Russia-Ukrainian War

[Viking]

30 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

Mearsheimer has a very selective interpretation of facts as it relates Putin, imo.

Great description of this guy. He has a simple, narrow narrative that appeals to lots of people (simple narratives are a must for the masses… repetition too…). He finds lots of facts to support his simple narrative (very easy). And ignores everything else… the other 70% that refutes his narrative.  I find i learn next to nothing when i listen to Mearsheimer. He is a dog with a bone. And i am not looking to get brainwashed… There are lots of other great sources of information out there. 

[changegonnacome]

40 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

I don’t speak  Russian is not good enough to do primary search, but here is his famous “white paper” from 2021, clear as mud:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Historical_Unity_of_Russians_and_Ukrainians

 

 

http://www.en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181 

 

Yep I linked to that very white paper above your reply......a primary source......wikipedia link unsurprisingly is omitting the section where he speaks to Ukraine's self-determination.......we all suffer from propaganda problems wherever you are .......have a read of the primary document from the Kremlin.....and translated into English by them for accuracy.

 

That wikipedia link is a great example of primary sources being put through a Western intreptation meat grinder....all the qualifications  are removed and the article portrayed in its worst light......the Wikipedia article on the essay and the essay itself....suggest you give it a read

[Viking]

28 minutes ago, changegonnacome said:

 

I gave you the motivation for the invasion...counter to the consensus narratives of Putin the imperialist............to say it hasn't worked out is an understatement.....clearly.....my thread has been focused on the cause, motivations and reason for the invasion on Feb 21st....and what precipitated it.

 

Have a read of what I wrote...you've misunderstood what I've said.....and mischaracterized it.

 

Can I ask @Viking do you think that the West courting Ukraine to be a close alley, even hanging out NATO membership might have played even a small part in antagonizing Russia, its 800ilb gorilla neighbor with nukes. Might't

 

I also explained why Belarus/Ukraine.....remain a special case and a redline re: NATO....Finland/Sweden joining NATO would not have triggered an invastion the same way a pathway to Ukraine joinig NATO would.....and its to do with a land invasion from Central Europe.....its how Russia dies, if it ever dies....its certainly how Russia most recently nearly died in WWII:

 

With all due respect i think you are way overthinking this thing. The simplest answer is usually the right one. Why did Putin do it? Because he thought he could get away with it. He miscalculated. And now he and Russia is screwed. 
 

Why does any dictator do anything? Might is right. Hunger for more. Legacy. Hubris. A toxic combination. I love history (and Russian history). Putin is simply trying to do do what many Russian leaders before him have tried in previous centuries. The problem for Putin was even before the war in Ukraine, Russia was already a corpse of an empire. Like i said above, he miscalculated. And all he has done with his catastrophic invasion is expose how rotten Russia really is to the rest of the world and accelerated the country’s decline. Empires disappear all the time. Just look up ‘Ottoman’ or ‘Austro-Hungarian’ or ‘British’ or ‘German’. And when they disappear most do not go quietly into the night… their leaders often do really stupid things (like trying to return to the ‘good old days’) to hasten the end.

Edited June 9, 2023 by Viking

[Spekulatius]

2 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

 

 

http://www.en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181 

 

Yep I linked to that very white paper above your reply......a primary source......wikipedia link unsurprisingly is omitting the section where he speaks to Ukraine's self-determination.......we all suffer from propaganda problems wherever you are .......have a read of the primary document from the Kremlin.....and translated into English by them for accuracy.

 

That wikipedia link is a great example of primary sources being put through a Western intreptation meat grinder....all the qualifications  are removed and the article portrayed in its worst light......the Wikipedia article on the essay and the essay itself....suggest you give it a read

This  Kremlin document exactly confirms that he does not think that Ukraine is an indeed a separate county or what do you think “one people” means ore Putin. Everything in Ukraine that did not go his way like the Maiden Revolution is interpreted as western intervention.

 

It is pretty clear to me that the Invasions was planned in mid 2021. My assumption comes from exactly this document as well as the fact that Putin started to throttle Russian NG deliveries to  Europe at about that time and ran the NG storage low, Russia controlled the infrastructure and even NG storage facilities etc in Europe so they could do that and not a lot of people were paying attention.  I think it was in preparation of his plan for and invasion, because it made it easier for him to energy black mail Europe or so he thought. Another plan that failed as we can see from the NG wholesale prices.

 

The paper from Duquesne goes into detail into Mearsheimer’s interpretation too as well as the excuses to gain influence and control of neighboring states to “protect” Russian minorities there even though there is no evidence that they are discriminated against.

 

I guess I could go on and on, but at this point this whack a mole is not worth my time. I think I have spent far more time to story the actual history of Ukraine and Russia than most here, not that it makes me and expert,  it I reserve my right to have an informed opinion that is not driven by “western propaganda”.

Edited June 10, 2023 by Spekulatius

[John Hjorth]

I highly appreciate the ongoing discussion in this topic, where variant perceptions etc. are discussed based a pratice of mutual respect among the participants. It's simply not possible not to become less ignorant by reading the stuff in this topic. Thank you to you all participating and contributing.

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

No matter how to look at it, in short, it's frigging ugly.

 

It's weekend - saturday , and at least here, the weather is beautiful - the summer has arrived! 

 

So something nice here for the mind - and the eye :

 

"Know that you know nothing, that is the highest wisdom.

 

Often what we know is actually temporary knowledge, waiting to be updated in the future by more complete knowledge.

 

When the facts change, change your minds.

 

Be a true beginner, have strong convictions, but loosely held.

 

Let your mind be like water, be formless, and shapeless. Take the shape of the vessel water it is in. Let it flow, let it go."

 

 

Eugine Ng,

Investor, author, angel. Ex-JPM and Citi

Edited June 10, 2023 by John Hjorth

[changegonnacome]

12 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

This  Kremlin document exactly confirms that he does not think that Ukraine is an indeed a separate county or what do you think “one people” means ore Putin

 

Indeed as I said - you can pull lines from that July paper totally consistent with the invading & swallowing Ukraine whole theory. But you've got two problems. The first is a math problem - 250,000 men is not sufficient to capture & occupy a city the size of Kyiv let alone Ukraine....when folks start positing the plan was to take Ukraine whole with 250,000 men I question the very fundamental basis of that idea. This theory collapses in relation to the standing armies size End of story and irrefutable. Ukraine's territory is 233,000 square miles, it is a vast country. The army of Feb 2022 was not assembled to invade, occupy & conquer Ukraine whole...if i was to guess its job was shock and awe tactic to Ukrainian electorate and attempting to topple Zelensky's government with a rapid drive to Kyiv. Installing a Russian puppet administration is what everybody says was the plan.....which maybe it was....I guess if I continue to play devil's advocate here.....Russia would say the aim first step was to remove the US's Zelensky puppet government. We in the West always fail to think that we too can be the owners of puppet governments. We are the good guys. We don't have or have never had puppet governments in foreign places furthering our strategic aims in any region?

 

The second problem with the July 2021 Putin document that nobody talks about & is never mentioned on your Wikipedia link for example because it introduces complexity into 'our' narrative are things in it like the concluding paragraph:

 

"Today, these words may be perceived by some people with hostility. They can be interpreted in many possible ways. Yet, many people will hear me. And I will say one thing – Russia has never been and will never be ”anti-Ukraine“. And what Ukraine will be – it is up to its citizens to decide."

 

You've also got in that document - lets call it the 'Cuba argument' below.......that Ukraine, on the doorstep of Russia, was slowly becoming a puppet regime for the USA......I wonder what a puppet regime would look like?......perhaps one when where the President of the United States (Trump) was so confident in the asymmetry of the bilateral relationship that the US President felt comfortable instructing a President of another sovereign nation to investigate his US political domestic rival? This is EXACTLY what a puppet regime relationship looks like? No?

 

"Russia is open to dialogue with Ukraine and ready to discuss the most complex issues. But it is important for us to understand that our partner is defending its national interests but not serving someone else's, and is not a tool in someone else's hands to fight against us."

 

I'm playing devils advocate here to a certain extent for sure. I totally agree with you @Viking whatever Putin's intent he completely miscalculated on just about every front possible...its been a disaster. It will go down as one of the great strategic blunders of any nations leader. However, I believe I'm right in one central point, Ukraine (& Belarus) are Putin's redlines in regards to Western 'encroachment' into Russia national security.....for through Ukraine & Belarus territories..as my WWII map shows......is how Russia on its Western flank would ever lose its sovereignty to an invading land army. Ukraine & Belarus's neutrality (neutered even) is Russia's equivalent of the Monroe doctrine. I can't put it more simply than that.

 

Ukraine is never joining NATO no matter what the politicians say......cause Russia's NATO redline is backed up by existentialist survival & paranoia underpinned by a credible threat to escalate beyond where the EU/US would ever be willing to take it.....you dont win in those types of escalation cycles....ask Khrushchev.........the stakes are higher for Russia.......the EU/US's desire to see Ukraine join the EU/NATO is based in liberal ideals. Then there is the question of Ukrainian agency & self-determination in all this I hear you say....which is true....but these ideas are routed in a kind of western liberalism idealism too......for example can I ask where was Cuba's right to its own agency, freedom & self-determination when it agreed with another sovereign nation (USSR) to a security arrangement to provide weapons/nukes to it.

 

Idealism is a currency spent in distant places.......realism, like when US security & sovereignty took precedence over Cuban security & sovereignty....is a currency spent at home.

[changegonnacome]

Enjoyed the back and forth @Spekulatius @Viking @John Hjorth we wont flog it anymore.....I'm playing devils advocate here a bit for sure......but whats the Munger phrase....."Tell me what your problem is and I’ll try and make it more difficult for you"

 

This problem in Ukraine/Russia is way more complex than the good guys (us) and the bullies/monster (them)......the commentary you see in the press completely divorces the difficult question I've raised of superseding sovereignty of powerful nations over less powerful ones ...the fact that we in the West have our own versions of Puppet regimes I know can anathema to hear......I know you guys get that......and let me sign off on this topic for a bit with my hope......that Ukraine crushes Russia in this counter-offensive & the Russians are begging for a peace deal by year end.

 

[Spekulatius]

More on Nordstream - it’s less and less likely that the Russians blew up the pipeline:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/nord-stream-sabotage-probe-turns-to-clues-inside-poland-4ed20422?mod=hp_lead_pos2

[John Hjorth]

The Wikipedia article about it on the main Wikipedia page [.org domain] in English adds up facts and observations about the event nicely, I think.

 

2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage.

 

It's to me kind of a fascinating Wikipedia page, because what's indicated by each single observation simply cant add up to one truth. Highly fishy odor.

 

Also take the map in the article :

 

 

Thousands of kms of gas pipelines in Ukraine. How much have we heard about them in relation to this armed conflict?

[Spekulatius]

Russians shooting Russians. There is no retreat:

https://twitter.com/WotowiecMarek/status/1668232997672288257?s=20

 

[John Hjorth]

Ref. my talk upstream about Wind Power assets and O&G assets in the North Sea, at the Benelux shores and in the Nordic Waters I stumbled yesterday on an article about UK taking intiative to a new security pact bewteen the EU and UK related to to new security measures for all all these assets. It was an article from The Telegraph, but subsription protected. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find something similar about it, that is not subscription protected, so no link/source here from me.

Edited June 12, 2023 by John Hjorth

[Xerxes]

On 6/10/2023 at 6:41 PM, Spekulatius said:

More on Nordstream - it’s less and less likely that the Russians blew up the pipeline:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/nord-stream-sabotage-probe-turns-to-clues-inside-poland-4ed20422?mod=hp_lead_pos2

clues in Poland !! Wow 

 

I promise not to take a victory parade and point out that I called out Poland as a potential culprit within 48 hours after it happened. (Not Russia, nor US and definitely not Germans)

Edited June 12, 2023 by Xerxes

[Xerxes]

On 6/7/2023 at 4:29 PM, cubsfan said:

So well put. Sullivan is a real puppet.

cheers.
 

The golden age days of Kissinger and Nixon running a realpolitik foreign policy and skipping the bureaucrats in the US State Department  is long gone. 

 

incidentally, Kissinger turned 100 in late May and did a 8 hours interview withThe Economist. I read the article but not the interview. 
 

There must be a strong correlation between longevity and keeping one mind’ occupied. 

[Castanza]

33 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

clues in Poland !! Wow 

 

I promise not to take a victory parade and point out that I called out Poland as a potential culprit within 48 hours after it happened. (Not Russia, nor US and definitely not Germans)

 Stil boggles my mind this was ever debated US and Poland were the obvious two answers. You’ve got CIA, SEALs or GROM (worked with US extensively during GWOT); two of which specialize and have done this exact thing in the past. 
 

Pres. Biden: "If Russia invades...then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."

 

Reporter: "But how will you do that, exactly, since...the project is in Germany's control?"

 

Biden: "I promise you, we will be able to do that."

 

Source: ABC News https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1490792461979078662

[John Hjorth]

Thank you for a great one here, @Castanza!

[Xerxes]

34 minutes ago, Castanza said:

 Stil boggles my mind this was ever debated US and Poland were the obvious two answers. You’ve got CIA, SEALs or GROM (worked with US extensively during GWOT); two of which specialize and have done this exact thing in the past. 
 

Pres. Biden: "If Russia invades...then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."

 

Reporter: "But how will you do that, exactly, since...the project is in Germany's control?"

 

Biden: "I promise you, we will be able to do that."

 

Source: ABC News https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1490792461979078662

i should come clean and say that the thought that the Romulans (with their cloaking technology) where behind this did cross my mind. 
 

The Nord Stream saga has been like a convoluted Star Trek spycraft episode, where the authors let their pens run wild 

[Gregmal]

This whole war has been a great and amusing exercise in highlighting the bias of Western reporting. US GOOD, THEM BAD! How many sources and people and outlets said Russia was responsible for the pipeline? Or the Kremlin drone attack? Or the totally fabricated “ghost of Kiev”…Anything to keep billing the US taxpayer for this political game being played.

Edited June 12, 2023 by Gregmal

[Xerxes]

On 6/9/2023 at 7:04 PM, Viking said:

 

Clearly i am an idiot. ‘Ounce of prevention’? Seriously? What have they prevented? And check out the ‘tonne of cure’ below… that is a cure? Seriously? 

 

So Russia decided to invade a sovereign country because of the risk of nukes getting placed there. As a result of their actions, they also are now directly responsible for:

1.) forcing Finland to join Nato. Hello nukes very close. FYI, Finland is about the same distance from Moscow as Ukraine (in rocket terms).

2.) forcing Sweden to join Nato. The Baltic Sea now belongs to Nato.
3.) revitalizing Nato, which was crumbling and close to becoming obsolete before the invasion.
4.) forcing all countries in Europe to aggressively re-arm, including big ones like Germany. So in the coming years Russia is going to be surrounded by hostile and armed to the teeth neighbours. (Yes, people in Europe get hostile when they see the atrocities of what Russia is doing to Ukraine today).

5.) killing to date 20,000 of its own citizens (Russians!) with 100,000 casualties (Russians!)

6.) materially impairing the living standard of most Russians, likely for a generation

7.) materially impairing the future prospects of most Russian children

8.) forcing hundreds of thousands of young Russian men to flee the country to avoid fighting in the war

9.) economically speaking, has effectively become China’s concubine

 

Man looks to me like Russia just nailed it with this invasion. My list above is just scratching the surface of what they have ‘achieved’. 

 

 

United Kingdom and France largely lost their global empires and their military prowess and became economic concubines to the US (unwillingly) but perhaps the second war was something worth fighting for (and dying for; as long as it is in the past and I am not doing the dying part).
 

Britain had a choice to share the continent with Germany and Hitler had deep historical respect for Britain’ world dominion. At least before they refuse to do his bidding. But Britain chose not to. While Nazi do make great cast of villains in movies, there was nothing romantic about UK standing up to it in the calculus of power being contemplated in London. Simple fact is Britain always played the weaker actor in continental Europe against emerging powers in the continent and watched the firework across the English Channel. 
 

How is that for a scorecard !!  Losing an empire to keep the geopolitical calculus in its favour and maintaining Anglo-Saxon hegemony. They have even tried to claw back their “empire” and influence in the 1950s. 
 

Wars are very seldom good for both sides. only winners are merchants of death and historians (hungry for fresh content). 
 

Fast forward to today :

 

Both Russia and Ukraine are both losers on this one. I can romanticize the Ukrainian side and say  “Ukraine gained its identity in the fires of Feb 2022”. But who am I to make that comment. Some Canadian living in a land, protected by two large body of waters and the Americans (a close ally) to the south with the House of Stark to the North. 
 

Ukrainians don’t need my validation of them “forging their identity in the fires of Feb 2022”. They have been around for centuries in one form or another. 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Xerxes

[cubsfan]

20 hours ago, Gregmal said:

This whole war has been a great and amusing exercise in highlighting the bias of Western reporting. US GOOD, THEM BAD! How many sources and people and outlets said Russia was responsible for the pipeline? Or the Kremlin drone attack? Or the totally fabricated “ghost of Kiev”…Anything to keep billing the US taxpayer for this political game being played.

 

Yeah, I got a problem with lot of this too. Do you back a tyrant or a corrupt Ukraine gov?  

Seems the notion that Ukraine was behind the Nordstream has some validity and it was always difficult to understand why Russia would take out their own pipeline when they could just shut it off.

 

Lots of smoke and mirrors playing out.  Lesser of two evils I guess...hard to be more evil than Putin.

[Gregmal]

11 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

Yeah, I got a problem with lot of this too. Do you back a tyrant or a corrupt Ukraine gov?  

Seems the notion that Ukraine was behind the Nordstream has some validity and it was always difficult to understand why Russia would take out their own pipeline when they could just shut it off.

 

Lots of smoke and mirrors playing out.  Lesser of two evils I guess...hard to be more evil than Putin.

Yea we all know the real reason for the Ukraine support rests with Burisma and is more about creating sideshows and distractions. Personally, this isn’t our problem stop wasting our taxpayer funds fanning the flames. Ukraine is a corrupt dump and Russia is Russia. What’s the end game? Another Iran/Iraq situation lol? That worked wonders despite us doing everything we wanted there for two decades. US needs to leave everyone else alone. 

[changegonnacome]

3 hours ago, Xerxes said:

Simple fact is Britain always played the weaker actor in continental Europe against emerging powers in the continent and watched the firework across the English Channel. 

Yep Britain, was a highly unusual global superpower in 1800 & early 1900’s when it dominated the globe …..in that it chose in some respects not to first completely dominate & consolidate power in its local region (Europe) first before playing further afield in Asia, Africa & the Americas. This is not the global hegemon playbook….America is an example of the standard playbook….dominating and putting down anything approaching a peer competitor in North America before embarking on expansionary influence adventures in different regions (Europe first, then Asia).

 

China of course at the start of its power journey first must dominate & control Asia….which is what makes Taiwan a kind of inevitability over time.  Imagine a USA that never expelled the French from the South - it’s unthinkable that a rising global power wouldn’t be a regional hegemon first and it’s simply unthinkable that China could be regional hegemon without complete and utter control of an island that sits 100 miles of its coast. 

 

I digress - back to Britain…..Its navy, ocean power and island geography made it regionally secure at a high level even though its region contained a number of peer competitors. Its security shield was both the ocean/navy….but also that those peer competitors on the continent were constantly warring with each other anyway and constantly destroying one anothers military capability. They rarely through their various cycles of destruction did France or Germany ever rise to a level that truly threatened Britain's security in this period. However In World War Two what emerged in Germany was the potential for a single regional hegemon in Europe, that through its consolidation of European nations resources & war machines had aspirations to cross the channel and conquer Great Britain. In short Britain had no choice but to enter WWII & likewise again in WWI….this type of self-interest is propagandized & alchemized by nations into acts of bravery and valor but every historical account of the people in the room that declare war on another nation do so from a place of deep deep self interest and are recorded doing so by historians when they check the primary records.….what comes AFTER these acts of deep self-interest that result in wars almost immediately are the JUSTIFICATIONS for war aimed at gaining public and moral support......you know the ones, you've heard them before tales of liberation & spreading freedom and democracy. There are small notable exceptions to what I just said ("just wars") but there are no big exceptions....…it’s realism, pragmatism and dogged self-interest that drive the big moves in major international conflicts. The British hate the French yet ended up fighting two world wars beside them. Not because the British love French Onion soup but because like all nations they love themselves. End of story.

 

I see Ukraine and Americas involvement there in the region through this prism.

Edited June 13, 2023 by changegonnacome

[Xerxes]

1 hour ago, changegonnacome said:

Yep Britain, was a highly unusual global superpower in 1800 & early 1900’s when it dominated the globe …..in that it chose in some respects not to first completely dominate & consolidate power in its local region (Europe) first before playing further afield in Asia, Africa & the Americas. This is not the global hegemon playbook….America is an example of the standard playbook….dominating and putting down anything approaching a peer competitor in North America before embarking on expansionary influence adventures in different regions (Europe first, then Asia).

 

China of course at the start of its power journey first must dominate & control Asia….which is what makes Taiwan a kind of inevitability over time.  Imagine a USA that never expelled the French from the South - it’s unthinkable that a rising global power wouldn’t be a regional hegemon first and it’s simply unthinkable that China could be regional hegemon without complete and utter control of an island that sits 100 miles of its coast. 

 

I digress - back to Britain…..Its navy, ocean power and island geography made it regionally secure at a high level even though its region contained a number of peer competitors. Its security shield was both the ocean/navy….but also that those peer competitors on the continent were constantly warring with each other anyway and constantly destroying one anothers military capability. They rarely through their various cycles of destruction did France or Germany ever rise to a level that truly threatened Britain's security in this period. However In World War Two what emerged in Germany was the potential for a single regional hegemon in Europe, that through its consolidation of European nations resources & war machines had aspirations to cross the channel and conquer Great Britain. In short Britain had no choice but to enter WWII & likewise again in WWI….this type of self-interest is propagandized & alchemized by nations into acts of bravery and valor but every historical account of the people in the room that declare war on another nation do so from a place of deep deep self interest and are recorded doing so by historians when they check the primary records.….what comes AFTER these acts of deep self-interest that result in wars almost immediately are the JUSTIFICATIONS for war aimed at gaining public and moral support......you know the ones, you've heard them before tales of liberation & spreading freedom and democracy. There are small notable exceptions to what I just said ("just wars") but there are no big exceptions....…it’s realism, pragmatism and dogged self-interest that drive the big moves in major international conflicts. The British hate the French yet ended up fighting two world wars beside them. Not because the British love French Onion soup but because like all nations they love themselves. End of story.

 

I see Ukraine and Americas involvement there in the region through this prism.

totally agree (or mostly).
 

in my view, Berlin was going to be the Rome to Britain’s Carthage “old power”. Unlike the three Punic Wars that ended with destruction of “old power”, the three German Wars (Franco-Prussian, WW1 and WW2) had the outcome of Carthage keeping status quo and Berlin (Rome-that-was-not) being burned into ground. 

 

Germany, its resources and massive industrial capacity was just too big of a threat for the Old Europe and its status quo. 

these days however we are in the age of Netflixization of geopolitics. Good guys vs bad guys. 

[Xerxes]

2 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

Yep Britain, was a highly unusual global superpower in 1800 & early 1900’s when it dominated the globe …..in that it chose in some respects not to first completely dominate & consolidate power in its local region (Europe) first before playing further afield in Asia, Africa & the Americas. This is not the global hegemon playbook…. 

by the way. I don’t see that as highly unusual. Nor as a pre-conceived plan for global domination. British empire was very similar to its two predecessors. Namely Portuguese and Dutch empires. 
 

it is the product of their geographical location being at the edge of world. Their need to build a network of commercial interests because how isolated they were and lacked natural resources. 
 

their geographical location greatly helped them to shield themselves from massive geopolitical upheavals in the continental Europe. And in UK’ case, the English Channel gave that that extra natural barrier, (or moat in Buffett’ talk) that even the Portuguese and the Dutch didn’t have. 
 

the Dutch innovation in banking and credit, was later championed by Britain, which allowed to punch above it weight during the Napoleonic wars, in contrast to a more mercantilist society in the continental Europe. Equally importantly though it is that free market entrepreneurial thinking that gave that tailwind. 
 

Peter the Great conceived, planned and built an empire all in one generation. 
 

Britian’ global domination was built and reinforced over centuries, totally unplanned but ever-compounding.
 

It was truly the Berkshire of its time !! 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Xerxes

[changegonnacome]

29 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

these days however we are in the age of Netflixization of geopolitics. Good guys vs bad guys. 

 

Well.......good guys v. bad guys narrative is kinda an ancient trick...we wont credit netlfix or CNN or Fox news with it...that would be giving them too much credit!.........the ruling elite of any powerful nation........and certainly one engaging in an offensive war in a different region or when it itself has not been directly attacked by another nations.........requires a much better narrative to sell to its populous than simply the truth...which is this is a war concerned with the long term strategic maneuvering of our position in the world's security architecture......see Vietnam, the Korean war, Iraq, Ukraine etc......these things require a much grander & emotive narrative of good vs. evil.... especially when dollars AND US lives are at stake......such that they can be packaged and sold effectively to the electorate. Political consensus in D.C. for forevers wars is kind of a function of (1) knowing that a great power should play in foreign regions to thwart or slow the rise of others powers - its kind of in the job description of global super power to do so! & (2) its a function of being so intertwined with the military industrial complex......at worst distant foreign wars are like juiced up military exercises where your defense industry gets to try out new killing toys on the battlefield, drum up some demos & case studies....and sell the tech to allies.

[John Hjorth]

Things appear gradually over time to show cracks in Putins ruling system and chain of command, likely created by subcontracting in the first place with a person [and his folks] that appears more of a thug, gangster and war criminal than the man himself.

 

Reuters [June 11 2023] : Prigozhin says Wagner will not sign contracts with Russia defence minister.

 

Don't be surprised if we one day see this man [Prigozhin] shift side like another turncout, -Well, Ukraine is so corrupt, and has recieved tons of outside help in the form cash [, also!]  since the war started. Why not! - and just saying.