme in the first few seasons is people not being who they seem, or being replaced by Dopplegangers. Either the whole crew is, or someone has been brainwashed, or reality isn't real, or they wake up Cardassian (A ridiculous yet great episode!), or they're stuck in a children's game playing Space Hopscotch. All done in entertaining ways, but makes me wonder what was going on in the writer's room. 

The Mirror Universe makes two appearances in the first couple of seasons, which is just the right amount. Here the grey take of DS9 really comes to the fore: rather than the Terran Empire reforming and becoming a benevolent, inclusive state after Kirk's intervention, Goatee Spock's reforms backfire and the Empire is overrun by an alliance of enemies. Humans are enslaved and treated like disposable fodder. No good deed goes unpunished! Pure virtue rarely endures in DS9 without being besmirched at some point. Everything and everyone has to compromise and get dirty to get by, eventually. We'll see more of that in later seasons.

There is a progressive on it’s sleeve episode where Sisko and Bashir go back in time to a Sanctuary Zone where they save human civilization by bringing attention to the plight of the homeless. It’s set in 2024… eerily close to the discontent of 2020. 

In some ways, the show is the anti-thesis to TNG. Writers felt constricted by Roddenberry's Rules (no fighting among Star Fleet personnel, etc), so here they find work arounds. They may not break the rules directly, but by filling the cast out with aliens and non-Starfleet personnel, conflict ran run amok.

To be fair to Roddenberry, his rules made TNG one of the most unusual dramas on TV. I rather liked that it didn't always take the easy conflict route, and I especially liked how measured Picard could be.

TNG also often veered away from forcing characters to make real choices, choices that would compromise or tarnish the character's ethical lustre. An easy choice is no choice. Choosing between letting Planet A or Planet B blow up isn't a choice if the characters just save both! In DS9, one of them is gonna blow up.

Difficult choices leave their mark on the characters. That's something The 100 was phenomenal at (for the first few seasons, before it blasted off the rails and into orbit around Pluto). 

Mentions of the Dominion get seeded throughout Season 2, but it's still episodic. Group of alien refugees will mention they were displaced by The Dominion, for example. 

Everything heats up with Sisko's father and son family outing in the Season 2 finale, when they get abducted by the Jem H'dar. Season 3 opens with a combat recon mission beyond the wormhole. They run into a swarm of Jem H'dar ships, get a bloody nose, fall back, and as they retreat, the Galaxy Class starship Odyssey is freakin' blown to bits by a Jem H'dar suicide run. 

Whoa! Nothing says these guys mean business than a suicide run taking out your most powerful starship and thousands of skilled crewmen. They've already wiped out all the colonies established on their side of the wormhole by the Bajorans and Federation. 

Soon after, The USS Defiant is introduced. It's a heavily armed warship, unusual for StarFleet, which prefers multi-function vessels. 

Then... it gets weird. 

Several Planet-of-the-week episodes follow, usually presaged by a scene in which a character will toss off a line about the Dominion ('Good thing there are no Dominion ships in this sector' or 'Golly, business is down... thanks to The Dominion!'), and then the show will promptly forget The Dominion exists for the next 45 minutes. It feels like they still had a bunch of episodic scripts lying around they needed to use, so they shoe horned in a toss off line to keep us from forgetting... whatever it was. Dominoes?

What I don't really understand is why they seemingly get chased to the other side of the wormhole, with the Dominion complaining about Federation incursions into their Quadrant... and then they don't post sentries on their side of the wormhole. I mean, they just did a suicide run on a Federation capital ship, and started a war. 

There is one entry point for the Federation into their Quadrant: the wormhole.

I mean, I'm no expert tactician, but the obvious thing to do is post sentries at the wormhole. Or mine the entrance. 

Once Federation ships get through, they can disperse, and it'll be hard to catch them. But if you put a blockade right at the wormhole, they're all bottled up.

There's also an attempt to blow up the wormhole by the Romulans (in a rather clever short term time travel episode centring on the ever put upon O'Brian, who ends up dying to boot. The writers really love kicking O'Brian). 

They're stopped, but it brings up further questions when a combined fleet of Romulan & Cardassians, built by their respective spy agencies, tries to blow up the home world of the Dominion's Founders (who happen to be shape shifters like Odo). Why don't they leave behind a sentry ship at the wormhole, to blow it up in case their mission fails (which it inevitably does)?

The two parter Improbable Cause and The Die is Cast are wild episodes, and the show does a great job of seeding elements leading up to them earlier in the season. It's not always immediately obvious how all the parts fit together, either, which I like even more. It feels like something big and COHERENT is happening in the background. 

Or mostly makes sense. 

There are occasional (seeming?) logic gaps (some of which I posed above). There may be in universe answers to these issues that I'm simply not aware of. Or maybe I wasn't watching closely enough. 

The conflict with the Dominion is getting quite hot by mid-Season 3, and it's only going to get hotter!

If you've never given DS9 a watch, I recommend giving it a chance!