Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

Well bombing a bunch of civilians in Ukraine this morning may keep some of Putin's critics from the Rrght at bay for a time.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Well bombing a bunch of civilians in Ukraine this morning may keep some of Putin's critics from the Rrght at bay for a time.

I posted yesterday about what ISW analysts are reporting on what they think is going on inside the Kremlin. The more I read about what drove Putin to invade Ukraine, the more I pick-up on the deep seated belief held by the pro-war nationalists of the greater mother Russia. That term is an oversimplification of a complicated belief system. Suffice it to say that the narrative being pushed by propagandists in the Russian information space from the start and continues today to emphasize that belief as an underlying reason for the invasion of Ukraine. The de-nazification narrative is taking a back seat to the narrative that Russia is in a battle for survival with the west and NATO.

Aside from the fact that this narrative is generally accepted by the Russian people as an appropriate reason for the invasion, there is creeping doubt among his supporters that Putin can win. The initial objective was to invade and topple the Ukrainian government. Having failed to do that, the objective then became to protect the Russian speaking and Kremlin aligned populations in the four provinces Putin recently annexed. Critics of Putin's war are alleging the Kremlin and specifically the MOD aren't being forthcoming about the many problems facing the invasion force. That's a euphemistic characterization. There are complaints coming from pro-war nationalists that the MOD is lying, that lying is an endemic feature of the Russian military and is keeping Putin in the dark about what is actually happening in the Ukrainian battle space. The Chechnyans are advocating for Putin to replace "traitors" in the MOD. That would be, among others, Shoigu

The link below is a detailed description of the turmoil within the Kremlin that is being revealed in the public domain. The bottom line is that all this rearranging of deck chairs is not going to suddenly allow Putin to overcome the myriad logistic, mobilization and morale issues that are behind the failure of his invasion of Ukraine, after 8 months of fighting, to achieve his objectives. Despite his move, mostly symbolic, to annex the Donetsk, Luhansk, Zapohrisia and Kherson Oblasts, installed Russian administrators are not in full control of any of them. Moreover, Ukrainian military forces are threatening what limited control the Russians have in every one of these Oblasts.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-october-9

[Hannibal]

Eastward NATO encroachment played a part in this disaster. NATO has no need to exist anymore. It was formed to stop communist expansion in Europe and it met its goals. We should have left well enough alone. And we should have never gotten involved in it and written Zelensky a blank check. He's taking full advantage of it like the kleptocrat that he is.

With that said, I expect that this bullshit would end instantly if somebody took out Putin. I don't think that he's the unhinged madman that he is portrayed as being, but rather a guy whose judgement has gotten extremely stale after being surrounded by toadies for a long time and also reaching the age of 70.

[Jeff Buchanan]

We're not going to see the circumstances wrt Ukraine similarly but several aspects of your post deserve an opposing view.

NATO has no need to exist anymore. It was formed to stop communist expansion in Europe and it met its goals.

You're correct in that Communism is not a threat to spread in Eastern Europe but annexation of sovereign democratic nations by repressive authoritarian countries is a very real threat. See Crmea, Ukraine before 02/28/22, Moldova. We should be asking them along with Sweden and Finland if they want NATO. I firmly believe that NATO has a critical role in mitigating, if not stopping, aggressive land grabs by autocrats.

He's taking full advantage of it like the kleptocrat that he is.

I won't guibble over this assertion. Ukraine has a history of thuggery and corruption. I'm not sure there is solid evidence that the Zelenski government is corrupt or that Zelenski is the kleptocrat you allege he is.

American FP is full of involvement with unsavory governments when our national interests and security are at stake. I think they are in Ukraine and have made it clear why.

[Hannibal]

You're correct in that Communism is not a threat to spread in Eastern Europe but annexation of sovereign democratic nations by repressive authoritarian countries is a very real threat.

That's not our problem. Plain and simple. Sucks to be them. But we can't be Team America: World Police anymore.

[Jeff Buchanan]

I can see your point. I just don't agree with it. Foreign entanglements and the avoidance of them have been an American political issue since the founding. But there are also fundamental principles of freedom and democracy that America has stood for since that founding. The NATO stand in support of Ukraine, and similar stands against aggressors by its WWII alliances that preceded it, is no different than stands it has taken in the past. Those stands have uniformly been characterized as stands against brutal autocrats and fascist nationalists bent on advancing their political or territorial objectives by force of arms.

I believe, and you've made yourself clear on this here that you don't believe, in extending Pax American in the face of expanding brutal, repressive autocratic governments globally. I believe that defending the current global world order that has brought peace and prosperity on a global basis to enumerable countries who choose to align themselves with that existing order and the democratic and economic principles that are embodied therein is worth American treasure and lives.

If America were still operating like it was in the 19th century, isolationism would be a supportable FP. In the 21st century it is not. Global trade (globalism in general), no matter how hard opponents want to try to curb it isn't going to be significantly curtailed. The world is too economically interconnected and economic isolation follows countries that choose an isolationist FP. Jobs, prosperity and peace flow from unrestricted foreign cooperation on a political level and economic cooperation on that level. I think it short sighted for America to not stand as a beacon of freedom and democracy and defend those principles by confronting enemies, who by their behavior, challenge them.

[Hannibal]

9e6eb1d284e3abfa.jpg

[Hannibal]

5a81b8d79c178361.png

[Hannibal]

I can see your point. I just don't agree with it. Foreign entanglements and the avoidance of them have been an American political issue since the founding. But there are also fundamental principles of freedom and democracy that America has stood for since that founding. The NATO stand in support of Ukraine, and similar stands against aggressors by its WWII alliances that preceded it, is no different than stands it has taken in the past. Those stands have uniformly been characterized as stands against brutal autocrats and fascist nationalists bent on advancing their political or territorial objectives by force of arms.

I believe, and you've made yourself clear on this here that you don't believe, in extending Pax American in the face of expanding brutal, repressive autocratic governments globally. I believe that defending the current global world order that has brought peace and prosperity on a global basis to enumerable countries who choose to align themselves with that existing order and the democratic and economic principles that are embodied therein is worth American treasure and lives.

If America were still operating like it was in the 19th century, isolationism would be a supportable FP. In the 21st century it is not. Global trade (globalism in general), no matter how hard opponents want to try to curb it isn't going to be significantly curtailed. The world is too economically interconnected and economic isolation follows countries that choose an isolationist FP. Jobs, prosperity and peace flow from unrestricted foreign cooperation on a political level and economic cooperation on that level. I think it short sighted for America to not stand as a beacon of freedom and democracy and defend those principles by confronting enemies, who by their behavior, challenge them.

The past struggles of which you speak have one major difference, and that is that they were life and death struggles against ideological spreads that posed a long-term threat to the system of government in the Untied States. The 20th Century from about 1930 to 1990 was defined by huge ideological struggles first between Western Republics and Fascism, and then between Western Republics and Communism. There is no such struggle present in the Ukraine, It's just a territory grab that doesn't pose a risk of spreading beyond the old borders of the USSR. Russia poses no threat to the American way of life, despite what Democrats and the idiots who write for the New York Times have been trying to scare you into believing since Trump was elected. If anything, Zelensky's enthusiastic embracing of Globohomo cultural Marxism is the type of cultural development that we should avoid and discourage. We're propping up a George Soros-approved kleptocracy to prevent them from getting swallowed by a bully. Either way, it's not in our best interests to be sinking tens of billions of dollars into the Ukraine's defense while punishing ourselves with economic sanctions. We get nothing out of it.

Any rhetoric about "defending democracy" abroad falls on deaf ears to me when we have a corrupt FBI at home acting as the Democrat secret state police and the government holding January 6 political prisoners. In Britain, you literally have the police kicking in doors over politically incorrect social media posts. The Ukraine isn't even a democracy, as Zelensky has outlawed the opposition party. All of the threats to our way of life come from within our own borders now. When it comes to threats to America's Constitutional Republic, Russia vs. Ukraine doesn't rank in the top 20.

And that brings me to the other bolded point that you make -- that we should spend our resources abroad to promote prosperity at home -- do you think that the sanctions on Russia and us throwing billions of dollars of pretend money (which causes more inflation) have been good for our economy, or bad?

[Jeff Buchanan]

Points taken. My response:

There is no such struggle present in the Ukraine, It's just a territory grab that doesn't pose a risk of spreading beyond the old borders of the USSR. Russia poses no threat to the American way of life,

I thought your point on "ideological struggles of the 20th century" posed a threat to American interests warranting US and it's allies involvement in mitigating that threat (implied) is a good one. You add, no such threat is present in Ukraine. You also imply that you wouldn't oppose a land grab by Putin that restores Russia's federal domain defined by the outlines of the old USSR.

I understand that you think NATO is an anachronistic alliance with a mission that is outdated and no longer necessary. That is likely the basis of your implied position above. I can see that. I don't agree that NATO is without a pertinent mission so, I believe American interests - the fundamental ones that involve the protection of the global world order, the advancement of freedom, democracy and of the economic values that the west embraces - are worth intervention when these are threatened.

I don't think the former Soviet satellite states on NATO's eastern flank, possibly with the exception of Belarus, including Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia (all NATO member states) would want to become dominated by Russia through some kind of land grab. The threat of that is a real and existential threat to that grouping of sovereign states. If Putin were to try to annex these countries by force or by other hybrid means, that would trigger action under Article 41 of the NATO Charter. That's an immutable fact that renders your position that you wouldn't oppose such a land grab hard to defend. It is going to be opposed by NATO forces that by treaty includes the US.

I suppose you could argue that the US should withdraw and not honor the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949. If I understand it, that was on Trump's wish list. That you probably align yourself with many of his policies, you'd support US withdrawal. The implications of an American withdrawal, meaning the US believes as you do that Russia poses no threat to NATO allies or "the American way of life" would, IMO, be catastrophically disruptive. I'd reject your argument.

....... do you think that the sanctions on Russia and us throwing billions of dollars of pretend money (which causes more inflation) have been good for our economy, or bad?

Helicopter money that was doled out by the US government during the pandemic to stimulate the economy was definitely inflationary and very bad for our economy. No credible economist would disagree with that. Foreign aid to Ukraine is a different animal and whether or not that has fueled global inflation is debatable. What has fueled global inflation is Putin's invasion of Ukraine and the attendant food and energy shortages that invasion has precipitated. The underlying cause of inflationary damage then, I would argue, is not US foreign aid to Ukraine but rather Putin's invasion of that country. It is therefore in the interests of free nations of the west to thwart it.

Still, I believe that while punishing Putin's Russia for it's aggression and as a cause for global energy and food inflation, the primary reason for US involvement to stop it revolves around demonstrating to our enemies - the ones that pose a threat to the present world order and all that implies - that America will not stand idly by and relinquish its role to defend it.

[Dr. Strangelove]

We're making the supposed #3 military power in the world look like an inept buffoon through a proxy. China's watching and I'm guessing Putin's not leaving them overly impressed. They also have to be running the calculations in their mind about what an assault on Taiwan would cost them. If it prevents a future war with them, it's certainly worth it.

And putting all virtue and values talk aside, and turning much more cynical, I imagine the US defense industry is pleased. More countries are going to place orders with our guys instead of going with Russian tech because, frankly, the Russian shit has been revealed to suck ass.

[THE_WIZARD_]

...much like yer posts...

[Dr. Strangelove]

Unless the next words outta your mouth are "sir, would you like a refill?", you can keep yer big fat yapper shut and scuttle back to the kitchen to check the roach traps.

[klondike]

Putin also wants that pipeline tat goes right through the Ukraine. They found oil reserves up in the arctic ocean that could have trillions of gallons ( lucky them ) that's the second find. Other one off upper Japan. Apparently, the USSR is just one big natural gas bag and their oceans and seas oil saturated.

[lineygoblue]

Tulsi Gabbard says she is leaving the Democratic Party. She's not serving in any elected position at this time, so the move is moot.

But, her reasons are interesting.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/tulsi-gabbard-says-she-is-leaving-the-democratic-party/ar-AA12Q5La?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=56a04df89d954cb99a76c79801b6242d

I doubt that she'll join the Republican Party. She'll likely remain independent.