FLEA

Just wanted to announce that we should not be talking about WW3 anymore and we are moving on to honor duals in defense of your woman. Yay or nay?

Definitely not an isolationist, more of a money baller. Looking for the biggest interests for the smallest investment. Your history on sovereignty is a bit off. Sovereignty came from the peace of Westphalia (hence its often called Westphalian sovereignty) and was one of many rules instituted by belligerents to protect larger states who were seen as more capable of governance. The other common rules were embracing standing armies, rules against political assassination, and the beggining concepts of balance of power. All of these conclusions were reach in Europe first but not by accident. Europe balkanized after the fall of Rome which caused it to develop hard political boundaries far earlier than the rest of the world. It's one of the reasons that makes discussing issues of historic sovereignty difficult with China. The eastern empires of China and India didn't really have hard boundaries. They just expanded into new territory until their power faded from its capital centers of gravity. So China did control some contested territories at some historical points in history but not in the same sense of control we think of. More so that those areas were just close enough to Chinese influence that it made accepting governance more beneficial for them. In all of the above mentioned rules (sovereignty, balance of power, no assassination, standing armies) there was an underlying theme to remove international power from smaller states and embody it in larger states. The whole idea of great powers and their satellites. It was believed that a few great powers could negotiate security more effectively that a conglomerate of states with straying interests. In any case, none of that is really important today. What is important is the recognition that sovereignty is relatively new in geopolitics, and like other political constructs, it will eventually fade to be replaced by something else. There is already emerging evidence to show that human networks that are transgeographic are beginning to erode sovereign power on global affairs. (Think anonymous) Now is that something that happens in our lifetime? Probably not. Is it something that happens in a few hundred years, probably. Personally, I see sovereignty for what it is. A temporary political construct that does the bare minimum to prevent descent from chaos but has little upholding it from being a hard and fast rule. Very few people on here are arguing to make the US a pariah state after violating Iraqs sovereignty over WMDs, a charter of war most of the world saw as an excuse to get oil. Also noone upheld sovereignty when we went into Syria to eliminate ISIS. And we certainly aren't offering to pay reparations for damages caused there. If I go back even further we can talk about Iran, Cuba, Guatamala, or the dozen other times we deliberately ignored sovereignty to meet state ends. So while it sounds all rainbows and unicorns to uphold this crusade to defend sovereignty I think it's a bit misguided because in reality we want to maintain the capability to "interpret sovereignty differently" when it meets our needs as well. Or so I presume.

Prozac just curious how powerful do you think the US is? Do you think we possess the outright capability to uphold some of these claims without significant and permenant damage to the US and it's interests.... Because that's a big part of all of this. We have the greatest military on the globe but not the greatest military on anyone one spot in the globe, and the logistics Kung Fu required to make that isn't really achievable without significant exposure and vulnerability of our country's strategic centers of gravity. I think that's a huge piece people misunderstand.

Yeah man I currently work extensively in those countries. I get why they joined NATO. It's in their interests. Was it in ours? However, it was a bit dishonest or in bad faith for us to agree to parlay with Russia after the Cold War when all along we still believed we needed a military alliance to overcome them. Russia was, in their mind, actively trying to deescalate the world, and the US was not. If you truly believe the US bears no responsibility, then you need to accept that we made a tremendous mistake in agreeing to end the Cold War, establish normal ties, and introduce Russia into the global markets. Oh by the way, remember, Russia allowed EVERY single former Soviet state to hold free elections to decide secession on their own. So what changed the geopolitical picture?

I've listened to this. On a side note, I sometimes wonder if academics and analyst flex by just trying to put as many books on their backwall as possible. Like... I seriously doubt this dude has read all or even half of those in their entirety. Anyway, he makes some credible arguments and some that are problematic. His biggest problem is he simultaneously acknowledges that it was irresponsible for NATO to offer membership to Ukraine in 2008 while also saying Russia is solely responsible for the situation in the Ukraine. That is sort of a logical fallacy. You can't be irresponsible for something but then at the same time not be responsible for it and I think it shows the black and white thinking so many people possess in terms of IR and geopolitics, that there must be a right and must be a wrong. I don't think anyone wouldn't argue that Putin is "more" responsible for the situation in the Ukraine. But the question is how much more and how responsible was the US and NATO with their needless growth and lack of clear purpose. 49%? 30%? 5%? 0%? Obviously its difficult to put a number on it.

To my second point, I dont think we'll ever know. I think its very possible. I believe in the west we tend to discount security concerns for other countries fairly often. Culturally, I think we are shorter sighted than other powers and I think we are willing to ignore future problems for immediate gains. It wasn't just the question of Ukraine joining the alliance but the amalgamation of several nuances about the alliance that admittedly, even by NATO's own standards, didn't make sense. The biggest and most obvious one being "why?" In the Cold War that question was obvious. "Keep Russia out, America in, and Germany down." But I think once the Berlin wall fell Russia really believed there was going to be a new era of parlay that would remove the necessity of the alliance. Its lack of clear purpose and continued growth would certainly send mixed signals and while the alliance forthright is for collective defense, in war, "collective defense" is just ambiguous enough to mean so many things. I was explaining this to friends the other day. There are so many justifications a country could use for article 5. Say Russia had a missile misguide into Poland, was Poland attacked? What if a Russian aircraft accidentally cut Polands airspace? What if Poland shot that aircraft down? What if the aircraft never crossed Polish airspace but got close enough Polish authorities got skittish and said they were being attacked? What if its not kinetics? What if Russia jams all of eastern Poland while combating Ukraine? What if its a cyber attack? What if Russia detonates a nuke and the EMP wipes out most of Poland but otherwise no damage? Its so fricken nebulous NATO isn't even always sure what constitutes article 5, and the only thing that is for certain is if all 30 members agree its an article 5, then NATO will go to war as an alliance. From Russia's standpoint, being boxed in by a massive conglomerate of military power like that seems risky. What if he can't police his own borders when newly ascended Finland breaks out into civil war and munitions start accidentally falling within 75nm of St Petersburg. Or Turkey and Greece finally decide to go at it, blocking Russia's access to the Dardanelles. Maybe Russia has a legit interest in that but can't act because of the risk of entangling the rest of the alliance. I think Russia's standpoint was largely this: If you aren't going to bring me in, then we need to keep a gray zone between us, because I need the room to breath without the worry that your 30+ countries with all their political baggage, aren't going to go starting crap in my back yard that seriously threatens my interests and I have no recourse to intervene. One last note, there would have been value in just entertaining his pitch on those demands. For one, sometimes people just like to think they are being heard. But more so than that, it would have stalled time and back in February, time was something Ukraine needed as much of as possible. So even if those pitches had absolutely not probability to go anywhere, spinning them on a yard long enough to delay invasion a month or two would have been invaluable.

Russian capitulation would be anything short of total victory in Ukraine (or at least up to the Dnieper). That's a hard pill for Putin to take back and sell his people and its going to burn some political currency for him within his cabinet. That and the likelihood they will not be accepted back into several global systems while Putin is in power. The article above doesn't really illustrate a serious approach to negotiation. Putin said he was willing to negotiate and sent a list of demands. Many of them were ridiculous, but several of them had adequate positions to begin a negotiation. It was a bit odd because it was like watching two people have two separate conversations. Russia asked for NATO to return to its 1997 state allegiances (never going to happen) and the US responds, "sure we are willing to renegotiate the IMF." Was very odd because Russia is benefitting from the current status of the IMF and really has no reason to renegotiate it, but that was something we've wanted to renegotiate for years. So I think there was a lapse in DoS about what our actual positional priorities were and what was worth discussing. In the end, there was probably a discussion in the Presidential cabinet about whether or not Ukraine should just be taken off the table for NATO membership. My guess is the President in concert with Zelensky, refused to consider it, recognizing imminent invasion was the likely consequence. But its hard to say, we'll never know now. One thing Id add though is none of our opinions on the issue really matter. If Ukraine finds terms they believe are acceptable, then that is their decision and we should support them on it. I think the two most likely outcomes are 1.) Ukraine and Russia negotiate an armistice where Ukraine agrees to maintain strict neutrality and grant independents to the eastern regions, plus secede Crimea to Russia or 2.) this drags into a 10 year long stale made that bleeds Russia economically to the bone. Putin dies in his early 80s and the new government swiftly uses the new leadership opportunity to withdrawal and normalize relations with the world again.

This was not a small mistake. This was a huge mistake. Maybe bigger than most people understand the context. Putin was already paranoid that he was the subject of CIA regime change operations. Now you have a sitting US President cement that in his head. Its not something the WH can cover up as speech diarrhea. This will get read into as more than a slip and its going to take a lot of back peddling to assure Putin what was meant. Put in context for a minute: Putin is a former KGB officer from the Cold War. He was read in at the highest levels of Soviet level espionage and paramilitary programs, including programs in counterbalance to CIA Cold War operations to topple state regimes. Also put into context that Putin already believed he was the subject of an attempted CIA overthrow in the 2011 Snow Revolution, when President Biden was Vice President Biden. I agree that I generally concur with the overall direction Biden has been taking us (Cold War proxy war playbook) but this was a serious mistake and we should not discount it as a simple speech "slip." So I will counter you overall point that no person's support of the President should become so strong that they fail to recognize when he makes a serious mistake. This was an either intentional or unintentional signal to Putin that his seat of power is in jeopardy and he should be taking measures to safeguard it. That is some very scary shit. Also, this is not the first time he's done this. His off the cuff remarks of Putin being a war criminal is another example. That was a remark that was completely inappropriate for a President to make and it didn't need to be said.

He's not going anywhere man. Putin is going to be in power until he dies of natural causes. But he needs to show some sort of victory to his people or he is going to struggle on the home front. So he will continue to twist the narrative, lock the country down and accelerate aggression until he has "something". Regarding mutiny and the use of nukes, unknown. But I presume people with access to nuclear material in Russia go through a significant loyalty test akin to PRP and most of them are trustworthy by Putin at the controls. It also appears that Putin has begun purging his nuclear C2 forces. So take that for what it's worth.

Really good thoughts in this article: Niall Ferguson: Putin and Biden Misunderstand History in Ukraine War - Bloomberg Don't 100% agree with everything but there are certainly considerations in here worth holding on to.

Yup. You had Mark Zuckerberg announce on live TV (when asked about his perception of the role of millennials in the work place) that he flat out prefers to hire younger people because he believes they are smarter and more agile. He flat out admits on national TV he discriminates hiring based on age which is a federally protected class, and nothing comes of it. That's our society.

Yeah, I'm personally worried about this myself. Been told you actually have better potential getting out as a CGO/NCO because companies see you more as a blank slate/moldable. Not that any of this isn't overcomeable but the consensus seems to be you need to take one step back to take two steps forward.

The whole world wouldn't be. In fact, many smaller nations have strategic interest in upsetting the nuclear rules based order because they gain more out of possessing nuclear weapons than larger states. You would probably get NATO on board. I don't think you would see many other players. Another fun fact, Russia possesses enough nuclear weapons to put 3 in every US, Canadian and European population center and still retain a 50% reserve. It would be a loss of 500 million lives instantly, plus additional from fallout and nuclear winter. They also possess an assured second strike capability so total prevention is impossible.

Your point is about enforcing global rulesets for the offensive use of nuclear weapons. A structure for that already exist. It's called US nuclear umbrella agreements. Hint hint. Ukraine is not one of them. You also never explained where all your furor for sovereignty and anti authoritarianism was in the last 70 years when the US clearly did not act anti-authoritarian or pro-sovereignty. Was waiting for that one.

Bro, the people of NYC didn't take an oath. You seem to keep forgetting that. Those families are relying on you to protect them and your on here spouting non sense about how Ukrainian lives are more important than theirs. Your responsibility is to protect the people of NYC, not the people of Ukraine.

How are you going to stand up these no fly zones? How are you going to move the forces there to do it? How will you stop trade between Russia and China or South Korea? How will you enforce sanctions? What makes you think Russians will just welcome an occupation? How will you stage forces to do all of this? How are you going to track monitor and control the destruction of Russian nuclear weapons? How are you going to secure those sites before they are used again? Your plan doesn't sound well thought out. The US does not have the power to do 95% of this unilaterally. NATO likely doesn't have the power to do 50% of that. Especially securing nuclear weapons sites. And what of the vast majority of Russian citizens you will enrage and take up arms against you. You know most Russians STRONGLY support Putin right?

So which US city are you willing to lose and are you volunteering to move your family there before we go through with this?

Just curious, where was all this furor to uphold sovereignty and depose of dictators in Iran, Cuba, Syria (cold War), Afghanistan (cold War), Haiti, Albania, Indonesia, Congo, Iraq (1963), Vietnam, South Korea (was an authoritarian dictatorship we strongly supported until 1988), Chile, Bolivia, Ethiopia, Argentina, Grenada, Paraguay, Yemen....man I'm certain there are others as well.....

So exactly this and what is terribly scary about it. A war of this magnitude would certainly change the world order. Unlikely the US comes out on top or even near the top. China wont be a problem that just has to wait; it becomes a problem we just have to accept. China's smartest move would be to stay quiet and let the US and Russia overtly remove each other from the world stage leaving China as the sole world super power. We need to swallow the pill that the US could be unrecognizable in the end. But in general I agree that you can't allow Russia to use a nuclear weapon without a military response because it upends the rules of nuclear deterence and sets a precedent that would be worse to accept than the opposite. It's just a terrifying reality.

I agree if they use a nuclear weapon NATO needs to involve. However a non nuclear response would be met with another nuclear one. If I red game Putin, and I already executed the will to use one once, even doing what you're doing, I'd still put a nuke into Ramstein. That game changes things because NATO falls under nuclear assurances. At that point it's game on.

I follow Tom Cooper as well. Good synopsis but heavily slanted and sometimes lacking technical detail. That said I have seen open source products out there that out detail our own classified level intelligence products but they usually lack extensive analysis. There seems to be a gap somewhere between raw intelligence and finished analysis that's an open space on the OSINT market.

Podcaster talks about the Ukrainian propaganda machine, information space, and what to believe. https://www.thebulwark.com/podcast-episode/michael-weiss-who-should-you-believe-about-the-war-2 On a separate note be brings up an interesting theory of one or multiple high level leakers inside the Russian cabinet who want to see this fail (because they know war with the west will be fatalistic) This would explain how the IC got amazingly precise info leading up to the invasion as well as Putin's recent purge of very high level intelligence and military officials.

Yeah so actually what was in my mind when I wrote that is the fuck up in Afghanistan and how noone was accountable for that despite demands. Here is Putin holding his senior officers accountable and we are all so ingrained at this point that accountability doesn't exist that we find it shocking. Like, nothing says these people are being executed or purged yet. But honestly a few years in prison I think would be an appropriate sentence if a US general embezzled his funds instead of improving readiness and then subsequently fucked up the most important mission of his career's history. Now if all of these dudes just end up "missing" that's probably a little eyebrow raising but nothing indicates that yet.

I mean you can make the argument that this level of incompetence is dereliction of duty at the GO level and certainly in our own military there would be UCMJ consequences for that. My take is that lots of corruption goes ignored in the Russian military so long as people think you're still doing your job. But when you're involved in that corruption and then you blunder this badly, well, you sort of hung yourself with your own rope, and we are probably about to see that.

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/american-army-veteran-ukraine/ So found an interesting reddit group of people working in and for the Foreign Legion. Apparently lots of chaos going on in the foreign legion, and lots of deserters. One redditor and US Army vet said "this is a different kind of war than Afghanistan" to which another Army veteran replied "it's the same war, you're just now the goat herder." Seems the reality of fighting a ground war against an enemy utilizing air to ground fires has been extremely traumatic to many, including experienced combat veterans. It's something western militaries have largely been immune from. Some other issues I picked up on was a complete lack of OPSEC. Apparently lots of people joined who lacked military experience or who were doing it to enhance their social media following. They were posting photos with geographic meta data embedded in the image file to prove they were there to their followers, which is presumably what Russia used to derive the target coordinates for major camp attack a few days ago.