How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

22 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Right about this Kremlin shill Schroeder, but If Bennet is to be believed (and we have no reason not to, albeit he too could have Israeli interests in mind) situation with talks looked slightlly diiferently. West indeed advised Ukrainians to fight and Putin was willing to make some temporary concessions when stuck, which Israeli former PM find good signs as to willingness to coooperate from his mediator point of view. But clue is (as Arakhamia confirmed) he was not being believed enough in Kiyv as reliable partner to have ceasfire with. Talks loomed for some time until Bucha and others massacres were discovered, and they realized Muscovy will do everything to swallow UA state.

For sure, and this is what I keep pointing out.  Context is important and without it the statement Bennet made is not very useful.  The most likely reason for the US throwing up its hands and leaving the negotiations is because they understood that Russia had no intentions of agreeing to anything that would leave Ukraine a viable state.  Given Russia's track record on being trusted (not just things like Minsk 1 and 2, but various international legal obligations ignored for decades), this is the sensible thing to conclude.

So, the context is that Russia launched a war of aggression and has a track record of not honoring the agreements it signs.  If there were no signs of Russia changing its ways, then why continue to negotiate unless throwing Ukraine under the bus was an acceptable outcome?  The West already did that in 2014 and it didn't work out so well.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, kevinkin replacement said:

I've said Putin is a dictator who murders his opponents in broad daylight. I described Russia as an expansionist imperial power. How long do you think these sympathies would last me inside Russia? What is more likely, that the Russians would have me in a jail cell in a flash, or that you mistake a difference of opinion as a matter of black and white reductionism?

And yet you think the most likely scenario is the West, in particular the US, is to blame for all of this.  In doing so you repeat Russian state sponsored talking points.  It's not a matter of a difference of opinion it is your use of "whataboutisms", especially those pushed by Russia, as a primary debate tactic.  It is appropriate to call you out on it.

6 minutes ago, kevinkin replacement said:

I mean, what part of my comments disagree with this? As for annexation, I just want to point out that August is a whopping six months after February. "Almost as soon as" is quite the stretch there, wouldn't you agree? I think it appears more likely that Putin went "uh oh" and scrambled to justify his ambitions. I do consider, and have said before, that the annexation itself may have been a hidden ambition anyway. That Putin's stated goal was to develop a rump state, but that he was after those territories on the side is entirely feasible. Again, I am not overly concerned with the exact timing of what-if-when-why, as the parameters remain the same (Russian invasion).

You are cherry picking again.  I said that Putin made his intentions clear long before 2022.  Including the annexation of Crimea.  You seem to be ignorant or at least dismissive of it.  He then launched a war of aggression which resulted in the captured territories being administratively incorporated into Russia.  A more reasonable conclusion is that annexation was a goal from the start of 2022.

Regardless, it doesn't matter.  Clearly Putin's goal was to crush Ukraine as a viable state, no matter how that was accomplished.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

33 minutes ago, Splinty said:

I put him on Ignore as soon as I saw his User Name.

For sure that was an indicator of where this was going to head

I'm letting this play out because it's important that if I slap a BAN on a member that there's no doubt it was not reactionary.

Steve

[LongLeftFlank]

30 minutes ago, kevinkin replacement said:

How is this trolling, exactly? I'm dealing with the same information as everyone else.

 

If I choose, I can get the tankie view over on NakedCapitalism, which is basically the same rubbish you're spouting here. You're done.

Edited December 15, 2023 by LongLeftFlank

[FlemFire]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

And yet you think the most likely scenario is the West, in particular the US, is to blame for all of this.  In doing so you repeat Russian state sponsored talking points.  It's not a matter of a difference of opinion it is your use of "whataboutisms", especially those pushed by Russia, as a primary debate tactic.  It is appropriate to call you out on it.

Steve

 

I don't think either side is 100% to blame when it comes to the road to war. When it comes to war itself, Russia is to blame because, obviously, they started one. How you get from A to B is a different topic entirely. Black-and-white reductionism produces elementary analyses. You can't really be a serious observer of international relations and see things in this manner. Or you can, obviously. But these men did not:

 

George Kennan in regards to NATO expansion: "I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. The Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else."

 

Bill Burns, current head of the CIA: "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite."

 

^ What about these men strikes you as pro-Russian? Is it more a matter of international intrigue that if you poke around a foreign nation's borders it might react in some manner? I don't think this is pro-Russian at all; I think it's just pro-reality. Every power that can behave in this manner, does.

[The_Capt]

17 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

For sure that was an indicator of where this was going to head

I'm letting this play out because it's important that if I slap a BAN on a member that there's no doubt it was not reactionary.

Steve

Problem with banning these types is that it actually feeds their own sense of rightness.  "They are just stooges and shills of the establishment.  They cannot handle my truths."  The OP was trying to be clever by changing his handle but it is in fact very appropriate.  It is the exact same approach his namesake took.  This is a lot like arguing with a religious zealot or cultist.  They have wrapped their worth and identity around the idea.  Those are not bindings that logic or facts are ever going to break.

History shows the only way to break this sort of thing is to have to proven as the horrible idea that it is.  By "it" I mean insular/anti-truth frameworks that really only have one political objective.  Unfortunately by the time the idea is proven as horrible a whole lot of bad has to happen. 

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, kevinkin replacement said:

 

I don't think either side is 100% to blame when it comes to the road to war. When it comes to war itself, Russia is to blame because, obviously, they started one. How you get from A to B is a different topic entirely. Black-and-white reductionism produces elementary analyses. You can't really be a serious observer of international relations and see things in this manner. Or you can, obviously. But these men did not:

 

George Kennan in regards to NATO expansion: "I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. The Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else."

 

Bill Burns, current head of the CIA: "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite."

 

^ What about these men strikes you as pro-Russian? Is it more a matter of international intrigue that if you poke around a foreign nation's borders it might react in some manner? I don't think this is pro-Russian at all; I think it's just pro-reality. Every power that can behave in this manner, does.

Oh no, I don't want to go down this Russian talking point again.  We've covered it a million times already.

The fact is that NATO expansion was at the behest of the countries that feared Russia would do to them exactly what it has done to others who ere NOT part of the expansion.  Georgia and Ukraine in particular, but I'd also include Belarus.

In other words, Russia did not become expansionist because of NATO.  It is expansionist in its very DNA and history backs this up 100%.  Not just recent history but hundreds of years of it.  So the REAL effect of NATO expansion was to limit Russian aggression against its neighbors.  Which is exactly what its neighbors were seeking when they applied for NATO membership.

It is also quite insulting to the free minded peoples who sought NATO membership.  It is saying that they have no right to seek out protections from Russia.  That hundreds of years of domination, and in particular recent Soviet domination, were not good indicators of Russia's future intentions. 

NATO is a defense pact that is voluntarily entered into by its members.  If Russia had a problem with that because they really had changed their tune, then the onus was upon them to prove it.  Chechnya and overtly continuing its "Russificiation" strategy certainly didn't achieve that.

The Eastern European countries were not paranoid.  Russia really was out to get them.  NATO membership was a sensible thing for them to request and, for an organization founded on peace and stability, it is something NATO should have granted.  Russia's objections were not relevant.

Again, we've covered this topic in detail more times than I can count.  If you are convinced that NATO expansion is morally and legally on par with Russian expansion, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

1 minute ago, The_Capt said:

Problem with banning these types is that it actually feeds their own sense of rightness.  "They are just stooges and shills of the establishment.  They cannot handle my truths."  The OP was trying to be clever by changing his handle but it is in fact very appropriate.  It is the exact same approach his namesake took.  This is a lot like arguing with a religious zealot or cultist.  They have wrapped their worth and identity around the idea.  Those are not bindings that logic or facts are ever going to break.

History shows the only way to break this sort of thing is to have to proven as the horrible idea that it is.  By "it" I mean insular/anti-truth frameworks that really only have one political objective.  Unfortunately by the time the idea is proven as horrible a whole lot of bad has to happen. 

Absolutely.  I don't expect to change his mind, but I do mean to demonstrate to the rest that we do not shut people down because they have a point of view that is contrarian.  However, at some point that becomes clear and the distraction factor becomes more of a concern.  I've not run out of patience yet.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

15 minutes ago, kevinkin replacement said:

I don't think either side is 100% to blame when it comes to the road to war.

Then let's do this.  Why don't you restate, in a cohesive manner, your point of view and why you are raising it now.  Because honestly, amidst the conspiracy theories, pro-Russian talking points, and "whataboutisms" you've been using I am honestly not sure what your point is any more.

Steve

[FlemFire]

 

1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:

Again, we've covered this topic in detail more times than I can count.  If you are convinced that NATO expansion is morally and legally on par with Russian expansion, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Steve

 

You didn't mention Kennan or Burns in any part of this, btw. I'm only bringing the realist perspective to the table. Returning to Russia is acting inappropriately is fine, I get that, but it wasn't exactly the point there.

 

25 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

If I choose, I can get the tankie view over on NakedCapitalism, which is basically the same rubbish you're spouting here. You're done.

 

I offered to discuss the matter on your terms, offering one of your own posts as a starting point. And the response to this is to call it (yourself?) rubbish, and that I am a tankie and a "naked capitalist" (I don't know this one).

 

 

Just now, Battlefront.com said:

Then let's do this.  Why don't you restate, in a cohesive manner, your point of view and why you are raising it now.  Because honestly, amidst the conspiracy theories, pro-Russian talking points, and "whataboutisms" you've been using I am honestly not sure what your point is any more.

Steve

 

Sure. Can you find me a single historian discussing the start of WWII who does not refer to the Versailles Treaty? No, right? Now, why is that? The invasion of Europe by Germany is, as an action, clearly black and white. German tanks go over the border, mayhem ensues. But things don't just happen out of thin air. Nobody would suggest it is right of 1939 Germany to go buckwild on account of the Versailles Treaty, yet one cannot quite place the whys and hows of Europe going from one world war to another without bringing up said treaty. If your sense of the world is simply that "things happen" and there is nothing but a vacuum around events, then we simply perceive things very, very differently.

[Holien]

Are we there yet!!!

[Astrophel]

49 minutes ago, kevinkin replacement said:

I don't think either side is 100% to blame when it comes to the road to war.

I disagree.  Russians are 100% to blame.  Perhaps not consciously because a lot of it is in their nature and driven by their historical perspective.  They like to dominate what they believe to be their space and it has been this way for a few hundred years.  They are always looking for someone to fight.

In my lifetime I do not know of any one serious thinker or politician on the western side who even engaged seriously with the prospect of invading and conquering russia.  The policy has been one of containment.  Even after the fall of the soviet union nobody seriously suggested taking over in russia, and it was NOT because we were afraid of the nukes. Nato is a DEFENSIVE alliance.  There are no protocols for attacking anybody.  We would not know how to organise an attack even.

So please stop playing the victim card.  There is only one victim currently and that victim is Ukraine.

[FlemFire]

1 minute ago, Astrophel said:

I disagree.  Russians are 100% to blame.  Perhaps not consciously because a lot of it is in their nature and driven by their historical perspective.  They like to dominate what they believe to be their space and it has been this way for a few hundred years.  They are always looking for someone to fight.

In my lifetime I do not know of any one serious thinker or politician on the western side who even engaged seriously with the prospect of invading and conquering russia.  The policy has been one of containment.  Even after the fall of the soviet union nobody seriously suggested taking over in russia, and it was NOT because we were afraid of the nukes. Nato is a DEFENSIVE alliance.  There are no protocols for attacking anybody.  We would not know how to organise an attack even.

So please stop playing the victim card.  There is only one victim currently and that victim is Ukraine.

 

"In their nature."

Are there any other ethnic groups for which you would like to use such phrasing? 

 

Please point out where I said Russia was a victim in this. Be very explicit with the highlighting. Also, if you wouldn't mind, please tell me your thoughts on Kennan's observations above. If China had a defensive alliance and they invited Mexico into it, would you still consider this defensive? Just curious.

 

I don't think NATO wants to invade a country filled to the brim with nukes and with a ruling class of ex-Cold War whackos, no. States bordering this country definitely should try and enter NATO, yes. If there is a cost to that, you have to analyze those costs very carefully. If Mexico were offered a seat at some fanciful Chinese defense alliance, their statesmen would also have to start doing calculations on whether or not that is a good idea. Nations around Mexico would be running similar analyses, judging whether or not they want a Chinese defense alliance on their doorstep. I don't see any controversy there, do you?

[Ales Dvorak]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

I don't expect to change his mind, but I do mean to demonstrate to the rest that we do not shut people down because they have a point of view that is contrarian.

And readers can use Splinty's method anytime they want.

[Beleg85]

2 hours ago, kevinkin replacement said:

He literally states the West stepped in and said no. The words could not be more clear.

I think we differ in interpretation what Israeli said here- perhaps in not small part due to hebraic being actually very difficult and imprecise language to communicate and translate (you can even see it observing both men talking here). Journalist says "So West blocked it", Bennet generally agrees ("They basically did, and at that time I thought it was wrong."), but immediatelly say in retrospect it is difficult to know if they were right (3:00:30+) or if reaching agreement was possible even if they have not curb it (3:02:10).

Also he several times mentions that West was not wrong in its more aggresive, pro-sovereign Ukraine approach (3:00:00), that US was distrustful of Putin (2:40), that rewarding thug too soon may indeed be bad idea (3:02:30, rather journo suggestion here) and that after initiall concessions of boths sides, negotiations started to loom and finally were closed after Bucha. Note that he only presents his point of view (negotiator), not pretending to judge whole process or knowing what was happening internally in Kiyv or Washington at that moment.

Of other interesting things may influence his expressions here: he is also admitting he had Israeli interests in mind during this crisis (2:32, may influence his perception if true) and underlines his role as 3rd party, thus speaks many times about his bond with Putin and how he trusted Russian president. He also claims Putin's "denazification" clearly meant killing Ukrainian president (and that was one of Putin's chief consession, other being reportedly some higher limits for post-agreement Ukrainian army that were to negotiation) and that Putin, while generally open in personal contacts, gets immediatelly irritated when Ukraine is mentioned (they are all Neo-nazis etc.)- another confirmation of his state of mind.

There is nothing particulary breaking or spectacular in this (rather chill-out) interview that we wouldn't know before; it basically overlaps well with other sources. We know USA/UK were convinced at that time Ukraine can get more from it than what would be initially negotiated  and that -after sides agreed upon on several points- Kyiv was ultimatelly too distrustful of Putin's intentions to make a deal.

2 hours ago, kevinkin replacement said:

The goals of the Russians are to functionally disable Ukraine, yes. Distrusting this is not the discussion, though. I agree that distrusting it is a perfectly viable reason to decline the offer. However, as I said earlier, the consequences are that the war then goes onward and you might end up at a worse bargaining position later. 

You can, but it is always a bet and Kyiv call. There are always pros and cons, like is always the case with such heavy decisions- everyone can be smart in retrospect. First year of this war showed that Russians failed to even properly encircle Kyiv, Ukrainians could and did repulse Russians in two successfull offensives, retook Kherson and hold lower Dnieper line and even crossed it, that RuAF took unbelievable amount of casualties and that even with firepower advantage muscovites cannot push the front beyond some village or small town; and even that by terrible cost. Hell, we almost saw Russian system of power close to crumbling during Prigozhin march- first such event faced by Putin ever.

Thnigs started to loom on Western and Ukriane side only in late phase of this war, circa after failure of Zaporizhia offensive. Perhaps West can put its sh**t together, or not- we will need to see. I seriously doubt that in the end Ukraine will be in worse position than being disarmed and served to Putin on a plate, saute and with sauce.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Beleg85

[FlemFire]

Just now, Beleg85 said:

There is nothing particulary breaking or spectacular in this (rather chill-out) interview that we wouldn't know before; it basically overlaps well with other sources. We know USA/UK were convinced at that time Ukraine can get more from it than what would be initially negotiated.

 

Just to balance this out a second, the dictation here is that it was the West's call. How you arrive at the conclusion can come any number of ways. As I said, a general distrust of Russia is sufficient (and unsurprising). But the point is that it was the West (Americans) who stepped in and put a stop to it. That's an important distinction because without the West's support this war would already be over, and with the West's support the war could theoretically be won, or it could be theoretically dragged out into a brutal quagmire, and then lost. It's more and more their responsibility from that point on. And this is why I bring up that it is all well and fine, on its surface, but in actuality the West does not have a historical record worth blindly trusting. When I see the West not going on a war footing, I start to ponder. When I see the West trickling in support, I start to ponder. 

 

Quote

 

You can, but it is always a bet and Kyiv call. There are always pros and cons, like is always the case with such heavy decisions- everyone can be smart in retrospect. First year of this war showed that Russians failed to even properly encircle Kyiv, Ukrainians could and did repulse Russians in two successfull offensives, retook Kherson and hold lower Dnieper line and even crossed it, that RuAF took unbelievable amount of casualties and that even with firepower advantage muscovites cannot push the front beyond some village or small town; and even that by terrible cost. Hell, we almost saw Russian system of power close to crumbling during Prigozhin march- first such event faced by Putin ever.

Thnigs started to loom on Western and Ukriane side only in late phase of this war, circa after failure of Zaporizhia offensive. Perhaps West can keep its sh**t together, or not- we will need to see. I seriously doubt that in the end Ukraine will be in worse position than being disarmed and served to Putin on a plate, saute and with sauce.

 

 

I suppose I disagree here because I'm not sure what expenditure of life is 'worth it.' People will eventually find out the casualties of this war and they will not be good. The economic situation is already quite clear. Pre-war, in its alignment with the West, how did Ukraine fare compared to Belarus, who is aligned with Russia? Is the tradeoff so grand as to be worth the expenditure? Is the expenditure worthwhile when you don't know if it will even conclude with your stated goals (a Ukraine with Russia off its back)? It is this latter point that sticks out to me.

I believe trying at the start is well and good. Nobody will shame an effort and there is far more dignity in resistance than rolling over. However, reality has to set in eventually. For a time I thought the economic damage and isolation to Russia was worth the cost of Ukraine's valiant effort, even if it failed, but I'm slowly realizing that maybe even this analysis is wrong, and that the West has inadvertently advertised its own weaknesses to the rest of the world -- meaning this conflict entails far more than Ukraine's future, but instead the future of the balance of power as a whole. When such a thing is tilting and swaying, the world, literally always, becomes vastly more chaotic and violent. Most people here have presumably lived the bulk of their lives in the unipolar status and so it is difficult to conceive of anything else.

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

13 minutes ago, kevinkin replacement said:

Just to balance this out a second, the dictation here is that it was the West's call.

But what was it calling?  Again, you are lacking context.  The West (led by the US) had three possible outcomes:

1.  sign a deal with Putin against Ukraine's wishes

2.  sign a deal with Putin with Ukraine's blessing

3.  leave it up to Ukraine with assurances that the West would push their weight in whichever direction Ukraine chose

From all that I've seen (not two cherry picked single guy saying something in a single interview) is that the US went into negotiations with Ukraine saying they didn't want to be dismembered.  In the end the West "walked out" because dismemberment was the only thing Russia was offering.

That fits all the facts, including the two sources you are stubbornly insist we focus on to the exclusion of everything else.  If that doesn't fit your conspiratorial concepts, well, that's your choice.

Steve

[danfrodo]

Well, KevinKin is having his fun.  he KNEW that UKR would fail this summer.  He's like a sports gambler that wins a bet and thinks he prophesied the result.  No, folks looked at data and made guesses, and a bunch of us guessed wrong.  We had good reasons for our guesses, but were wrong for lots of reasons (mines!, UKR not as good as we thought, defensive supremecy, etc).  And you were right, congrats, you are the smartest.  I was wrong about this summer, I thought UKR better and RU worse than they actually were.  

Now KevinKin thinks he knows everything about anything.  Good for him.  He must be having a good time.  Now we are being lectured in long screeds, which I now just skip, hoping for something more insightful & interesting to come along.

Meanwhile, in the war.... looks like a long slog.  Maybe UKR loses all the occupied territory because it just can't bust through and finally settles into some kind ceasefire w low grade violence sometimes along the line.  Maybe RU soldiers mutiny.  Maybe there's a coup in moscow.  Maybe zelensky is thrown out of power.  Lots of unknowns ahead.  Kevinkin, however, will tell us how all these unknowns will turn out, with complete certainty.  

 

[Astrophel]

1 hour ago, kevinkin replacement said:

Are there any other ethnic groups for which you would like to use such phrasing? 

You introduce the word ethnicity which is in itself provocative.  For me ethnicity is a cultural phenomenon.  To cite the American Heritage Dictionary: "Of, relating to, or characteristic of a group of people sharing a common cultural or national heritage and often sharing a common language or religion".

So yes there are other groups influenced by russian ethnicity - some 15-20% of Israelis share this heritage.  We are all familiar with Serbian sympathies.  Bulgarians are not far removed.

At the end of the day we all should take responsibility for our actions.  Ethnicity is not an excuse for setting up filtration centres, torture centres, brainwashing children, bombing hospitals, or genocidal intent.

To return from your engaging distraction, the russian "ethnicity" over the past few hundred years has regularly engaged in unreasonable domination of neighbours and cruelty.

Coincidentally I spoke today with a senior diplomat who spent several years in Moscow - "In russia human lives don't count" - she said.  This would seem to be true on current evidence and constitute a huge ethnic divide between them and us.

This war is 100% caused by russia - they invaded.  Your attempts to share the blame are frankly disgusting.

Sorry to talk about ethnicity, but you brought it up.

Edited December 15, 2023 by Astrophel

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, kevinkin replacement said:

You didn't mention Kennan or Burns in any part of this, btw. I'm only bringing the realist perspective to the table.

Except that it's horribly factually unrealistic.  Russia is an aggressive state to its core.  It is a dictatorship where the dictator has explicitly acted and openly stated that it wants to retake everything that was once under the Soviet Union's and Imperial Russia's thumb.  You don't seem to deny this, but for some odd reason you don't think it is relevant.

Look, I do understand that some people thought that NATO expansion was poking the bear.  Chamberlain thought that ignoring Nazi Germany's nature and giving in on Czechoslovakia was both reasonable and workable.  It was not.

And again, your cherry picked comments lack context.  Was NATO expansion like waiving a cape in front of a bull?  Absolutely.  But not waiving the cape doesn't mean the bull wasn't going to charge anyway.  That is where the anti-expansionist perspective has its fatal flaw.

To put it bluntly:

NATO expansion did not cause Russia to become an aggressive, expansionist state.  NATO expansion was the response to it being that way.  It can be *EASILY* argued that NATO expansion kept Russia's expansionist desires in check.  It is almost impossible to argue that absent NATO expansion Russia would have ceased being expansionist.

 

1 hour ago, kevinkin replacement said:

Sure. Can you find me a single historian discussing the start of WWII who does not refer to the Versailles Treaty? No, right? Now, why is that? The invasion of Europe by Germany is, as an action, clearly black and white. German tanks go over the border, mayhem ensues. But things don't just happen out of thin air. Nobody would suggest it is right of 1939 Germany to go buckwild on account of the Versailles Treaty, yet one cannot quite place the whys and hows of Europe going from one world war to another without bringing up said treaty. If your sense of the world is simply that "things happen" and there is nothing but a vacuum around events, then we simply perceive things very, very differently.

Equating independent nations voluntarily requesting to join a defensive arrangement to protect themselves from a foe that has dominated their lives for 100s of years is not in any way, shape, or form akin to the Treaty of Versailles.

The better analogy is the one I just made about Chamberlain's "Peace In Our Times" appeasement concepts.  At the time he did this Nazi Germany's path was already set for expansion.  Nothing was going to change that.  Similarly, NATO expansion was done after it was clear, to the likely victims, that it was only a matter of time before Russia came for them again.  The slaughter of Chechnya was ample evidence that the leopard had not changed its spots.

But you didn't answer my question.  I asked what your point was and to speak it clearly.  You still aren't doing that.

Steve

[Sunbather]

Haven't touched the thread since it was like 40 pages or so. All I see now is 10 people ganging up on 1 guy. If you think he's a troll why feed him? And to be honest, most of the responses to him are even poorer than his style of argumentation. Feels a bit like kindergarden around here.

1 hour ago, Astrophel said:

Perhaps not consciously because a lot of it is in their nature and driven by their historical perspective.

Saying something like this is wrong on so many levels. Even logically, this doesn't make sense. Is it their nature now or their historical perspective? Or is nature history and history is nature? So many questions...

****

But to actually contribute something: Black Sea module when?

Edited December 15, 2023 by Sunbather

[Battlefront.com]

14 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Well, KevinKin is having his fun.  he KNEW that UKR would fail this summer.  He's like a sports gambler that wins a bet and thinks he prophesied the result.  No, folks looked at data and made guesses, and a bunch of us guessed wrong.  We had good reasons for our guesses, but were wrong for lots of reasons (mines!, UKR not as good as we thought, defensive supremecy, etc).  And you were right, congrats, you are the smartest.  I was wrong about this summer, I thought UKR better and RU worse than they actually were.  

Now KevinKin thinks he knows everything about anything.  Good for him.  He must be having a good time.  Now we are being lectured in long screeds, which I now just skip, hoping for something more insightful & interesting to come along.

Meanwhile, in the war.... looks like a long slog.  Maybe UKR loses all the occupied territory because it just can't bust through and finally settles into some kind ceasefire w low grade violence sometimes along the line.  Maybe RU soldiers mutiny.  Maybe there's a coup in moscow.  Maybe zelensky is thrown out of power.  Lots of unknowns ahead.  Kevinkin, however, will tell us how all these unknowns will turn out, with complete certainty.  

 

Note that the one bandying about his name is not Kevinkin.  It is someone else who changed his account name after something The_Capt said.

On that note, I am now asking that "kevinkin replacement" either revert to his previous name or come up with something different.  It is not respectful nor useful to use someone else's name in such a way.  This is a "request" in name only.  I will change the name if it doesn't happen without my assistance.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, Sunbather said:

Haven't touched the thread since it was like 40 pages or so. All I see now is 10 people ganging up on 1 guy. If you think he's a troll why feed him? And to be honest, the responses to him are even poorer than his style of argumentation.

He's borderline troll and it is useful to kick rubbish arguments to the curb every so often instead of just letting them fester.  Because he's on that fine line there's definitely a lack of patience with his method of argument.  The alternative is banning him without countering his line of argument.

3 minutes ago, Sunbather said:

Saying something like this is wrong on so many levels.

The facts don't seem to support your position.  How else do you explain hundreds of thousands of Russians willingly volunteering to die in a war of choice against in a country that posed no threat to it?  How do you square this with Russians willing to do this even after several hundred of their fellow citizens have died or been maimed?

We've discussed the nature of Russian culture here in detail.  You skipped those discussions.  Your choice.

3 minutes ago, Sunbather said:

But to actually contribute something: Black Sea module when?

No new announcements at this time.  Previous announcement was there would be no expansion of Black Sea while this war is going on.  It is still going, so that's your answer.

Steve

[Astrophel]

15 minutes ago, Sunbather said:

Is it their nature now or their historical perspective? Or is nature history and history is nature? So many questions

Nature or nurture?  On the DNA level we are all pretty much Homo Sapiens Sapiens, so we are talking mostly nurture.  Russian culture today is the culmination of a 1000 plus years of contorted growth, influenced by a nasty climate, oppressive rulers, and shortages as a way of life.

I can't imagine anybody here in Netherlands rushing off to war with intent to rape the women and children and loot a refrigerator.  Perhaps it is different where you live.

 

[FlemFire]

29 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

 In the end the West "walked out" because dismemberment was the only thing Russia was offering.

Just responding to this part because it's the only part that is remotely relevant. Note, the West walked out. You words, truth to power. That's all you need to know. It is the West's guiding hand which thereafter leads to full-out conventional war, therefore it is very much the West's responsibility to handle it appropriately. Is the West handling it appropriately? No, not in my opinion. If it were Western people dying, then so be it. But the one paying the piper is a 3rd party which makes this endeavor especially cruel to me. 

 

15 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Look, I do understand that some people thought that NATO expansion was poking the bear. 

 

You characterized my opinions as conspiracy. I gave you George Kennan, the guy who literally designed the containment policy against Russia. Now you recategorize the opinion as being held by "some people." I guess that's an improvement. You're free to disagree, but perhaps do so without flinging insults first.

 

Quote

And again, your cherry picked comments lack context.  Was NATO expansion like waiving a cape in front of a bull?  Absolutely.  But not waiving the cape doesn't mean the bull wasn't going to charge anyway.  That is where the anti-expansionist perspective has its fatal flaw.

I don't disagree, but unfortunately we do not live in that world. The world we do live in is in a state of war so we know to a certainty where one path leads. People like Kennan believed that Russia should have been brought into the Western fold. Russia was not a expansionist dictatorship when he was making those comments. Oligarchs were ruling the wastelands and Russia was a criminal hellhole with barely a pulse. There's a reason why some people see Putin's ascent as blowback against the West's treatment of a defeated Russia. I'm of the opinion that Russia could have been in the Western fold. How do I know this? Because we flattened two other nations completely and turned them into allies. We killed millions of Vietnamese, yet they became an ally. By now of course this is all pointless, the horse is pretty far out of the barn and the only reconciliation of it would be for China to start a war and Russia to turn their back on them. Putin would become Uncle Putin so fast our heads would spin. 

 

 

Quote

The better analogy is the one I just made about Chamberlain's "Peace In Our Times" appeasement concepts.  At the time he did this Nazi Germany's path was already set for expansion. 

 

Yes, it was set for expansion because of the Treaty. When the war was concluded, what did the people look to so as to asses what not to do? The Treaty. The cogs were well in motion before Chamberlain said a word. We all know this now. So why is it that when Keynes assesses a post-WWI Germany, he sees it as a mistake to be punitive and that inclusivity is the path to peace; but if we apply such metrics to a post-Soviet Russia it's suddenly conspiracy? Keynes going "uh oh" about the Treaty is all well and good, but Kennan going "uh oh" about NATO expansion is flirting with conspiracy. Doesn't track with me. But this is going in circles, both sides are clear I believe.

 

Quote

But you didn't answer my question.  I asked what your point was and to speak it clearly.  You still aren't doing that.

There are multiple discussions going on with various points so you will have to be more specific here.

I'll think of a name change. I changed it initially out of lightheartedness. I don't know who kevin at all, amusingly.