Stupid Shit in Kyiv

[Jmsuttr]

California, New Mexico, Texas etc, m stolen at the point of a gun from Mexico.

"Pity Mexico, so far from God, so near to ther United States."

Go off and eat a dozen of your horrible hot dogs (German, as nothing is American, bar shit like Coca Cola) I see your scum are invading Somalia again. The sooner open season is declared, the better.

Since America's past is causing you to hyperventilate, and America's present is giving you high blood pressure, it stands to reason that America's positive and dominant future is about to cause you a debilitating stroke!

[Jmsuttr]

America has no culture, bar song and dance, Silicone Valley, Johnny Depp and snorting coke. The major sources of Western culture are all in Western Europe. Yours is the culture of Gladiator, blood and dildoes.

I am only replying to your note here as the others are too long winded and pompous to bother with. They do, however, show what imperialist pigs Americans are, a truly vile bunch of rejects, who are now trying to beg for oil from Venezuela, a country they ruined.

As regards a clown going on about my English, one of several languages I speak as a second tongue, I cannot edit posts here as American perverts in the Philippines board got me moderated for using the word skank to describe, well, skanks. They too show the same ignorant arrogance.

Don't let your loud mouths and loud Hawaii t shirts fool you. You are loathed by those who have not dumbed down.

Like the jealous critics of dominant sports teams, you love to engage in masturbatory anti-American critiques, grasping at whatever straws your feeble imagination can conjure up.

Meanwhile, like the dominant force it is, the US just laughs off such farcical comments and continues to outperform. It must really suck to be you as you watch US-led NATO increase its presence and influence in Europe. As I predicted early on, in this very forum, Sweden and Finland have applied for NATO membership. At the same time, it's being reported that Poland and the Baltic states are requesting an additional 20,000 NATO troops for each country (total 80,000). Since a significant proportion of those troops will be American, get ready for an upcoming boom of American babies in Eastern Europe.

America has never given two shits for those who are envious and the response has ever been, and will continue to be, moving onward and upward on a trajectory of success. Meanwhile, America's closest rivals (China and Russia) are demonstrably in decline.

P.S. Nice try to blame the admins for your own deficiencies. Checking the spelling of "culture" is simply an elementary exercise in proofreading, which the "preview post" button provides unlimited opportunity to do. And using the wrong word entirely (exasperated vice exacerbated) is an error that goes beyond proofreading. But that's ok, blaming others is one of the character traits you've demonstrated, so it's not a surprise.

[PedroMorales]

California, New Mexico, Texas etc, m stolen at the point of a gun from Mexico.

"Pity Mexico, so far from God, so near to ther United States."

Go off and eat a dozen of your horrible hot dogs (German, as nothing is American, bar shit like Coca Cola) I see your scum are invading Somalia again. The sooner open season is declared, the better.

Unlike animals, most humans hold a concept of good and evil, right versus wrong.

Your post started off well enough with your analogies to territory in the animal kingdom. But then, you digressed in comparing Russia's relationship to the Ukraine with the United State's relationship with Canada. There is nothing remotely comparable. It's because Western Democracies can cooperate and work together for mutual betterment.

Mearsheimer has some points to consider. I'm not sure they are the points you have gleaned.

[WyattEarp]

America has no culture, bar song and dance, Silicone Valley, Johnny Depp and snorting coke. The major sources of Western culture are all in Western Europe. Yours is the culture of Gladiator, blood and dildoes.

Democracy is kind of a big cultural thing. I hear it's catching on. You might want to actually try it.

[WyattEarp]

Where Hitler failed to destroy Russia and grab control of their natural resources, the USA can succeed.

In the near-term, you might be looking at Chinese petroleum executives all over Moscow. I think the Chinese will be all over the Moscow clubs sniffing some of that fine Russian pussy. Perhaps Gazprom Neft, Rosneft and Tatneft, can become Gazprom Snift, Rossnift and so on.

[WyattEarp]

You write about realism but you don't understand what it is and in fact you are another idealist.

Humans are territorial animals. Territorial borders are set largely by assessment of comparative strength of competitors for territory. To take territory from an existing possessor requires being considerably stronger, because no one gives up territory if they can avoid it. These rules about territory apply everywhere in nature. Open conflict occurs when there is uncertainty as to comparative fighting strength (both bodily and mental strength aka willpower or determination). Animals always understand the rules, so senseless fighting (outcome obvious but neither side relents and thus both sides suffer) is rare in nature. Senseless fighting is more common among humans, because mental strength is such a big factor, and far more difficult to assess mental than physical strength of the opponents. In particular, fighting to death over ideologies (like Ukrainian versus Russian language) is unheard of with animals but common with humans.

Neither I nor Mearsheimer approves (or disapproves) of Russia (or Ukraine or USA), any more than we approve or disapprove of animals fighting over territory. Realism is not about morality. It is about understanding what is actually happening. By understanding territorial conflicts, we can resolve them peacefully, so as to minimize damage to everyone concerned...

Unlike animals, most humans hold a concept of good and evil, right versus wrong.

Your post started off well enough with your analogies to territory in the animal kingdom. But then, you digressed in comparing Russia's relationship to the Ukraine with the United State's relationship with Canada. There is nothing remotely comparable. It's because Western Democracies can cooperate and work together for mutual betterment.

Mearsheimer has some points to consider. I'm not sure they are the points you have gleaned.

[WyattEarp]

There might be aversions of some Russians against Ukraine; but I think, this is not common private opinion.

Yes, I wouldn't give too much credence to Russian TV working girls. (I'm not directing this pejorative comment specifically at the Russian female commentator in the clip below. It is directed at all of them.)

[WyattEarp]

Is that it relies on at least one dubious (if not provably false) assumption. And that is that there is any settlement that will satisfy Russia in the long run. They started this war with the aim of taking ALL of Ukraine. They failed mostly because their "intel" that a sizeable portion of the population would greet them as liberators was dead (pun intended) wrong. So what basis is there for a school of thought that Russia will ever be fully satisfied by taking (only) Donetsk, Luhansk, and other such areas? Such a view is naive in the extreme, IMO, or willfully ignorant.

Based on multiple statements by Putin, and others, a better reality-based assessment is that Russian ambition is to reclaim territory they feel is theirs by historical and divine right. Which means that any agreement or armistice that falls short of that goal is likely doomed to failure..

Mearsheimer's arguments sounds an awfully lot like "Hey if you just give Hitler Austria, Czechoslovakia and maybe a piece of Poland, that will make the ol' boy happy."

I wouldn't totally discount his point of view. You earlier mentioned Russian reparations to the Ukraine. The West has to be very careful about how the peace is built. In fact, having Turkey engaged as a mediator might not be a bad thing. You don't want it to appear that the West is imposing a punitive peace on the Russians.

The Ukrainian "corrosion" strategy is interesting analysis. It's not entirely a new concept. I believe the North Vietnamese employed a similar strategy. They made the USA And French earlier pay such a price that they simply packed up and left. I think by all accounts the Tet Offensive in 1968 was not an attempt to advance and actually hold ground. It was a strategic victory in that it corroded the United States' will to fight. I think at some point the North Vietnamese had swung global opinion to their favor.

The problem I see is will the Russians simply pack up and leave both physically and emotionally. Will they give up on the idea of controlling the Ukraine in one form or another?

Not to be glib, but it's like a divorce where one former partner tries to continue controlling and manipulating the other. In this case, the other partner is clearly saying "we have moved on."

[Jmsuttr]

You write about realism but you don't understand what it is and in fact you are another idealist.

Humans are territorial animals. Territorial borders are set largely by assessment of comparative strength of competitors for territory. To take territory from an existing possessor requires being considerably stronger, because no one gives up territory if they can avoid it. These rules about territory apply everywhere in nature. Open conflict occurs when there is uncertainty as to comparative fighting strength (both bodily and mental strength aka willpower or determination). Animals always understand the rules, so senseless fighting (outcome obvious but neither side relents and thus both sides suffer) is rare in nature. Senseless fighting is more common among humans, because mental strength is such a big factor, and far more difficult to assess mental than physical strength of the opponents. In particular, fighting to death over ideologies (like Ukrainian versus Russian language) is unheard of with animals but common with humans...

I define reality as things that are actually happening, not how I think things "should be," but the facts and evidence on the ground. You make repeated reference to Mearsheimer's world view, which you obviously share. But confusing a world view with reality is exactly the same fatal error that Russia made when they invaded. In their mistaken world view, Ukraine is just a subset of Greater Russia, and of course Ukrainians "should" recognize that fact and welcome the "liberators" benevolently sent by the Kremlin. But reality always has the final say, as tens of thousands of dead Russian soldiers can attest.

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I'm proposing greater US involvement. I propose nothing, I merely observe, comment on those observations, and suggest possible extrapolations from what's currently happening. And I do my best to focus on the tides rather than the waves. And right now the tide is almost entirely moving against Russia. If or when that changes, I'll do my best to make accurate observations of that new reality. I don't see that happening any time soon, if ever, but that's simply an opinion.

Likewise, your and Mearsheimer's world view about humans as territorial animals, which seems to me to be essentially a "Law of the Jungle" view, is an opinion, nothing more. You're certainly entitled to it and I simply have no inclination to debate it because, as I stated above, my focus is on the current, observable, reality of facts on the ground.

Right now, those facts include a vast amount of money and equipment being funneled into Ukraine from NATO and Western countries. Could that change at some point? Yes, certainly. But that tide hasn't changed and is flowing decisively in Ukraine's direction. And it's worth considering that much of what's happening may not stem from any great love or affinity for Ukraine, but perhaps be driven by fear (or hate) of Russia and a desire to see Russian aggression defeated and Russia itself crippled. But that latter point is simply one theory as to why some countries are helping. The "why" of things is always open to debate, whereas the "what" is objectively observable.

Mearsheimer, IMO, superimposes his view of the "why" on the "what" and conflates the two. All his (and your) claims that his theories and world view constitute objective reality simply fall flat except, of course, to those that share them.

As with any theory, Mearsheimer's might prove to be correct. I don't personally think so, but I could be wrong. It's reality that always wins out in the end, and separates the wheat from the chaff. That's where my primary focus is, and any theory that doesn't account for, or contradicts, observable facts and evidence isn't worth my time.

[WyattEarp]

As far as Russian culture is concerned, it's actually at the root of their current troubles. Russia's hubris and narcissistic world view has its foundation in a delusional self-image. They have disdain for anything non-Russian and a belief they have a God-given right to rule over other nations, especially those with populations predominantly of Slavic origin.

Russian history and oddly the present is littered with this construct that Russia is the Big Daddy and overseer of the Slavic peoples. Throw into it some ancient mysticism from the Orthodox church and you are stuck in the perverted past.

Most of us know part of the origins of World War I. Russia's historic desire to expand West. Their belief in their right and prerogative to "protect" the peoples of the Balkans.

Strangely, Tito and the Balkan Slavs didn't run to Big Daddy Russia after World War II.

[PedroMorales]

Comrade, you seem to live in a parallel universe.

The United States is a 250 year-old amalgamation of cultures that has the eyes and ears of the world.

Russian culture while amazing hasn't really evolved in 250 years. There is an obvious lack of modernity hindered by a long, long love-hate relationship with the West.

America has no culture, bar song and dance, Silicone Valley, Johnny Depp and snorting coke. The major sources of Western culture are all in Western Europe. Yours is the culture of Gladiator, blood and dildoes.

I am only replying to your note here as the others are too long winded and pompous to bother with. They do, however, show what imperialist pigs Americans are, a truly vile bunch of rejects, who are now trying to beg for oil from Venezuela, a country they ruined.

As regards a clown going on about my English, one of several languages I speak as a second tongue, I cannot edit posts here as American perverts in the Philippines board got me moderated for using the word skank to describe, well, skanks. They too show the same ignorant arrogance.

Don't let your loud mouths and loud Hawaii t shirts fool you. You are loathed by those who have not dumbed down.

[Kozerog]

Is that it relies on at least one dubious (if not provably false) assumption. And that is that there is any settlement that will satisfy Russia in the long run.

You write about realism but you don't understand what it is and in fact you are another idealist.

Humans are territorial animals. Territorial borders are set largely by assessment of comparative strength of competitors for territory. To take territory from an existing possessor requires being considerably stronger, because no one gives up territory if they can avoid it. These rules about territory apply everywhere in nature. Open conflict occurs when there is uncertainty as to comparative fighting strength (both bodily and mental strength aka willpower or determination). Animals always understand the rules, so senseless fighting (outcome obvious but neither side relents and thus both sides suffer) is rare in nature. Senseless fighting is more common among humans, because mental strength is such a big factor, and far more difficult to assess mental than physical strength of the opponents. In particular, fighting to death over ideologies (like Ukrainian versus Russian language) is unheard of with animals but common with humans.

Neither I nor Mearsheimer approves (or disapproves) of Russia (or Ukraine or USA), any more than we approve or disapprove of animals fighting over territory. Realism is not about morality. It is about understanding what is actually happening. By understanding territorial conflicts, we can resolve them peacefully, so as to minimize damage to everyone concerned.

Russia considered Ukraine an extension of its territory, same as USA considers Canada an extension of its territory. If Putin or the Russian military leadership as a whole had wanted to seize all of Ukraine, they could have easily done so in 2014. Instead, they deliberately limited themselves to taking only Crimea, as a punishment to Ukraine and a warning to other FSU states. They were careful not to put uniformed troops in Donbas and the Minsk accord assumed Donbas remained part of a federalized Ukraine, precisely because Russia was trying to send a message that they respect borders and they want others to respect them. This current war is another dose of punishment and warning because Ukraine didn't get the message the first time.

As it turns out, Russia's fighting strength may not be sufficient to justify the territory it claims, and it is obvious that Russia recognizes this and is already in retreat to some extent. But a powerful and lightly wounded animal that lost a fight and is now retreating is extremely dangerous if pursued, because eventually it will reach a point where it refuses to give up more territory and then it will fight ferociously, to the death if necessary. That means nuclear weapons in the current case of Russia. And if USA / NATO responds to tactical nukes with the same, then strategic nukes is the next step.

The incoherency of your position becomes very clear if you start proposing a full-on USA involvement in Ukraine. Why not? Ukraine is a sovereign country so why can't Ukraine invite the USA military to move in with USA aircraft flown by USA pilots, etc? Unless you are a complete fool, something in your stomach will turn at this idea.

Whereas my and Mearsheimer's position is fully coherent. Like animals protecting our territory, we know there are borders, the borders are somewhat fuzzy, the borders grow and shrink as fighting strength grows and shrinks. We sense, at an intuitive level, that we are not willing to risk nuclear war for Ukraine, but we will risk it at the Poland border. And reality corresponds to our realist understanding of the world. Still no USA / NATO troops or aircraft with USA / NATO pilots in Ukraine, because USA / NATO military commanders are mostly realists, and they understand at the animal intuition level that is pushing too far. Unfortunately, at the conscious level, USA / NATO and Ukraine political, as opposed to military, leaders are all thinking in idealist rather than realist terms, and this led to misunderstanding.

If Ukraine won't take a settlement, then the outcome is obvious: stalemate. Russia digs in and holds south and east Ukraine, most of which will be a destroyed wasteland. Subdued fighting continues for years. USA uses Ukraine to test new weapons technologies. Russia uses war to justify strong central government under Putin's successor (he will surely die of hos various sicknesses soon). Ukraine is impoverished. (Your prediction of Western countries pouring money into Ukraine after the war ends is laughable. Janet Yellen just yesterday started making noises that seizing Russian foreign reserves is illegal, in main Kyiv thread there are comments that Poles are already getting tired of their Ukrainian refugees, Europe going into recession and still depends on Russian gas and other natural resources, divisiveness by Hungary and other countries resentful of Ukraine getting so much money, plus Ukrainian politicians will steal any aid the country does get, etc).

[Reiner Otto]

The linked article is not bad. However, it neglects the opinion of the "simple" Russian or Ukrainian.

During my years living and working in St. Petersburg, in the year 1998, I met the boss of a German social org from Hamburg, providing support to people in SPb.

He told me, they had arranged a meeting of former soldiers of the "Wehrmacht" (former German Army) and the Red Army, fighting against each other during siege of SPb.

I was very surprised, but were informed, they drank vodka and beer together, and were singing their old songs.

Asking, how that was possible, I was told: The soldiers said, we had to shoot each other, because otherwise the Gestapo or the NKWD had shot us.

There might be aversions of some Russians against Ukraine; but I think, this is not common private opinion.

[Jmsuttr]

This is all very likely, but I'm a bit more optimistic.

I didn't include the rest of your post in the quote above because, no matter how rational and hopeful it may sound, I fear it's largely irrelevant.

That's because I believe this war involves issues that far predate Putin, and go back much further than even the USSR period. Here's a thread that, while a bit of a long read, delves deeply into the cultural and historical underpinnings of the conflict:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...455654913.html

After reading this it became clear to me that Russia is not what it is because of Putin. Rather Putin is what he is because of Russia, and is the product of all the cultural, literary, and religious traditions that form the Russian consciousness. Putin is merely the current instrument of that consciousness and, when he's gone, Russia will choose another. Whatever the solution is, if one even exists, it won't be one that only touches the surface and addresses only the current state of affairs. I can't fathom what would be required to change the entire soul, and deep-seated world view, of an entire nation. Yet that might be exactly what's required. That realization, unfortunately, is why I can't share your optimism.

[Golfinho]

This is all very likely, There is only one direction to go from chaos and that is up. Interestingly if you look at crude oil price charts starting from Putin's rise to power in 1999, you will see oil at $20 per barrel rising virtually unstoppable to a price of over $100 per barrel in 2014. I also don't think that the invasion of the Ukraine and the rapid rise in oil prices in 2021 are unconnected events.

Getting back to the question Hitler launched his war of aggression twenty years after World War II. Many Germans and certainly the German military were all too willing to avenge the defeat of WWI.

Where Hitler failed to destroy Russia and grab control of their natural resources, the USA can succeed.