ValueMaven Posted August 25 Posted August 25 Think about how weak the Russian military is! This has truly been an amazing insight for NATO/China and even Iran! Poorly trained, weak chain of command and very poor operational expertise. This has been one of the best investments for the USA. Not a single American solider has died - yet the Russian Army has been weakened/killed by at least 300-400,000. Regan would never have believed it! I wonder why other anti-Russian areas like Georgia, Chechnya fighters, and even some of the former Soviet countries have yet to rally together publicly agaisnt this and even start to attack Russia directly!
John Hjorth Posted August 25 Posted August 25 20 minutes ago, Spekulatius said: My guess is that those Russian that do care and have some education will leave the country. People are a countries biggest resource by far, so the brain drain will just slowly bleed out Russia in the long run. ... Yes, combine that with the stongly gender biased [male] crash in the total population within certain age brackets [young , but adult age] caused by the casualties of the ongoing war. On the long perspective, the flee of the youth to a better life elsewhere with better living conditions and opportunities will be Putins absolutely worst adversary long term forward. He is pretty much without any real kind of counter measures, based on what he himself has decided - limited himself to - to keep in his toolbox. It's really depressing to think about.
cubsfan Posted August 25 Posted August 25 2 hours ago, ValueMaven said: Think about how weak the Russian military is! This has truly been an amazing insight for NATO/China and even Iran! Poorly trained, weak chain of command and very poor operational expertise. This has been one of the best investments for the USA. Not a single American solider has died - yet the Russian Army has been weakened/killed by at least 300-400,000. Regan would never have believed it! I wonder why other anti-Russian areas like Georgia, Chechnya fighters, and even some of the former Soviet countries have yet to rally together publicly agaisnt this and even start to attack Russia directly! That would be a tall order for Georgia, etc - perhaps a guerrilla war again. But Russia has complete air superiority and vast artillery resources. Those areas have none. War could be waged in the country side, but not the cities/towns.
RichardGibbons Posted August 25 Posted August 25 7 hours ago, Luke said: Freedom of speech is limited yes, whatever, doesn't matter to the large majority which is politically relatively uninterested. This cracks me up. Putin murders a bunch of people who speak out against him politically, then Luke explains that free speech is relatively unnecessary because the large majority is politically relatively uninterested. Can't imagine why the large majority of people would be politically uninterested after seeing their politically interested friends murdered....
changegonnacome Posted August 25 Author Posted August 25 8 hours ago, Luke said: The US wouldn't accept 1/10th of what they did with ukraine if China would do it in Canada, Mexico or whatever. Precisely......nationalism creates a cognitive blind spot in most everybody...you can see it on this thread..very little self-reflection on any role we in the West may have played.....we are completely innocent benign participants.........of course our nation's intentions are always good...yet everything Russia/Iran/China does however benign (weather balloons perhaps) is really part of some wider nefarious plot to get us. In the case of Ukraine of course we only wanted to help them join the 'West'....and in Ukraine's case I'm going to say that chiefly the motivation was indeed a do gooder one....that the US 'project' in Ukraine was that of a kind of evangelical liberal democratic project...it meant no ill intent towards Russia..that it pissed them off was kind of a bonus though......the issue of course....is not whether your intentions are benign or not...once you edge up to your chief rivals borders.......your rival, who's main concern is existential survival....is ultimately forced due to that existentialism (which is at the root of national security)....to interpret benign moves as really acts of conspiratorial aggression.....when the stakes are as high as they are in international security......your action interpretation options boil down to one answer....whatever is happening here is part of wider plot to destroy our country and way of life. The old story of Europe (except Nazi germany) is waves of increased defense spending...predominantly benign in nature....triggering paranoia in your neighbour....which leads to a ratcheting of spend and with it even greater suspicion.....and where at a certain point one rival decides that actually the best next defensive move is a good offensive one and pulls the trigger on an overt act of aggression which escalates. The second misjudgment apart from the very common and more understood nationalism blind spot.....and I see it oft repeated in this thread....is the Hitler effect......its analogues to what someone recently called the Amazon effect in investing....the tendency to see a future Amazon everywhere .......which drives a lot of growth investing optimism. The reality - Amazon is a deeply unusual company, with a deeply unusual leader born at deeply unusual inflection point (birth of the internet)......that confluence of events & people is a once in a 200yr event......to see Amazon like opportunities everywhere is really crazy idea......but people do it all the time and use it in their reasoning. Well in international politics & security studies......there's the same phenomenon.......I call it the Hitler effect....Hitler was deeply unusual person driven as he was by grievance & anger.....that he could rise to be leader of a country speaks to how unusual a time it was......that that country fell under his spell even more so given they came out of the great depression better than anybody else in the world........is a fluke of timing & the central keynesian re-armanant industrial policy he chose.........Hitler was once in 200yr phenomenon (like Amazon)......on top of all this he was congenital aggressor....jumped up on speed and hell bent on imperialism while building a jewish murder machine... this is a once in a 200, maybe 300yr psycho event.....yet every enemy we've faced since then we transpose the Hitler template on to them. It's the same here with all this nonsense around Russia....and Putin's imperial aspirations. Its lazy 'hitlerization'....like Amazonificiation in investing. The Hitler effect, like the Amazon effect...is really a heuristic error....and that is to see the second coming of Adolf Hitler everywhere you look....in Putin, in Xi....in Saddam Hussein. This heuristic error is all over this thread......Putin the congenital aggressor....invading to take over Ukraine in March 2022....hell bent on Ukraine first....then re-constituting the USSR next (poland etc.)......then onwards to Western Europe if we let him.....you can't do a deal with him (appease him!) as every deal is only a stepping stone to him scaling up his military. The problem for these folks - is the evidence just does not fit .......the paltry capability of Russian military capability during this war (men/machinery/artillery)....demonstraties irrefutably that Russia pre-March 2022....had a military barely equipped to defend its homeland.....this was not a imperialist expansionary war machine Putin had been secretly building to fulfil his imperialist dreams. Secondly the Ukraine invasion....designed, we say in the West, to invade, conquer and occupy Ukraine..then on to Poland perhaps after ...its a laughable theory....190,000 troops, maybe 250,000 at the top end amassed over the border in Belarus the day before the invasion .....give me a break......not enough bodies to occupy half the city of Kiev....christ I've been to rock concerts with more people. Like the Amazon effect.....the Hitler effect in international security is a kind of cognitive distortion which when married to the cognitive bias inherent in nationalism (that we all suffer from)....is exactly what Munger might call a lollapalooza effect.....people's brains are so scrambled re: Putin & Russia....that they can barely see or think straight.....Putin is Hitler v2.0, we are allies on the side of the angels, Russia is Nazi Germany, comprising on anything with Putin makes you Neville Chamberlain & of course god forbid that when Putin goes on a rant about Western encroachment into Russia domain & US interference & imperialism globally that he might even have a sliver of a point that has validity.
Luke Posted August 25 Posted August 25 (edited) 11 minutes ago, RichardGibbons said: This cracks me up. Putin murders a bunch of people who speak out against him politically, then Luke explains that free speech is relatively unnecessary because the large majority is politically relatively uninterested. You really wanna twist it dont you? We talked about quality of life in russia, yes, freedom of speech is limited, doesn't mean life is terrible. Look at China, same is true. Does the majority care about that in russia? Probably not? Its not like that they are all slaves in misery, contrary to north Korea... 11 minutes ago, RichardGibbons said: Can't imagine why the large majority of people would be politically uninterested after seeing their politically interested friends murdered.... Way to put it I guess, "murdered" "hell hole" "north korea" "Venezuela". Its not the political and economic reality in russia. For the large amount of people. I personally want freedom of speech and I oppose the war lead by russia btw. Edited August 25 by Luke
RichardGibbons Posted August 25 Posted August 25 5 minutes ago, Luke said: You really wanna twist it dont you? Well, the thing is, refuting you with an obvious counter-argument isn't actually twisting things. I get that you want to completely limit the scope of the discussion because that's the only way that you can pretend your arguments make sense. But that's not actually how the world, or discussions, work. I mean, look at this: 12 minutes ago, Luke said: Way to put it I guess, "murdered" "hell hole" "north korea" "Venezuela". Its not the political and economic reality in russia. For the large amount of people. Yeah, the majority of people in Russia didn't get murdered. You're making an argument that because the majority of people in Russia didn't get murdered by the state, it's cool.
Luke Posted August 25 Posted August 25 21 minutes ago, RichardGibbons said: Well, the thing is, refuting you with an obvious counter-argument isn't actually twisting things. Which counter argument? Counter argument against what? 21 minutes ago, RichardGibbons said: I get that you want to completely limit the scope of the discussion because that's the only way that you can pretend your arguments make sense. But that's not actually how the world, or discussions, work. What? I am completely limiting the scope of discussion to pretend my arguments make sense...okay? You have literally written 0 text in this discussion and neither have responded to anything. 21 minutes ago, RichardGibbons said: I mean, look at this: Yeah, the majority of people in Russia didn't get murdered. You're making an argument that because the majority of people in Russia didn't get murdered by the state, it's cool. If that's your serious level of argument then I don't think we need to communicate about this conflict at all All the best!
Luke Posted August 25 Posted August 25 49 minutes ago, changegonnacome said: Precisely......nationalism creates a cognitive blind spot in most everybody...you can see it on this thread..very little self-reflection on any role we in the West may have played.....we are completely innocent benign participants.........of course our nation's intentions are always good...yet everything Russia/Iran/China does however benign (weather balloons perhaps) is really part of some wider nefarious plot to get us. +1 49 minutes ago, changegonnacome said: In the case of Ukraine of course we only wanted to help them join the 'West'....and in Ukraine's case I'm going to say that chiefly the motivation was indeed a do gooder one....that the US 'project' in Ukraine was that of a kind of evangelical liberal democratic project...it meant no ill intent towards Russia..that it pissed them off was kind of a bonus though......the issue of course....is not whether your intentions are benign or not...once you edge up to your chief rivals borders.......your rival, who's main concern is existential survival....is ultimately forced due to that existentialism (which is at the root of national security)....to interpret benign moves as really acts of conspiratorial aggression.....when the stakes are as high as they are in international security......your action interpretation options boil down to one answer....whatever is happening here is part of wider plot to destroy our country and way of life. I think there were absolutely ill intentions against Russia. Respectable partners would consider each other's position, communicate, and be transparent about their plans. The US plays the same dirty game as everyone, gain influence, move countries towards one's own interests...capital was eyeing Ukraine... the US military was eyeing Ukraine...i am not saying Russia is a saint here but Ukraine is a playground of a conflict between the US and Russia and secondary between the US and the EU as you have already written. No side does whats best for Ukraine IMO->independent politics, neutral position like Switzerland, etc, tight relationship with russia. Of course with the political and economic capital the US has they can heavily influence ukraine leadership. We don't hear much of it but I can only estimate whats going on behind the scenes with selensky. 49 minutes ago, changegonnacome said: The old story of Europe (except Nazi germany) is waves of increased defense spending...predominantly benign in nature....triggering paranoia in your neighbour....which leads to a ratcheting of spend and with it even greater suspicion.....and where at a certain point one rival decides that actually the best next defensive move is a good offensive one and pulls the trigger on an overt act of aggression which escalates. The second misjudgment apart from the very common and more understood nationalism blind spot.....and I see it oft repeated in this thread....is the Hitler effect......its analogues to what someone recently called the Amazon effect in investing....the tendency to see a future Amazon everywhere .......which drives a lot of growth investing optimism. The reality - Amazon is a deeply unusual company, with a deeply unusual leader born at deeply unusual inflection point (birth of the internet)......that confluence of events & people is a once in a 200yr event......to see Amazon like opportunities everywhere is really crazy idea......but people do it all the time and use it in their reasoning. +1 49 minutes ago, changegonnacome said: Well in international politics & security studies......there's the same phenomenon.......I call it the Hitler effect....Hitler was deeply unusual person driven as he was by grievance & anger.....that he could rise to be leader of a country speaks to how unusual a time it was......that that country fell under his spell even more so given they came out of the great depression better than anybody else in the world........is a fluke of timing & the central keynesian re-armanant industrial policy he chose.........Hitler was once in 200yr phenomenon (like Amazon)......on top of all this he was congenital aggressor....jumped up on speed and hell bent on imperialism while building a jewish murder machine... this is a once in a 200, maybe 300yr psycho event.....yet every enemy we've faced since then we transpose the Hitler template on to them. It's the same here with all this nonsense around Russia....and Putin's imperial aspirations. Its lazy 'hitlerization'....like Amazonificiation in investing. The Hitler effect, like the Amazon effect...is really a heuristic error....and that is to see the second coming of Adolf Hitler everywhere you look....in Putin, in Xi....in Saddam Hussein. This heuristic error is all over this thread......Putin the congenital aggressor....invading to take over Ukraine in March 2022....hell bent on Ukraine first....then re-constituting the USSR next (poland etc.)......then onwards to Western Europe if we let him.....you can't do a deal with him (appease him!) as every deal is only a stepping stone to him scaling up his military. The problem for these folks - is the evidence just does not fit .......the paltry capability of Russian military capability during this war (men/machinery/artillery)....demonstraties irrefutably that Russia pre-March 2022....had a military barely equipped to defend its homeland.....this was not a imperialist expansionary war machine Putin had been secretly building to fulfil his imperialist dreams. Secondly the Ukraine invasion....designed, we say in the West, to invade, conquer and occupy Ukraine..then on to Poland perhaps after ...its a laughable theory....190,000 troops, maybe 250,000 at the top end amassed over the border in Belarus the day before the invasion .....give me a break......not enough bodies to occupy half the city of Kiev....christ I've been to rock concerts with more people. Like the Amazon effect.....the Hitler effect in international security is a kind of cognitive distortion which when married to the cognitive bias inherent in nationalism (that we all suffer from)....is exactly what Munger might call a lollapalooza effect.....people's brains are so scrambled re: Putin & Russia....that they can barely see or think straight.....Putin is Hitler v2.0, we are allies on the side of the angels, Russia is Nazi Germany, comprising on anything with Putin makes you Neville Chamberlain & of course god forbid that when Putin goes on a rant about Western encroachment into Russia domain & US interference & imperialism globally that he might even have a sliver of a point that has validity. Well said and absolutely agree. I think Putin is not the madman the media tries to portray him to be and there could be, with the right leadership, a fast road to stability and security for the country. But certainly not with Selensky who is willing to sacrifice so many men before engaging in alternative paths, which would be IMO sensible. We can only wait and see whats going to happen. I think the conflict should be over in the next year or year after because resources will be depleted, there will be major elections in Germany and the US...could be a lot of turmoil.
Luke Posted August 25 Posted August 25 47 minutes ago, Spekulatius said: LOL: We don't see the army of bots the US controls in China/Russia. They do the exact same thing...:D
Xerxes Posted August 27 Posted August 27 @Luke are you @luca there was a gentleman with that handle who disappeared. With a Master Yoda avatar.
UK Posted August 28 Posted August 28 (edited) 5 hours ago, Luke said: This was meant as a joke, was not it:)? If had one book of many about him to choose, this would be my recommendation: 'The Man Without a Face is the chilling account of how a low- level, small-minded KGB operative ascended to the Russian presidency and, in an astonishingly short time, destroyed years of progress and made his country once more a threat to her own people and to the world.' It was written pre war IIRC. Edited August 28 by UK
UK Posted August 28 Posted August 28 https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-warns-united-states-risks-world-war-three-2024-08-27/
Luke Posted August 28 Posted August 28 8 hours ago, UK said: This was meant as a joke, was not it:)? This was posted by the Russian embassy in Berlin a day ago! 8 hours ago, UK said: If had one book of many about him to choose, this would be my recommendation: 'The Man Without a Face is the chilling account of how a low- level, small-minded KGB operative ascended to the Russian presidency and, in an astonishingly short time, destroyed years of progress and made his country once more a threat to her own people and to the world.' Mhh, I don't think that's a completely fair statement. Russia always had quite the level of corruption right, both in the Soviet Union but also after with Yeltsin. It was perceived that Putin was a west friendly, more easily controllable and oligarch friendly president which is why he made it where he made it. He must have seen quite a bit as president and seized a lot of control himself, including wealth. In order to shield yourself from the power of the oligarchs you sort of need to become oneself. Then I also don't know how much they know about western involvement in Ukraine and how serious of a threat that actually was. I wouldn't say Putin is bad per see and doesn't care about its country. Very interesting person and I also think we might be surprised in a few decades when more information gets to the surface what really happened under the hood in russia and in this conflict.
Luke Posted August 28 Posted August 28 That said, Russia has an insanely conservative/patriarchal manhood standard, as was posted before, in the military they quite literally beat young soldiers to death or they die during training. Then the legal system has pitfalls, corrupt etc. But that wasn't, IMO, necessarily caused by Putin. Now the war...very tough position for the country but I am following with interest both Ukraine and Russia/general Conflict.
John Hjorth Posted August 28 Posted August 28 13 hours ago, Xerxes said: @Luke are you @luca there was a gentleman with that handle who disappeared. With a Master Yoda avatar. @Xerxes, Back in the middle of July, one day I had to recheck my meds [at that moment hooked on morphine], and I also carefully checked the bottle from which I had a glass - nothing wrong with those, so I asked Luke - the new guy around - the same question. It turns out that there were problems with multiple accounts due to some patch to the board so Luca asked Parsad to edit his user name to his nickname : Luke.
Xerxes Posted August 28 Posted August 28 2 hours ago, John Hjorth said: @Xerxes, Back in the middle of July, one day I had to recheck my meds [at that moment hooked on morphine], and I also carefully checked the bottle from which I had a glass - nothing wrong with those, so I asked Luke - the new guy around - the same question. It turns out that there were problems with multiple accounts due to some patch to the board so Luca asked Parsad to edit his user name to his nickname : Luke. Thanks John Luke did confirm to me as well vis PM. Good to have him back. Though I hope his account is not taken over by some foreign entity masquerading as our Luca.
Luke Posted September 1 Posted September 1 https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/who-caused-the-ukraine-war The alternative argument, which I identify with, and which is clearly the minority view in the West, is that the United States and its allies provoked the war. This is not to deny, of course, that Russia invaded Ukraine and started the war. But the principal cause of the conflict is the NATO decision to bring Ukraine into the alliance, which virtually all Russian leaders see as an existential threat that must be eliminated. NATO expansion, however, is part of a broader strategy that is designed to make Ukraine a Western bulwark on Russia’s border. Bringing Kyiv into the European Union (EU) and promoting a color revolution in Ukraine – turning it into pro-Western liberal democracy – are the other two prongs of the policy. Russia leaders fear all three prongs, but they fear NATO expansion the most. To deal with this threat, Russia launched a preventive war on 24 February 2022. The debate about who caused the Ukraine war recently heated up when two prominent Western leaders – former President Donald Trump and prominent British MP Nigel Farage – made the argument that NATO expansion was the driving force behind the conflict. Unsurprisingly, their comments were met with a ferocious counterattack from defenders of the conventional wisdom. It is also worth noting that the outgoing Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, said twice over the past year that “President Putin started this war because he wanted to close NATO’s door and deny Ukraine the right to choose its own path.” Hardly anyone in the West challenged this remarkable admission by NATO’s head and he did not retract it. My aim here is to provide a primer, which lays out the key points that support the view that Putin invaded Ukraine not because he was an imperialist bent on making Ukraine part of a greater Russia, but mainly because of NATO expansion and the West’s efforts to make Ukraine a Western stronghold on Russia’s border. FIRST, there is simply no evidence from before 24 February 2022 that Putin wanted to conquer Ukraine and incorporate it into Russia. Proponents of the conventional wisdom cannot point to anything Putin wrote or said that indicates he was bent on conquering Ukraine. SECOND, there is no evidence that Putin was preparing a puppet government for Ukraine, cultivating pro-Russian leaders in Kyiv, or pursuing any political measures that would make it possible to occupy the entire country and eventually integrate it into Russia. THIRD, Putin did not have anywhere near enough troops to conquer Ukraine. FOURTH, in the months before the war started, Putin tried to find a diplomatic solution to the brewing crisis. FIFTH, immediately after the war began, Russia reached out to Ukraine to start negotiations to end the war and work out a modus vivendi between the two countries. SIXTH, putting Ukraine aside, there is not a scintilla of evidence that Putin was contemplating conquering any other countries in eastern Europe. SEVENTH, hardly anyone in the West argued that Putin had imperial ambitions from the time he took the reins of power in 2000 until the Ukraine crisis started on 22 February 2014. At that point, he suddenly became an imperial aggressor. Why? Because Western leaders needed a reason to blame him for causing the crisis. Let me shift gears and lay out the THREE MAIN REASONS to think that NATO expansion was the principal cause of the Ukraine war. FIRST, Russian leaders across the board said repeatedly before the war started that they considered NATO expansion into Ukraine to be an existential threat that had to be eliminated. SECOND, a substantial number of influential and highly regarded individuals in the West recognized before the war that NATO expansion – especially into Ukraine – would be seen by Russian leaders as a mortal threat and eventually lead to disaster. THIRD, the centrality of Russia’s profound fear of Ukraine joining NATO is illustrated by two developments that have occurred since the war began. John Joseph Mearsheimer is an American political scientist and international relations scholar. He is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago. Mearsheimer is best known for developing the theory of offensive realism, which describes the interaction between great powers as being primarily driven by the rational desire to achieve regional hegemony in an anarchic international system. In accordance with his theory, Mearsheimer believes that China's growing power will likely bring it into conflict with the United States.
John Hjorth Posted September 1 Posted September 1 Luke [ @Luke ], Are you posting the above from the Mearshiemer substack because it represents your own personal view?, - and in that case, to which degree does it that?
Luke Posted September 1 Posted September 1 3 minutes ago, John Hjorth said: Luke [ @Luke ], Are you posting the above from the Mearshiemer substack because it represents your own personal view?, - and in that case, to which degree does it that? Nothing personal, just found it interesting. Found it on his twitter.
Xerxes Posted September 1 Posted September 1 (edited) On 8/25/2024 at 11:21 AM, ValueMaven said: Think about how weak the Russian military is! This has truly been an amazing insight for NATO/China and even Iran! Poorly trained, weak chain of command and very poor operational expertise. This has been one of the best investments for the USA. Not a single American solider has died - yet the Russian Army has been weakened/killed by at least 300-400,000. Regan would never have believed it! I wonder why other anti-Russian areas like Georgia, Chechnya fighters, and even some of the former Soviet countries have yet to rally together publicly agaisnt this and even start to attack Russia directly! in terms of ROIC in isolation. Yes. With very limited investment, significant damage was inflicted on the Russian military and whatever myth was there was shattered. But has it been a best investment ? (Putting aside that U.S. had no choice) if that same ROIC is looked at a macro level. Russia is probably lost to China for next several decades, the Russian state took back the “commanding heights” of the Russian economy, removed the political dissidents and now Kremlin has every incentive to chart its own course and do a “hard break”. often time, the easiest calculable ROIC are the ones that don’t matter. The hardest calculable ROIC are the ones that matter. Vietnam War was a significant ROIC gain for Moscow, if one calculated the very limited Russian involvement, vs losses (material and PR) on the U.S. side. Very high ROIC. Yeap, they were high-fiving in Moscow in Dec ‘68. Yet just a few years later, the war ended and Beijing moved permanently out of Moscow’ orbit. Vietnam and Korea had to happen so that Zhu Enlai and Kissinger could happen. That was a great victory for the West. Edited September 1 by Xerxes
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now