Stupid Shit in Kyiv

[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.

[Jmsuttr]

This is a recent short video clip where Mearsheimer clearly explains the extreme danger of current USA policy. To summarize, there are 2 conditions under which Russia will use nukes: (1) someone uses nukes against Russia first; (2) Russia faces threat to its existence. "Threat to existence" is a fuzzy concept, but that is exactly what the USA cheerleaders seems to be hinting at. In particular, humiliating external military defeat that might lead to internal political disintegration sounds like "threat to existence". If you care about Ukraine, then you cannot be hoping for humiliating Russian defeat because of the possibility this causes escalation to nukes. Painful as it will be to the Ukrainians, they need to accept any reasonable settlement with Russia. Which probably means more of south and east Ukraine under Russian control that before..

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.

But, but, they have NUKES! Yes, that's absolutely true. And they'll still have nukes if they decide to "denazify" Poland, Finland, or the Baltics. Or maybe start with non-NATO countries like Moldova? The problem with the nuke argument is that it gives the aggressor carte blanche, and Putin knows this and doesn't hesitate to rattle his nuclear saber.

So where does it stop? Mearsheimer seems to believe it's all the fault of NATO and the West and that Russia would play nice if they weren't provoked. I don't think history and evidence back up that position. For one thing, it denies or minimizes Russia's agency over, and responsibility for, its own decisions and actions. The rivalry between the US and the USSR (and now Russia) is such that each has been provoking the other for decades. I'm not defending any specific action by NATO or the West, merely observing that Russia AFFIRMATIVELY chose to invade, and they CHOSE to launch shells and missiles at targets they knew were civilian. Putin and Russia will go down in history as war criminals, and not just because NATO or the US says so. There will be an innumerable number of voices that will join in a chorus of condemnation.

All the above means that Mearsheimer's proposed solution doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of happening. And one ironclad piece of evidence to that effect is that Ukraine will never accept it, and there's no political will to pressure them to do so. And, even if there was, Ukraine would destroy any such pressure in the court of public opinion as they're hugely winning the information warfare battle.

As to how things will actually play out, I'd be foolish to predict since there are so many variables still in play. But I will share an insight that I thought was a good one. And by good I mean that it's based on what's actually happening rather than someone's idea of what "should" happen.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/...17-p5alz4.html

The article, authored by a retired Australian general, points out that Ukraine's strategy so far has been one of "corrosion" with respect to Russia's ability to fight. Rather than pushing for overt victories, which they'd probably find difficult to achieve, they're wearing down the enemy while undermining that enemy's ability and will to fight. Will that prove successful over the long haul? Who knows? But it's the kind of low-key strategy that robs Putin of escalation opportunities. His army is grinding to a halt due to its own logistical and leadership failures, and even everyday Russians are starting to recognize that fact. Russian military bloggers, as just one example, have recently savaged the army's botched river crossing, in which they reportedly lost hundreds of vehicles and troops. Nobody's buying the "NATO did that" BS excuse. And at the same time, many conscription offices are being firebombed across Russia.

I think Putin knows he has a weak hand and that's one reason he passed up a prime opportunity to mobilize and escalate, during the recent Victory Day celebration. Instead, he delivered a nothingburger of a speech that left analysts, inside and outside Russia, scratching their heads.

I can't predict the future, and neither can Mearsheimer, but I'm not buying what he's selling.

[Jmsuttr]

Russia has a deep and wide culture. The USA has none, nada.

Venezuela's problems are exasperated by the USA stealing (freezing etc) its financial and other resources.

The rouble is strong, the German economy is in the toilet, all for obeying the USA and its puppets.

Or did you mean to say "exacerbated" and "culture" instead?

Oh well, your illiteracy aside, both Venezuela and Russia are experiencing the consequences of their own actions. And anyone looking for a foreshadowing of likely future effects on Russia would do well to study the toll sanctions have taken on Venezuela's economy. They've both made their geopolitical beds and now are being compelled to sleep in them. If they have problems with that, they should start by taking a look in the mirror.

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.

Actually, when it comes to culture, Kyiv has priority over Moscow as it's the older capital by far and it's where "Kievan Rus" originated, not Moscow. So, by any standard of cultural primacy, Moscow should be paying tribute to Kyiv, not the other way around.

As far as the US is concerned, being a young country, built by immigrants from every corner of the world, we're happy to be an amalgamation of many cultures. One of the benefits of that unique history is that it tends to ameliorate, minimize, and eliminate the worst ideas and tendencies of any single culture. Is it perfect? Absolutely not! But there's a reason why there's a waiting line to get in, and it's because many still see it as the quintessential Land of Opportunity.

What opportunity is there in Russia? You're either a member of the St. Petersburg-Moscow elite or you're a peasant who exists for the sole purpose of being used and exploited by that elite. Russia's problem is that, while past leaders (Tsars and USSR dictators) had an ample supply of cannon fodder, that demographic reality no longer exists. Not only are they running short of exploitable military-age men, but they're dealing with a huge exodus of their best and brightest.

Russia, like Putin himself, is sick and getting sicker.

P.S. As far as Germany is concerned, they've been joined at the hip with Russia for years. Serves them right if their economy is suffering as a result. The sooner Europe cuts any lines that tie them to the sinking Russian ship, the better.

[Paulie97]

My hope is time. The more time that passes from the disintegration of the Soviet Union thirty years ago the more Russia will be able to move forward. 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. The difference is older Russians familiar and somewhat satisfied with life under the Soviets is slowly giving way to younger and more modern Russians. Putin himself is a relic of the Soviet system.

I couldn't agree more.

[WyattEarp]

Russia has a deep and wide culture. The USA has none, nada.

Venezuela's problems are exasperated by the USA stealing (freezing etc) its financial and other resources.

The rouble is strong, the German economy is in the toilet, all for obeying the USA and its puppets.

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.

[WyattEarp]

First, whether Putin's overthrow would change things depends on who replaces him. A like-for-like swap is unlikely to have much effect. And, as things stand right now, if he's removed (or dies) it's more probable he'd be replaced by a hawkish nationalist rather than a reformer.
.....................................................

After decades of Putin's autocratic and kleptocratic rule, he's either eliminated or driven out anyone who might be a credible reformer. And even high-profile opposition figures, like Navalny, are still cut from the same Moscow-Saint Petersburg, elite-centric, ethnic-Russian nationalist cloth. One of the reasons Russia seems (IMO) doomed to decades of darkness is that there doesn't appear to be anyone, or any credible movement, capable of leading them toward a different path. And it's my sense that the national mindset has been so conditioned by Putinism that they're incapable, at least at this point in time, of changing course. A rough analogy would be that of an addict who needs to hit rock bottom, with all their lies exposed and rationalizations destroyed, as an essential step toward rebuilding..

This is all very likely, but I'm a bit more optimistic. A Russian nationalist can politically benefit for a few years from putting things back together, stopping the carnage and getting the economy going again.

I think what extreme nationalist leaders like Putin (and Hitler) benefited from was taking over in a period of chaos. 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 of a new Russian leader. There is certainly a real fear that Russia will be in some form of constant belligerency with NATO and the West. I don't think Russian institutions have improved since 1992. Russian institutions certainly don't appear immediately ready to try another attempt at real democratic progress and free market economics.

My hope is time. The more time that passes from the disintegration of the Soviet Union thirty years ago the more Russia will be able to move forward. 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. The difference is older Russians familiar and somewhat satisfied with life under the Soviets is slowly giving way to younger and more modern Russians. Putin himself is a relic of the Soviet system.

The key is to find a way around a humiliating Russian defeat in the Ukraine or at least the appearance of such. Russian reparations are problematic. I'm also not so sure the Ukrainians will now be satisfied with a draw. I'm not convinced the Biden Administration will be adept at managing the peace.

[Kozerog]

To me it seems more likely that Russia, after full or partial defeat in Ukraine, will retreat into isolation, continue on the path of belligerence and NATO-West blaming and, even though exposed as a (conventional) paper tiger, remain dangerous by virtue of their nuclear capability.

Yes, that's the most likely outcome, as cooler heads have been predicting all along, which is why they warned against trying to pull Ukraine into the Western orbit and thus provoke this war. In other words, Russia with be more like North Korea than before, a thorn in the side of the USA and Western Europe and others. Not so crazy and isolated as North Korea, but vastly more dangerous and with enough of an economy and valuable natural resources to cause far more mischief than North Korea. Note that 60+ years of isolation and sanctions have done nothing to break North Korea's (or Cuba's) defiance of the USA.