Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[Prozac]

7 minutes ago, FLEA said:

why do we dismiss that as a non issue? 

We don’t. But we can come to the conclusion that our adversary’s issues are incompatible with our own goals and values. Otherwise, why fight for anything, ever? Look, I agree that it’s vitally important to be aware of our own cultural biases and realize that not everyone thinks like us. That doesn’t mean capitulation though, especially in the face of bald aggression. As much as I hate Hitler comparisons, I think this is one of the few times the analogy is appropriate: Hitler had a lot of “issues”. Jews, territory, resources, and ego were just a few of them. By your rationale, if we only could’ve seen the world through Hitlers eyes we would’ve come to the conclusion that if we just let him exterminate a few million people and mow over a few countries, all would be right with the world. 

[FLEA]

Just now, FLEA said:

Ok, look at it from the 300 year goggles of evil empires. Poland, Napolean, Hittler.....

I get that you see the war in Ukraine as horrific, a travesty to humanity. Putin is looking at it as a few hundred thousand casualties are nothing compared to the 30 million Russians that died in WW2 because a Western tyrant couldn't keep his own. 

Also, realize, we have a difficult time comprehending many of these anxieties because they really predate our rise into geopolitical leadership. Russia was a power far before we were, and they tend to derive a lot of lessons in statesmanship from the great powers eras of the 18th and 19th centuries. This was the era when European states commonly through around terms like "balance of power" and Putin sees all of this as analogous. He believes he  is uniquely in the position to balance western power and if he doesnt western tyrants will consume Eurasia. 

Also, remember, Russia and the Ottomans were set apart from the other great powers in that they were largely left behind in the European rise of the 17th-19th centuries. They didn't have easy access to the Atlantic, colonization or slave trade which shaped their culture and economies. They see western success as something that was built off the victim hood of Asia, Africa and the Americas. 

[BashiChuni]

12 minutes ago, goingkinetic said:

I’m actually looking at it with 100 year evil empire goggles. Patton was right we should have kept on pushing to Moscow.

he was certainly right and we should have.

[goingkinetic]

Just now, BashiChuni said:

he was certainly right and we should have.

We found common ground!!! Unpossible.

[BashiChuni]

4 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Also, realize, we have a difficult time comprehending many of these anxieties because they really predate our rise into geopolitical leadership. Russia was a power far before we were, and they tend to derive a lot of lessons in statesmanship from the great powers eras of the 18th and 19th centuries. This was the era when European states commonly through around terms like "balance of power" and Putin sees all of this as analogous. He believes he  is uniquely in the position to balance western power and if he doesnt western tyrants will consume Eurasia. 

Also, remember, Russia and the Ottomans were set apart from the other great powers in that they were largely left behind in the European rise of the 17th-19th centuries. They didn't have easy access to the Atlantic, colonization or slave trade which shaped their culture and economies. They see western success as something that was built off the victim hood of Asia, Africa and the Americas. 

take notes all those applying "farmboy" political science...FLEA is giving a master class.

Prozac i agree with some of what you wrote, but i dont see this as capitulating to putin. I see this as concluding that Ukraine is not worth american troops dying for.

and the hitler/putin comparison is totally ridiculous.

[BashiChuni]

Just now, goingkinetic said:

We found common ground!!! Unpossible.

multiple things can be right at the same time. the problem is our world is so polarized the nuance is gone. and that's dangerous. hell a sitting US senator just called for the assassination of a world leader.

[FLEA]

Just now, BashiChuni said:

multiple things can be right at the same time. the problem is our world is so polarized the nuance is gone. and that's dangerous. hell a sitting US senator just called for the assassination of a world leader.

This! When I mentor young officers I really want them to see this! If you can see how power conglomerates and tugs at things with a soft hand, the whole world makes way more sense. 

[FLEA]

15 minutes ago, Prozac said:

We don’t. But we can come to the conclusion that our adversary’s issues are incompatible with our own goals and values. Otherwise, why fight for anything, ever? Look, I agree that it’s vitally important to be aware of our own cultural biases and realize that not everyone thinks like us. That doesn’t mean capitulation though, especially in the face of bald aggression. As much as I hate Hitler comparisons, I think this is one of the few times the analogy is appropriate: Hitler had a lot of “issues”. Jews, territory, resources, and ego were just a few of them. By your rationale, if we only could’ve seen the world through Hitlers eyes we would’ve come to the conclusion that if we just let him exterminate a few million people and mow over a few countries, all would be right with the world. 

Prozac, I understand what you mean, I'm just saying not everything is capitulation. I made this diagram in MS Paint in 30 seconds to illustrate what I mean. 

On the line there is the US position, and the RUS position, and they look enormously apart. Almost irreconcilable. On the surface, we look at this and say "RUS says they need 'this' but we say we need 'that' and we are right and they are wrong!"

We need to get below those positions though and actually figure out what are the interests that are driving those position, because often those interests overlap. For example, in global security, a huge Russian interests is terrorism. We share that interest. We don't like terror either and for the last 20 years, we disliked it more than Russia. Those purple overlaps are our room to negotiate and offer olive branches to ease tensions. No the US is NEVER going to support the invasion of a sovereign nation for state gain. BUT..... was it really in OUR interest (The US only, because in actuality we dont care about NATO, our relationship with NATO ends once our interests with them end) that the Ukraine join NATO? Was the Ukraine going to provide meaningful Art 5 support to the US? Was the Ukraine going to ensure the US stays out of unnecessary conflicts? 

At the time, our thought experiment led us to believe that admitting states into NATO would make them pro western democracy and they would eventually turn to mirror our values in world views. Was that goal not achievable via non military means? I want to say Ukraine admittance to the EU would have similar results but I can almost be certain that some US policy maker at the time didn't like that idea because it removed US control and leadership from the outcomes. I dunno, hindsight 2020. We are at where we are at now. What I am trying to explain though, is going forward, it helps to understand how we got here, and why Russia felt it needed to do the things it did. 

[FLEA]

Something like this: Is Ukraine entry in the Green zone? Or the Yellow Zone?

Edited March 4, 2022 by FLEA

[Stoker]

36 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Also, remember, Russia and the Ottomans were set apart from the other great powers in that they were largely left behind in the European rise of the 17th-19th centuries. They didn't have easy access to the Atlantic, colonization or slave trade which shaped their culture and economies. They see western success as something that was built off the victim hood of Asia, Africa and the Americas. 

Russia colonized vast stretches of Asia, and enslaved the locals (although slavery wasn't a major feature of their economy, because they had serfdom until 1861). The Ottomans had an extensive slave trade, including but not limited to slave raids all around the Black Sea. The rise of the West wasn't based on slavery and colonization. It was based on agricultural and industrial revolutions. The places that built their economy on slavery and exploiting the locals (the South, Latin America) ended up far poorer than the places that didn't.

If you're just saying that that's Russia's internal mythology, sure, I guess it could be, but it's far from true.

[hindsight2020]

All I know is, if that powerplant starts ionizing the night sky i can tell you this entire back and forth about sun tzu batata, 'venn diagram thy enemy' podcast fodder is gonna become moot right ricky tick, especially if the winds blow from the east. Ironically, the last time a Ukrainian powerplant ionized the night sky, it was belarus (nee SSR) that took it between the uprights the hardest

That caesium-137 boy, is like a scorned baby mama...that -ish lingers on forever, she doesn't let go.

[Prozac]

Flea, I suspect that when we dig down we will find that we have an important fundamental difference here: I believe that liberal democracy is by far the best system of government and society that man has developed so far (not perfect by a long shot, but that’s another debate). While I agree that we’ve had some recent stumbles in how and where we choose to project our values, a country that asks to be a part of the team is a much different animal than one that has our values attempted to be forced upon it. When you have countries like Ukraine, Poland, Georgia, and the Czech Republic that have seen the other side and decide that they want to be a part of the free world, we should welcome them with open arms. A free and prosperous Ukraine is a Ukraine that doesn’t harbor terrorists, criminals, and despots that make the world less safe. When you scale that concept up to scores of countries to include the vast majority of Europe, the world is a much safer place. So yes, I do believe that a free Ukraine that is fully under the European umbrella, including NATO has tangible benefits for every American. I also don’t believe for a minute that any of this is about border security or historic power struggles for Putin. Those are just the excuses he uses to act the way he does. This is about power and greed, plain and simple. 

[FLEA]

9 minutes ago, Stoker said:

Russia colonized vast stretches of Asia, and enslaved the locals (although slavery wasn't a major feature of their economy, because they had serfdom until 1861). The Ottomans had an extensive slave trade, including but not limited to slave raids all around the Black Sea. The rise of the West wasn't based on slavery and colonization. It was based on agricultural and industrial revolutions. The places that built their economy on slavery and exploiting the locals (the South, Latin America) ended up far poorer than the places that didn't.

If you're just saying that that's Russia's internal mythology, sure, I guess it could be, but it's far from true.

Ok, Ill go a level deeper. It wasn't just the slaves or the colonies, it was the Atlantic trade hemisphere combined with the slave trade that set the conditions. It was uncontested, vast, and had access to raw resources as opposed to the South Indian hemisphere that was largely refined commodities. The industrial revolution (part 1) largely came from all of this. Where do you think all the cotton for those cotton looms came from? 

Historically wealth conglomerated in the east for far more of history than the west. I believe the rise of China (and probably India soon as well) is simply a return to the status norm. 

[FLEA]

2 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Flea, I suspect that when we dig down we will find that we have an important fundamental difference here: I believe that liberal democracy is by far the best system of government and society that man has developed so far (not perfect by a long shot, but that’s another debate). While I agree that we’ve had some recent stumbles in how and where we choose to project our values, a country that asks to be a part of the team is a much different animal than one that has our values attempted to be forced upon it. When you have countries like Ukraine, Poland, Georgia, and the Czech Republic that have seen the other side and decide that they want to be a part of the free world, we should welcome them with open arms. A free and prosperous Ukraine is a Ukraine that doesn’t harbor terrorists, criminals, and despots that make the world less safe. When you scale that concept up to scores of countries to include the vast majority of Europe, the world is a much safer place. So yes, I do believe that a free Ukraine that is fully under the European umbrella, including NATO has tangible benefits for every American. I also don’t believe for a minute that any of this is about border security or historic power struggles for Putin. Those are just the excuses he uses to act the way he does. This is about power and greed, plain and simple. 

Agree with your first part. Democracy is the best but highly flawed. 

Eh on the middle. You can bring Ukraine in to the free world without committing them to a military alliance. A military alliance implies violence. 

Disagree with most of your last bit. Interesting belief. So what power and money has Putin got from this so far? He's been pariah'd by the west and they have sanctioned the shit out of him. Seems if this was about money he would have backed off and returned to status quo. So that COA is probably off the table. How about power? Well power is tricky because the capability to defend ones borders requires power. So I do think he is after power to a certain extent yes. 

Furthermore, you state, generally, that Putin is an egomaniac and is doing this entirely out of self motivations. What is your evidence for that? What drives you to that reasoning? Do you simply not believe a dictator can act in their state's interests?

[FLEA]

8 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Ok, Ill go a level deeper. It wasn't just the slaves or the colonies, it was the Atlantic trade hemisphere combined with the slave trade that set the conditions. It was uncontested, vast, and had access to raw resources as opposed to the South Indian hemisphere that was largely refined commodities. The industrial revolution (part 1) largely came from all of this. Where do you think all the cotton for those cotton looms came from? 

Historically wealth conglomerated in the east for far more of history than the west. I believe the rise of China (and probably India soon as well) is simply a return to the status norm. 

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/0002828054201305#:~:text=The rise of Western Europe,and Asia via the Atlantic.

[Prozac]

1 minute ago, FLEA said:

Agree with your first part. Democracy is the best but highly flawed. 

Eh on the middle. You can bring Ukraine in to the free world without committing them to a military alliance. A military alliance implies violence. 

Disagree with most of your last bit. Interesting belief. So what power and money has Putin got from this so far? He's been pariah'd by the west and they have sanctioned the shit out of him. Seems if this was about money he would have backed off and returned to status quo. So that COA is probably off the table. How about power? Well power is tricky because the capability to defend ones borders requires power. So I do think he is after power to a certain extent yes. 

Furthermore, you state, generally, that Putin is an egomaniac and is doing this entirely out of self motivations. What is your evidence for that? What drives you to that reasoning? Do you simply not believe a dictator can act in their state's interests?

Well, I for one do not think he’s acting rationally, which is a big part of what concerns me. His previous military adventurism in Ukraine, Georgia and elsewhere have been generally popular with Russians. Perhaps he thought if he took that to the next level it would help him consolidate power further and that he really would be greeted as a liberator in Ukraine. Whether he was acting in his own interests or those of the state, he has miscalculated badly. I see no upside for him or Russia in the foreseeable future if he stays on his current path. 

[kaputt]

16 minutes ago, FLEA said:

 

You can bring Ukraine in to the free world without committing them to a military alliance. A military alliance implies violence. 

 

The events in Ukraine since 2014 have proven that is not the case. 

[SurelySerious]

You can bring Ukraine in to the free world without committing them to a military alliance. A military alliance implies violence. 

The government of a sovereign nation is the people’s contracted arbiter of political violence; an alliance to further the interests of a nation imply no more violence than the existence of the sovereign government that carries out political violence for its people. Ukraine isn’t out to invade or encroach upon Russia, even if it signs a defence pact.

[FLEA]

4 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

The government of a sovereign nation is the people’s contracted arbiter of political violence; an alliance to further the interests of a nation imply no more violence than the existence of the sovereign government that carries out political violence for its people. Ukraine isn’t out to invade or encroach upon Russia, even if it signs a defence pact.

None of what you said matters. I don't care what Ukraine's interests are and I don't care what NATOs interests are. Was it in our interest to bring the Ukraine into NATO? That's really all that matters. If growing NATO is so awesome, why don't we bring Russia in? 

[BashiChuni]

50 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

Ukraine isn’t out to invade or encroach upon Russia, even if it signs a defence pact.

I feel like I’m banging my head against the wall. YOU think Ukraine isn’t out to invade Russia. 
 

putin/Russia see it different. They see encroachment/encirclement by NATO/western countries. What we see as good (spreading liberal democracy/freedom) is seen as a core national security threat by Russia. Especially when it’s a country they’ve historically had influence over. ESPECIALLY when NATO holds military exercises with Ukraine on Ukrainian territory. 
 

“but NATO is defensive ONLY!” Again, that’s how YOU see NATO. 

[SurelySerious]

None of what you said matters. I don't care what Ukraine's interests are and I don't care what NATOs interests are. Was it in our interest to bring the Ukraine into NATO? That's really all that matters. If growing NATO is so awesome, why don't we bring Russia in? 

Except that what you said is that an alliance implies violence, which is patently false. Are you following your own arguments?

[BashiChuni]

5 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

Expanding NATO to Russia’s doorstep needs to stop. We cause our own worst problems. 
 

if anything their poor military performance demonstrates how they are NOT a threat to Europe 

CIA director Bill Burns in 2008: "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for [Russia]" and "I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests"

Edited March 4, 2022 by BashiChuni

[SurelySerious]

I feel like I’m banging my head against the wall. YOU think Ukraine isn’t out to invade Russia. 
 
putin/Russia see it different. They see encroachment/encirclement by NATO/western countries. What we see as good (spreading liberal democracy/freedom) is seen as a core national security threat by Russia. Especially when it’s a country they’ve historically had influence over. ESPECIALLY when NATO holds military exercises with Ukraine on Ukrainian territory. 
 
“but NATO is defensive ONLY!” Again, that’s how YOU see NATO. 

Orrrrrr does Putin just paint it that way on the world stage. No question he wants the glory of the soviet union but is it actually a threat or does he just say it to give himself a pretext.

[Clayton Bigsby]

The Dream is dead

[FLEA]

7 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

Except that what you said is that an alliance implies violence, which is patently false. Are you following your own arguments?

A military alliance, yes. You see it as a defensive thing, but many of the nations we are postured against wonder why we, or all of these countries, need so many allies? The very act of expanding the alliance is see as posturing for western dominance.