7 ms·

My general sense is that not even Putin believes his own rhetoric, such is his inconsistency of thought. The reality is that Putin has elected to invade a sove

My general sense is that not even Putin believes his own rhetoric, such is his inconsistency of thought. The reality is that Putin has elected to invade a sovereign neighbor country and can unelect to do so. Not one "western" leader, military or civilian, has threatened Russia "existentially" and certainly no one has threatened to invade Russia. Putin is a liar, to put it simply. He's apparently playing the crazy-card, in attempts to freak the world out, but his constant threats to the entire world of nuclear first-strikes and then saying that "THIS TIME IS NOT A BLUFF" means that people can't really learn much by his unchanging and silly rhetoric. As some boxer said: "Be aware of the main trunk of his body and where it's moving and watch his hands"

koplt 4y ago
namelessoracle 4y ago
Biden publicly called for Putin to be removed. This kind of follows what Chomsky has said, there is no path for PUTIN to de-escalate this situation. I don't see how Putin survives standing down, so he wont.
- kranke155 4y ago
  This is a nonsense commment. Are you trying to say Biden saying something puts Putin is some kind of impossible position? This is an imperialist war of choice.
  - theironhammer 4y ago
    - soco 4y ago
    - heneryville 4y ago
      Why do people keep throwing out John Meersheimer like we've never heard of him before. We're 6 months into this thing and we've read him by now. We just think he's wrong. Is he still asking for a return to the Minsk accords like that's even plausible at this point? Meersheimer hasn't really added much new thought since the war started. Mostly it's just, "we could have avoided this by giving Putin what he wanted", which is an un-provable assertion. The war happened. It's here. Now let's deal with it. Putin trying to kill my friends in Ukraine is pretty black and white to me.
      - theironhammer 4y ago
        Yes Ukraine is the biggest loser here. EU a distant second. Washington's goal is to become the defacto supplier of gas and oil to Europe and cut Russia right out of the market thereby crippling them financially. And the War in Ukraine helps to deplete Russia's military strength. This is a dangerous game as Washington is gambling that Putin won't go Nuclear even if he's losing. Moreover, so far it's just succeeded into driving Russia into the arms of China, making China stronger. In addition, the gas war threatens to cripple Germany's economy and hence the EU. How long will Europeans back this war? Putin was a fool as he took Washington's bait. Instead of War he maybe could've threatened to cut off EUs supply of gas. IDK. Ukrainian people are the biggest losers.
        kranke155 4y ago
        What? The US master plan is to replace Russia? Years in the making it must be. The US would be perfectly content not doing so - in fact this only happened because Russia has committed a monstrous war of aggression. The US had no say in becoming Europe’s gas supplier. It happened because Europe’s preferred gas supplier is a criminal state.
        theironhammer 4y ago
        That is false. Even when the Soviets started to supply Europe with gas the Washington elites became alarmed. The US is a hegemonic superpower, it most definitely has a say on who Europe gets its gas from. NATO is the USA. Let's not kid ourselves. That's GeoPolitics, that's RealPolitik. USA would most definitely like to supply it's surplus oil and gas to Europe. Criminal state? What about the shelling of the Donbass for 8 years? Ukraine is one of the most, if not the most, corrupt countries in Europe.
    - kranke155 4y ago
      I know those arguments and reject them. Hopefully you will too eventually. Feeling wronged gives Russia no right to trample on the sovereignty of 40 million Ukrainians - who wanted to join NATO of their own free will. Anyway.
      - deepthunder 4y ago
        Then blame the US State department too for helping to create this War!
      - namelessoracle 4y ago
        Thats irrelevant to the decision points Putin has in front of him. It's pretty clear he thought he would just roll in and take over Ukraine in the first month, the West seemed to think so too. Now thats not true and it's clearly a mistake what are his options? Withdrawal and losing is likely to end up with him dead, maybe his family too. Keeping at it MIGHT still see him win the day, especially if energy prices in Europe keep sky rocketing and their commitment gets shaky, doubly so if the United States has another decrease in GDP next cycle and rethinks foreign aid. What decision points does Putin have right now that maximize his personal survival and that of his family? Whats the obvious play that Im missing? Sometimes you make mistakes and your only options are to double down and hope it works out or accept the defeat. The defeat in this case will prove terminal, so its a non option for him.
        kranke155 4y ago
        Seems like the only thing that matters to you is Putin’s perspective and not the one of 44 million Ukrainians.
        skissane 4y ago
        > Withdrawal and losing is likely to end up with him dead, maybe his family too. I think the number one reason he doesn't quit, is not fear of being killed, it is the damage quitting would do to his ego and reputation. Is death the thing that scares Putin the most? Maybe, his reputation is more important to him than his life. And if he really wanted to go, I'm sure some Middle Eastern country would be happy to grant him asylum, where he would be quite safe from anyone who wanted to physically harm him. Safety for his family could easily be arranged as well.
    - ROTMetro 4y ago
      John Meersheimer's thesis is based on Meersheimer's belief that 'Putin never lied prior to the way <edit>war not way</edit>'. Not really stable foundation to build his thesis on.
      - theironhammer 4y ago
        His thesis is based on Spheres of Influence. That's RealPolitik not D2P.
        ROTMetro 4y ago
        Funny, if you go watch the youtube videos he predicates his talk on 'Putien never lied'. I'm just going off of his public speeches on youtube, but maybe that contradict his other works.
        deepthunder 4y ago
        You got to be kidding me? This is your takeaway? He's known as a Realist IR Scholar. One of the core tenants of Realist IR is the concept of Sphere's of Influence. Next you'll be telling me Biden is Left Wing.
        ROTMetro 4y ago
        If you build your premise on a liar never lied then yes, my takeaway is to stop listening to you.
        deepthunder 4y ago
        And the US never lied? WMDs?
    - choko 4y ago
      There is propaganda abounds from both sides, but I have yet to hear a solid moral justification for Russia's invasion of a sovereign nation.
      - kranke155 4y ago
        The only so-called “justification” flows like this: - Russia is a Superpower - Superpowers have a “natural right” to a sphere of influence - therefore Russia has a right to a sphere of influence. - In Russia’s view, Ukraine is within their sphere of influence. - therefore Ukraine has no right to sovereignty, and certainly not to join adversarial alliances. - in fact, according to current Russian doctrine, *the Ukrainian people has no right to even choose its own government* if their choice is a government that is not an ally of Russia’s. This is of course a completely monstrous view of history and nations and it allows for no space for - y’know - Ukrainians to have any say. You can justify any monstrosity by saying “well Germany is a superpower and it deserves the right to determine its neighbor’s futures”. And of course this is all nested in the old adage “Well the US did it too - in Iraq/Cuba/Chile/whatever” which is just a fallacy not worth the words it contains. This is however predicated on multiple levels of completely nonsense. The best explanation I’ve seen is Stephen Kottkin on Lex Friedman’s podcast.
theironhammer 4y ago

koplt 4y ago

namelessoracle 4y ago

Biden publicly called for Putin to be removed. This kind of follows what Chomsky has said, there is no path for PUTIN to de-escalate this situation. I don't see how Putin survives standing down, so he wont.

kranke155 4y ago
This is a nonsense commment. Are you trying to say Biden saying something puts Putin is some kind of impossible position? This is an imperialist war of choice.
- theironhammer 4y ago
  - soco 4y ago
  - heneryville 4y ago
    Why do people keep throwing out John Meersheimer like we've never heard of him before. We're 6 months into this thing and we've read him by now. We just think he's wrong. Is he still asking for a return to the Minsk accords like that's even plausible at this point? Meersheimer hasn't really added much new thought since the war started. Mostly it's just, "we could have avoided this by giving Putin what he wanted", which is an un-provable assertion. The war happened. It's here. Now let's deal with it. Putin trying to kill my friends in Ukraine is pretty black and white to me.
    - theironhammer 4y ago
      Yes Ukraine is the biggest loser here. EU a distant second. Washington's goal is to become the defacto supplier of gas and oil to Europe and cut Russia right out of the market thereby crippling them financially. And the War in Ukraine helps to deplete Russia's military strength. This is a dangerous game as Washington is gambling that Putin won't go Nuclear even if he's losing. Moreover, so far it's just succeeded into driving Russia into the arms of China, making China stronger. In addition, the gas war threatens to cripple Germany's economy and hence the EU. How long will Europeans back this war? Putin was a fool as he took Washington's bait. Instead of War he maybe could've threatened to cut off EUs supply of gas. IDK. Ukrainian people are the biggest losers.
      - kranke155 4y ago
        What? The US master plan is to replace Russia? Years in the making it must be. The US would be perfectly content not doing so - in fact this only happened because Russia has committed a monstrous war of aggression. The US had no say in becoming Europe’s gas supplier. It happened because Europe’s preferred gas supplier is a criminal state.
        theironhammer 4y ago
        That is false. Even when the Soviets started to supply Europe with gas the Washington elites became alarmed. The US is a hegemonic superpower, it most definitely has a say on who Europe gets its gas from. NATO is the USA. Let's not kid ourselves. That's GeoPolitics, that's RealPolitik. USA would most definitely like to supply it's surplus oil and gas to Europe. Criminal state? What about the shelling of the Donbass for 8 years? Ukraine is one of the most, if not the most, corrupt countries in Europe.
  - kranke155 4y ago
    I know those arguments and reject them. Hopefully you will too eventually. Feeling wronged gives Russia no right to trample on the sovereignty of 40 million Ukrainians - who wanted to join NATO of their own free will. Anyway.
    - deepthunder 4y ago
      Then blame the US State department too for helping to create this War!
    - namelessoracle 4y ago
      Thats irrelevant to the decision points Putin has in front of him. It's pretty clear he thought he would just roll in and take over Ukraine in the first month, the West seemed to think so too. Now thats not true and it's clearly a mistake what are his options? Withdrawal and losing is likely to end up with him dead, maybe his family too. Keeping at it MIGHT still see him win the day, especially if energy prices in Europe keep sky rocketing and their commitment gets shaky, doubly so if the United States has another decrease in GDP next cycle and rethinks foreign aid. What decision points does Putin have right now that maximize his personal survival and that of his family? Whats the obvious play that Im missing? Sometimes you make mistakes and your only options are to double down and hope it works out or accept the defeat. The defeat in this case will prove terminal, so its a non option for him.
      - kranke155 4y ago
        Seems like the only thing that matters to you is Putin’s perspective and not the one of 44 million Ukrainians.
      - skissane 4y ago
        > Withdrawal and losing is likely to end up with him dead, maybe his family too. I think the number one reason he doesn't quit, is not fear of being killed, it is the damage quitting would do to his ego and reputation. Is death the thing that scares Putin the most? Maybe, his reputation is more important to him than his life. And if he really wanted to go, I'm sure some Middle Eastern country would be happy to grant him asylum, where he would be quite safe from anyone who wanted to physically harm him. Safety for his family could easily be arranged as well.
  - ROTMetro 4y ago
    John Meersheimer's thesis is based on Meersheimer's belief that 'Putin never lied prior to the way <edit>war not way</edit>'. Not really stable foundation to build his thesis on.
    - theironhammer 4y ago
      His thesis is based on Spheres of Influence. That's RealPolitik not D2P.
      - ROTMetro 4y ago
        Funny, if you go watch the youtube videos he predicates his talk on 'Putien never lied'. I'm just going off of his public speeches on youtube, but maybe that contradict his other works.
        deepthunder 4y ago
        You got to be kidding me? This is your takeaway? He's known as a Realist IR Scholar. One of the core tenants of Realist IR is the concept of Sphere's of Influence. Next you'll be telling me Biden is Left Wing.
        ROTMetro 4y ago
        If you build your premise on a liar never lied then yes, my takeaway is to stop listening to you.
        deepthunder 4y ago
        And the US never lied? WMDs?
  - choko 4y ago
    There is propaganda abounds from both sides, but I have yet to hear a solid moral justification for Russia's invasion of a sovereign nation.
    - kranke155 4y ago
      The only so-called “justification” flows like this: - Russia is a Superpower - Superpowers have a “natural right” to a sphere of influence - therefore Russia has a right to a sphere of influence. - In Russia’s view, Ukraine is within their sphere of influence. - therefore Ukraine has no right to sovereignty, and certainly not to join adversarial alliances. - in fact, according to current Russian doctrine, *the Ukrainian people has no right to even choose its own government* if their choice is a government that is not an ally of Russia’s. This is of course a completely monstrous view of history and nations and it allows for no space for - y’know - Ukrainians to have any say. You can justify any monstrosity by saying “well Germany is a superpower and it deserves the right to determine its neighbor’s futures”. And of course this is all nested in the old adage “Well the US did it too - in Iraq/Cuba/Chile/whatever” which is just a fallacy not worth the words it contains. This is however predicated on multiple levels of completely nonsense. The best explanation I’ve seen is Stephen Kottkin on Lex Friedman’s podcast.

theironhammer 4y ago