Ukraine Conflict - Das Himmelfahrtskommando

[Chilloutman]

1 minute ago, BruceVC said:

The military success of the Russian invasion has definitely gone against them in several areas but its still better to reach a complete ceasefire IMO than one more Ukrainian has to get killed 

what ceasefire? They got kicked out so they want remaining units move to Donbas area where they are still shooting anything that moves (or not move in case of buildings)

[Malcador]

9 hours ago, rjshae said:

Hypothetically speaking, suppose the Ukraine and Russia come to terms with some treaty terms and transfer of territory. What is to prevent Russia from spending the next five years fixing their armed forces and then just repeating the invasion?

Nothing prevents Ukraine from getting armed and trained with the US gear that needs it. 

[BruceVC]

13 minutes ago, Chilloutman said:

what ceasefire? They got kicked out so they want remaining units move to Donbas area where they are still shooting anything that moves (or not move in case of buildings)

Yes but I want to see a ceasefire but its not happening now 

[BruceVC]

This quote below will go down in military history as one of the worst predictions ever made 

[kanisatha]

3 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

This quote below will go down in military history as one of the worst predictions ever made 

Indeed. But it wasn't just Putin and his ilk who were convinced of this nonsense. Many Western observers--politicians, military leaders, media personalities, and even academics at elite universities--all spewed this nonsense again and again for years prior to February 24.

[kanisatha]

4 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

Astonishingly, this attitude is fairly widespread among those leaning to the left. It can appear in people who are otherwise quite well informed and reasonable. The key tenet seems to be this: Whatever the United States is involved in cannot, by definition, be morally proper.

I am by no means a "fan" of the United States (a country so full of contradictions it just boggles the mind), but this kind of thinking is sheer idiocy. My take is that it stems from the all too human need for simplicity: life is so much easier if you accept facile generalizations, instead of trying to approach every situation on its own.

Interestingly, and kind of paradoxically, Vladimir Putin has recently demonstrated that whatever Russia says should never be trusted. There is no getting away from this: his betrayal and dishonesty has been so blatant and far-reaching. And since losing trust is extremely easy but regaining it is very hard, I suppose it'll take quite some time before Russia regains trust in international politics. Like, decades at least.

Btw, if you ask Russia, it really hasn't attacked anyone. Seriously. What do you mean war in Ukraine? What are you talking about? We are not bombing cities, we are rearranging architecture. We are not killing civilians, we are making alterations in their life expectancy.

2 hours ago, bugarup said:

It also serves quite a practical purpose - that is, avoiding accountability for your actions by passing blame onto someone else. Because no matter how thick the iron curtain is, people are curious animals and will eventually start asking questions like, "Why aren't we allow to travel abroad to witness oppression of Western proletariat by capitalist pigs themselves", or "Why capitalist pigs-made stuff is of better quality than ours?" or "Why common folk in former Warsaw pact countries and even those useless Baltics seem to live better than us in our resource rich land?" Or the most dangerous of them all, "Why our rulers and their entourage live lives rivalling that of Saudi oil sheikhs when everyone else is poor?" So just blame USA. And gays. 

Couldn't agree more with the both of you. Perfectly said.

[BruceVC]

1 minute ago, kanisatha said:

Indeed. But it wasn't just Putin and his ilk who were convinced of this nonsense. Many Western observers--politicians, military leaders, media personalities, and even academics at elite universities--all spewed this nonsense again and again for years prior to February 24.

Did they spread and believe misinformation  mostly for not understanding the national and ethnic reality of Ukraine or did they do it because of more ideological reasons and some being anti-western and Russian apologists  or did they do  it for other reasons?

And I realize this doesnt apply to everyone, I am just interested in your observations 

[Malcador]

  

33 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

This quote below will go down in military history as one of the worst predictions ever made 

Not quite sure some dude on Twitter is really worth including in military history.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Malcador

[213374U]

1 hour ago, xzar_monty said:

By which conceivable logic are you able to conclude that I regard myself as other than human, or otherwise exempt from the group "humans"?

I must say I would expect at least a little more professional attitude from a forum moderator (not unrealistically, in my view).

The implication is obviously that you believe yourself free of this flaw. Otherwise your post makes no sense -- if you were aware of this limitation as it applies to yourself, you wouldn't make a facile generalization, as you would realize that it's misleading and ultimately not useful. Nice backpedaling, though.

As for moderators participating in discussions, you will have to deal with it. Sorry.

Edited March 29, 2022 by 213374U

[kanisatha]

13 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Did they spread and believe misinformation  mostly for not understanding the national and ethnic reality of Ukraine or did they do it because of more ideological reasons and some being anti-western and Russian apologists  or did they do  it for other reasons?

And I realize this doesnt apply to everyone, I am just interested in your observations 

I would say 'different reasons for different individuals,' including simply arrogance that they know better than anyone else. This is the bane of elites in the West on all issues these days, this arrogance that they know better and ordinary people should just shut up and accept and do whatever they the elites say.

[kanisatha]

On the current shift to negotiations:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/28/russia-ukraine-set-for-face-to-face-peace

https://warontherocks.com/2022/03/the-work-to-come-russia-ukraine-and-the-west-at-the-negotiating-table/

[xzar_monty]

20 minutes ago, 213374U said:

The implication is obviously that you believe yourself free of this flaw. Otherwise your post makes no sense -- if you were aware of this limitation as it applies to yourself, you wouldn't make a facile generalization, as you would realize that it's misleading and ultimately not useful. Nice backpedaling, though.

As for moderators participating in discussions, you will have to deal with it. Sorry.

There is no such obvious implication.

Of course it is perfectly all right for moderators to participate in discussion. That was not the issue. The issue was one of professionalism, i.e. not being snide and not deliberately misconstruing other people's words.

[xzar_monty]

30 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Did they spread and believe misinformation  mostly for not understanding the national and ethnic reality of Ukraine or did they do it because of more ideological reasons and some being anti-western and Russian apologists  or did they do  it for other reasons?

All of the above, and more (i.e. "other reasons", too). Some of it was almost certainly due to being fairly well informed on one aspect of the situation (like, finances, geography or somesuch) but very badly informed on others. One of the most (unintentionally) dangerous characters is the one who really knows quite a lot about his field of expertise and then concludes that this constitutes expertise in other fields as well.

[Malcador]

5 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

Astonishingly, this attitude is fairly widespread among those leaning to the left. It can appear in people who are otherwise quite well informed and reasonable. The key tenet seems to be this: Whatever the United States is involved in cannot, by definition, be morally proper.

Doesn't really seem that unreasonable, if you look at the country's track record.  Also the US is a superpower, the game demands it screw with strategic rivals as they do to it, no ?

[BruceVC]

10 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Doesn't really seem that unreasonable, if you look at the country's track record.  Also the US is a superpower, the game demands it screw with strategic rivals as they do to it, no ?

No, thats very unreasonable

The US has been involved in much more important and positive conflicts ,and I would say are indeed morally proper, than negative conflicts. And we wouldnt have the freedoms we have today if it wasnt for countries like the US and their military contribution 

Think of WW1, WW2 and the Cold War....can you imagine the hell of living under Communism like the USSR ?

[HoonDing]

Unhinged Joe can no longer be allowed to remain in power

 

[xzar_monty]

25 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Doesn't really seem that unreasonable, if you look at the country's track record.  Also the US is a superpower, the game demands it screw with strategic rivals as they do to it, no ?

It is very unreasonable, in fact, although the US does indeed have a very mixed track record. As @BruceVC quite rightly points out, the US has been involved in an awful lot of positive things, which of course doesn't excuse its failures and its dark side.

But to say that the US only operates in a spurious and morally questionable way is either plain dumb or extremely cynical(*) -- and in either case, it's quite plainly wrong.

(*) One interesting thing about cynical attitudes is this: if a person takes the stance that other people operate in the world only or predominantly from a cynical standpoint, it would be good for this person to recognize that the chances are very high that he himself is the most cynical person in this equation.

[Malcador]

15 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

It is very unreasonable, in fact, although the US does indeed have a very mixed track record. As @BruceVC quite rightly points out, the US has been involved in an awful lot of positive things, which of course doesn't excuse its failures and its dark side.

But to say that the US only operates in a spurious and morally questionable way is either plain dumb or extremely cynical(*) -- and in either case, it's quite plainly wrong.

(*) One interesting thing about cynical attitudes is this: if a person takes the stance that other people operate in the world only or predominantly from a cynical standpoint, it would be good for this person to recognize that the chances are very high that he himself is the most cynical person in this equation.

Well to conclude it perhaps, but is reasonable to assume it.  States are run like and by sociopaths. The US' "failures" and "dark side" as you put it is the reason people distrust their involvement in things (more so if their nation was receipt of US actions, I've experienced) and it depends on who the potential target is - if they are involved with Russian affairs it's going to be different than their involvement with Canadian ones (where they just **** us over ).   But yes, anti-American, etc. etc.

30 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Think of WW1, WW2 and the Cold War....can you imagine the hell of living under Communism like the USSR ?

Not even sure what the outcome of WW1 would have been had the "bad guys" won, well other than a different kind of WW2 later I will hazard a WAG at.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Malcador

[213374U]

2 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

There is no such obvious implication.

Of course it is perfectly all right for moderators to participate in discussion. That was not the issue. The issue was one of professionalism, i.e. not being snide and not deliberately misconstruing other people's words.

You were, quite obviously, arguing from the tacit premise that you don't indulge in the "need for simplicity" you described, leaving the door open to escape it by "approaching every situation on its own". Because otherwise, the implication is that the "sheer idiocy" (your own words) of that kind of reasoning also applies to you. I might be misunderstanding, so please enlighten me. Which one is it?

And while you're at it, please, demonstrate how I'm deliberately misconstruing your words. I'm simply taking your argument to its conclusion.

--

I mean, it's like the whole concept of great-power politics is alien to folks around here. Has nothing to do with USA = BAD or any number of facile generalizations reductionist caricatures. All great powers have done it, and will continue to do it, precisely because there's always people refusing to acknowledge it or coming up with rationalizations that "it's not so bad" when it's their side doing it. Yes, exactly like the Russians are doing right now.

It may come as a shock to some, but yes, it is perfectly possible to acknowledge Russia's atrocities and profound democratic shortcomings, while understanding that the US has no interest in a negotiated solution that may even remotely satisfy Russian security concerns. Especially when it's not US cities being shelled. Understanding this, and realizing that brinkmanship is a thing does not make anyone a bot, a propagandist, an apologist, stupid, or any other creative epithet you feel like throwing around. Ultimately, that is just deflection, as is pointing out that the US isn't all bad because they also did XYZ when no one has actually said USA=BAD. The Soviet Union raised literacy, economic indicators and living standards in Russia pretty indisputably. It emancipated women in a way that was unthinkable in Tsarist Russia. This didn't make it any less of a corrupted, totalitarian nightmare and the price of all that was paid in blood by people who had no say in the matter. Complex **** is complex. Stop processing arguments from your preconceptions of why the other person is saying what they are saying, and focus on what they are saying.

 

1 hour ago, Malcador said:

Not even sure what the outcome of WW1 would have been had the "bad guys" won, well other than a different kind of WW2 later I will hazard a WAG at.

Kaiserreich is one of the best mods of all time. Of all time!

Edited March 29, 2022 by 213374U

[xzar_monty]

50 minutes ago, Malcador said:

States are run like and by sociopaths.

Well, no. I agree that some are. But that's just a worthless and a very cynical generalization.

I agree the current Canadian prime minister appears to be rather silly and mightily misinformed about a lot of things, but quite a lot of countries are actually doing rather well: social cohesion is strong, people are generally doing well, they trust each other, education levels are high, their governments are fairly good, pretty much everything is an awful lot better than it has ever been in the history of humanity. Take a look at Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Finland, Denmark or Germany, for example. There are problems in all of them, but to say they are run like and by sociopaths is just... foolish and wrong.

Btw, I tend to feel ever so slightly uncomfortable whenever I'm in the English-speaking world. I haven't been to Canada, but I have been to the US, England, Ireland, Malta, Australia and New Zealand. The politics and attitudes are strangely insular in their apparent globality -- quite possibly because it seems that so many people in the English-speaking world don't speak other languages. Like, at all. But this is just a feeling and I wouldn't to claim anything because of it.

Edited March 29, 2022 by xzar_monty

[Malcador]

1 minute ago, xzar_monty said:

Well, no. I agree that some are. But that's just a worthless and a very cynical generalization.

I agree the current Canadian prime minister appears to be rather silly and mightily misinformed about a lot of things, but quite a lot of countries are actually doing rather well: social cohesion is strong, people are generally doing well, they trust each other, education levels are high, their governments are fairly good, pretty much everything is an awful lot better than it has ever been in the history of humanity. Take a look at Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Finland, Denmark or Germany, for example. There are problems in all of them, but to say they are run like and by sociopaths is just... foolish and wrong.

Sorry, I  meant in terms of how they operate with other nations, was the context of this.  Externally, all situations they have to have self interest as their highest goal and they're likely to do whatever they want regardless of if it's "immoral" or not to the average person. Churchill (ok, pardon the source...) has a good quote on that - "The whole history of the world is summed up in the fact that, when nations are strong, they are not always just, and when they wish to be just, they are no longer strong." .  In any event not much harm done being cynical towards a state's motivations, heh.

I didn't say Trudaeu was silly or misinformed, though, why do you say he is  ?

[rjshae]

3 hours ago, Malcador said:

Nothing prevents Ukraine from getting armed and trained with the US gear that needs it. 

That's not really an answer.

[xzar_monty]

12 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Sorry, I  meant in terms of how they operate with other nations, was the context of this.  Externally, all situations they have to have self interest as their highest goal and they're likely to do whatever they want regardless of if it's "immoral" or not to the average person.

Ok, right, I understand now.

You can indeed look at it like that. But I don't think that's the whole story. Even if an action is merely selfish, shall we say, it can still be good. For example, the whole purpose of Marshall Aid may have been to increase the influence of the US among the countries that received it. But even if this is so, it was still a good thing. Or, in a much smaller context, even if the only thing Arnie wanted to get from his speech on Ukraine was more attention, it was still a good thing to do (although an almost meaningless good thing, in all probability).

Mark Twain once wrote a book called What Is Man, in which he argued that there can never be any other than selfish motives for anything a person does. This view is entirely logical and coherent, because you can always relate everything back to self-interest. Like, I help you because my ultimate goal is to feel good about myself. But I would argue that even if the help I give you is motivated by self-interest, it is still a good thing.

However, it is also true that if you ask why such-and-such country doesn't act as cynically or rudely as another, larger country, the answer may well be: because it can't.

[Malcador]

33 minutes ago, rjshae said:

That's not really an answer.

Well, not perfect, for sure.  But end result may be no invasion as Ukraine's well armed and has experienced fighters (Adeptus Astartes grade if you believe what I see in the news daily :P).  US populace will happily pay for their weaponry for a couple years ahead, at least.

 

[pmp10]

6 minutes ago, Malcador said:

US populace will happily pay for their weaponry for a couple years ahead, at least.

No country is that generous, not even to allies.
Let alone a poor European backwater country that is distracting US from pivoting to Asia.