Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Alastor]

Seem like the proper place for him. You have to work hard to get any sympathy from for him from me.

Naturally, he did reveal the dirty laundry of the US for the world to see afterall. People reporting on war crimes, news publishers reporting on such matters no less belong in prison on indefinite detention. Unless it's Putin doing it, then it's the definition of evil.

[conon394]

Naturally, he did reveal the dirty laundry of the US for the world to see afterall. People reporting on war crimes, news publishers reporting on such matters no less belong in prison on indefinite detention. Unless it's Putin doing it, then it's the definition of evil.

Err no I am OK with the Chessia manning thing - I would have prefered if she would have been perseistand and a solid journalist to work with.. Its the actively being used by the GRU and helping get my country stuck with Trump that pisses me off. There was no reason to treat the hack of the DNC as valid. Aside from as far as I can tell he also a con man and his supposed hacking of the Pentagon in his youth lives mostly in his mind. Also given scale of what Manning was handing over he seems not to have seemed to have cared about what a consequences she was walking into. Over all I judge him a not a very savory or upstanding person - quite the self promoter however.

[Alastor]

Its the actively being used by the GRU and helping get my country stuck with Trump that pisses me off.

You have got to be joking. Please say you are joking. Why do I suspect you are not joking?

[conon394]

You have got to be joking. Please say you are joking. Why do I suspect you are not joking?

So what wiki leaks did not facilitate the hacked documents from the DNC?

A's glorious Hacker past does not seem to exist except mostly in his head?

He gave not one sh-t about Manning and trying to alert her to grave results of her action.

I guess if you think he is a saint fine.

[R.P. Gryphus]

I have read this thread a little bit and for a forum based on strategy video games, people sure as hell lack insight and wisdom here. This thread feels like a huge cesspool of people engaging in confirmation bias. It would be funny if it wasn't so pandemic.

[conon394]

I have read this thread a little bit and for a forum based on strategy video games, people sure as hell lack insight and wisdom here. This thread feels like a huge cesspool of people engaging in confirmation bias. It would be funny if it wasn't so pandemic.

Bias is easy to sometimes to diagnose in others not so in oneself. Nobody lacks bias so what is your apparently unbiased opinion than free any that any here have. Please to positively share your insight and wisdom

[Alastor]

I guess if you think he is a saint fine.

Wow, what a pathetic strawman. I may have overestimated you it seems. But I suppose c'est la vie.

[conon394]

Wow, what a pathetic strawman. I may have overestimated you it seems. But I suppose c'est la vie.

Really you have done little to reply but rather just insult so what about my opinion of Assange do find so terrible?

[Alastor]

Really you have done little to reply but rather just insult so what about my opinion of Assange do find so terrible?

I was not trying to insult you, I meant what I said quite literally. As for what I find terrible about your opinion on Assange, that's a number of things, including your willingness to applaud a man's indefinite incarceration because you find him unlikeable and/or a "self-promoter", then there was those 2016-era conspiracy theories about stolen elections you seem to be ascribing to as well. Rather sad, but as I said, c'est la vie. This isn't the right topic for this discussion anyway.

[Kyriakos]

Guys, better to keep it a bit more civil, since the war is nowhere finished and worse will come ^^

[conon394]

I was not trying to insult you, I meant what I said quite literally. As for what I find terrible about your opinion on Assange, that's a number of things, including your willingness to applaud a man's indefinite incarceration because you find him unlikeable and/or a "self-promoter", then there was those 2016-era conspiracy theories about stolen elections you seem to be ascribing to as well. Rather sad, but as I said, c'est la vie. This isn't the right topic for this discussion anyway.

You jumped over a couple things. I find him untruthful. I think He (and his organization) hung Manning out to dry by realising her information w/o any attempt to buffer her from the expected result of breaking the law and her oath even if you deem that a good thing. I find the fact that He was willing too take data from a Russian source that was clearly aimed at harming the US data a that was not brought forth by some earnest whistleblower but simply private information stolen for no greater good than that the GRU though it useful reprehensible. And again his story about his own competence keep getting bigger but seem to lack any collaboration.

[conon394]

Guys, better to keep it a bit more civil, since the war is nowhere finished and worse will come ^^

I'll try but I'll remain firm Manning was an earnest and honest whistleblower who was ill used buy a self serving jerk I have no sympathy for and scurried for his own skin as soon as things looked bad.

[Alastor]

You jumped over a couple things. I find him untruthful. I think He (and his organization) hung Manning out to dry by realising her information w/o any attempt to buffer her from the expected result of breaking the law and her oath even if you deem that a good thing. I find the fact that He was willing too take data from a Russian source that was clearly aimed at harming the US data a that was not brought forth by some earnest whistleblower but simply private information stolen for no greater good than that the GRU though it useful reprehensible. And again his story about his own competence keep getting bigger but seem to lack any collaboration.

Did I? None of the things you mention are in any way exceptional or things most news media don't at some point do. Besides, the same people that went after Manning are going after him. I never said what happened to Manning was good, if anything I believe we need more whistleblowers not fewer. Either way, to blame him for that is rather ironic. Whatever the case, I will remind you what you applauded, his indefinite incarceration. This is still the west last I checked, freedom of the press and individual freedoms are still supposed to be values we care about here. Well unless we don't like the target I guess then it's ok... and that's the problem.

[Papay]

Military briefing: Ukraine’s ‘high-risk’ bid to breach Russia’s fortified frontline | Financial Times (ft.com)

Financial times claims that Ukraine has 35.000 soldiers ready for the planned counter-offensive and they will face about 140.000 Russian soldiers. Do they really believe they can launch a succesfull counter attack with these numbers? What if this offensive failes, what Kiev will do next when they realize they dont have troops to fight?

[Coughdrop addict]

How is it a vassal?

He doesn't like the decision the E.U. made and rather than assign agency to it assumes that it must have been the United States forcing it to do that. This idea isn't new. For many years politicians both left and right in many countries have pushed a narrative that the United States is mostly or even solely responsible for their nation's and the world's woes as a convenient deflection from their own actions and/or incompetence. The narrative is so widespread that many people automatically jump to it as an explanation for any developments they don't like.

This narrative is untrue and unfair. Rather than American politicians manipulating the world behind the scenes towards some ill-defined malevolent end, it is far more likely that the world has been changing in ways that were difficult to anticipate and hard to respond to. The world has undergone massive cultural, economic, and political shifts over the last several decades. The Soviet Union was revealed to be a hollowed-out husk that fell apart nearly overnight. China went from a third world country to one of the most powerful economies in the world. The internet changed nearly all aspects of life from how we work to how we shop to how we date. Russia launched a war of aggression against Ukraine for little reason beyond Putin's ego.

All of these events and more have changed the world in many ways and have wrought all sorts of other outcomes both good and bad. These things didn't happen because of someone scheming in D.C. While policy makes a difference, that does not mean that these developments were a result of some United States plot. The idea that every negative development from these events was the intentional result of some American agenda is not sophisticated or worldly; it's naïve. It has far too high an opinion of what the United States has the power to do, and far too low an opinion of the agency of other countries, and it's eager to accept every bleak assessment of global events while rejecting any signs of progress or prosperity. This encourages cynicism and discourages collective effort in places were it could have a positive impact.

The fact is that the world has been subject to some complicated, largely unexpected, and very hard-to-handle events in the last several decades. It is not shocking that U.S. political leaders have not always responded well to them. But by insisting that these events were intentionally caused by some U.S. politicians, and the only reason they were not always effectively dealt with was malevolent intent on America's part, they encourage an attitude of fatalism and the attribution of dark motives behind even the most benevolent of U.S. initiatives like vaccination and food programs for the needy, or efforts to fight climate change. This will only make it harder for foreign leaders to acknowledge the complexity of the challenges we all face, and to work with the United States toward addressing them.

[conon394]

Military briefing: Ukraine’s ‘high-risk’ bid to breach Russia’s fortified frontline | Financial Times (ft.com)

Financial times claims that Ukraine has 35.000 soldiers ready for the planned counter-offensive and they will face about 140.000 Russian soldiers. Do they really believe they can launch a succesfull counter attack with these numbers? What if this offensive failes, what Kiev will do next when they realize they dont have troops to fight?

You did not really read the link did you? Russian troops are all up an down the line. Did you look at the picture of the dragon teeth they are just sitting there and in many cases or almost all are one line. They are not cemented in and F250 with snow plow could push them aside.

https://www-ft-com.ezp.lib.cam.ac.uk...next&width=700

Here is what real fortifications look like

https://www.ww2online.org/image/drag...embourg-france

The Russians helpfully seem to leave the metal eyehole on top so really even a motivated platoon of infantry with a rope or two or a chain in a quite sector could just pull them aside.

[Cyclops]

China would suffer atrociously if it invaded Taiwan. They have been slow and steady achieving goals so far, and largely legally and by the book (in fact very tolerant with the US created regime in South Korea, and the rebels in Taiwan). If Xi succumbs to Putin style nationalist idiocy he will cause his country great harm as it is far less well set up to resist a US blockade: hundreds of millions will die. The problem with one-man rule is if the one man goes senile there goes the leadership. Meanwhile the US is electing clowns and corpses and the deep state keeps chugging along: for all is faults there's more participation and capacity in Washington.

I'm not interested in your delusions any further. Selling you that bridge is win enough. No refunds btw.

There's a few posters not worth responding to, and I block them after a while. Means I can see worthwhile posters more easily (old eyes).

The US are the hypocrites-in-chief by virtue of their influence and power, not because they are singularly bad. Any state that leads the most powerful block in the world would replace them. So don't give me this "poor-US' nonsense. The argument is fine. Instead, what is weak is your argument that Russia invaded (I dispute the "started" or at least provoked the war claim), therefore the other side can do whatever the hell they want and it's Russia's fault. I hate to have to keep repeating sth so simple and obvious, but it seems it's necessary. Here we go again then: two wrongs, don't make a right.

Also, the US failing in Vietnam, or Afghanistan does not make the US a failed or failing state. It makes them simply a state that at those circumstances failed.

The US has indeed many war crimes under its belt, as it wages wars and war crimes happen in wars, and the people that revealed them are still in trouble, like in the case of Assange languishing in some British prison with no visible recourse. This if anything proves my point that our media is not impartial, that the state interferes. The power of the US to control the narrative is far greater than that of Russia, on the world stage. Who knows how many war crimes we never heard about because those that knew about it did not want to end up character assassinated and hiding in an Ecuadorian embassy.

Not sure who argued "Russia stronk so obey" and in what context, but yes the US is stronger and the world (especially the west) is generally obeying. I have noted that the EU is but a vassal several times. I would argue Australia is no different. I don't see what point you are trying to make here.

The same argument that says "Russia feels they have a claim on Ukraine, better give in" works for the US. I don't like it either way.

There is some basis to compare how countries behave when there are less consequences: under the nuclear umbrella both the US and USSR played "murder the popular leader and topple the regime" a lot and the U won that contest more by stamina than moral rectitude: at least thy helped give the USSTR a soft landing (that was both self interest and some sense of moral obligation in my view). The UK hegemony prior to WWI was more oppressive than the current US hegemony in my view.

I feel the US was failing in Vietnam: if you get to a stage where your soldiers won't fight (and it may be overstated but the US army completely overhauled their army, down to unit leadership doctrine in the wake of Vietnam debacle) then your state is failing. France 1917, Tsarist Empire in late 1916, Second Reich in late 1918, these were failing states. They can be saved but not always. There's other ways to fail of course but not being able to fight is pretty serious.

Plenty to criticize in the US Empire but its support for Ukraine seems to cohere with Ukrainian survival.

Military briefing: Ukraine’s ‘high-risk’ bid to breach Russia’s fortified frontline | Financial Times (ft.com)

Financial times claims that Ukraine has 35.000 soldiers ready for the planned counter-offensive and they will face about 140.000 Russian soldiers. Do they really believe they can launch a succesfull counter attack with these numbers? What if this offensive failes, what Kiev will do next when they realize they dont have troops to fight?

Thought you weren't posting until Russia won the war. Probably the high quality Russian troops will encircle the Ukrainian army and defeat it in, say, three days?

[Alastor]

The same argument that says "Russia feels they have a claim on Ukraine, better give in" works for the US. I don't like it either way.

There is some basis to compare how countries behave when there are less consequences: under the nuclear umbrella both the US and USSR played "murder the popular leader and topple the regime" a lot and the U won that contest more by stamina than moral rectitude: at least thy helped give the USSTR a soft landing (that was both self interest and some sense of moral obligation in my view). The UK hegemony prior to WWI was more oppressive than the current US hegemony in my view.

I feel the US was failing in Vietnam: if you get to a stage where your soldiers won't fight (and it may be overstated but the US army completely overhauled their army, down to unit leadership doctrine in the wake of Vietnam debacle) then your state is failing. France 1917, Tsarist Empire in late 1916, Second Reich in late 1918, these were failing states. They can be saved but not always. There's other ways to fail of course but not being able to fight is pretty serious.

Plenty to criticize in the US Empire but its support for Ukraine seems to cohere with Ukrainian survival.

I don't like it either. But reality doesn't really care about our likes. The fact of the matter is, if the US feels entitled to claim sth, there are few things that can realistically deter them.

I don't dispute this. We can argue it was a different era, a more oppressive one in general, but its neither here nor there. The point though isn't to accept that things could be worse, they always could, the point is to criticise what's bad and find what could be better.

Perhaps in hindsight you could make that argument, when it happens I don't think so. Also I don't find the US in the early 70s in any way comparable to late WWI era Germany or Russia. The US in the 70s was a superpower that simply couldn't convince its soldiers they needed to die for a far-off war that meant nothing to them. The US countered these issues by creating a professional army. That comes with its own set of issues though, including an increased level of military adventurism.

Considering it serves US interests this is true. But it doesn't mean the US is acting out of respect for the sovereignty of other states. There is no real moral considerations here. Except for weaponising morality to further a geopolitical agenda.

[conon394]

and corpses

Sorry Cyclops I take corpse Biden over ineffectual non corpse tentative half measure Obama any day. Sure he sounds better but umm he was not all that good of president.


--------------

including an increased level of military adventurism

I don't think anyone has ever really made that case very effectively. going back to say the end of ww2 I really so particular difference in us military adventurism before or after the draft ending.

Considering it serves US interests this is true. But it doesn't mean the US is acting out of respect for the sovereignty of other states. There is no real moral considerations here. Except for weaponising morality to further a geopolitical agenda.

That overstatement where has the recently invaded a country with intent to cut it up and or detach parts of permanently?

[Alastor]

I don't think anyone has ever really made that case very effectively. going back to say the end of ww2 I really so particular difference in us military adventurism before or after the draft ending.

I have seen a number of interesting articles on this topic from time to time and I found the points made convincing. A professional military encourages the disconnect of the civilian part of society from military affairs across the board. Including the increasing tendency of Congress itself to abdicate its responsibilities to the executive branch on such matters. Or the simple notion that when you have a profession, an industry, you will want to use it. While a conscript military you will want to avoid using. There are numerous benefits and numerous drawbacks of such a practice, but an increase in adventurism seems to be a fair assessment. Comparisons to the Roman army's development in the late republic are a common theme too, though perhaps less convincing.

That overstatement where has the recently invaded a country with intent to cut it up and or detach parts of permanently?

Not sure what you are trying to say here. I'm guessing some word is missing. So I'll just say that territorial integrity and sovereignty are not the same thing.