Ukraine Conflict - "History never looks like history when you are living through it."

[xzar_monty]

2 hours ago, Elerond said:

https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021

Two interesting things to notice: Scandinavia, once again, does really damn well. And the United States does not do well. Whether it's corruption or infant mortality or whatnot, the United States does not do well.

[xzar_monty]

Harrowing scenario as presented by the historian Timothy Snyder. I find this entirely logical and plausible, but whether it's true (or intended to happen) is a different thing altogether.

 

[pmp10]

5 hours ago, Mamoulian War said:

It is just a candidate status, the full integration will take 10 years minimum, if the war stops tomorrow. 

Candidate status at this time would be a strong message to keep on fighting.
The question if this is a fight to the last Ukrainian just to punish Russia is still open. 

[Elerond]

4 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Elerond this scoring seems racist, its putting lots of African and ME countries as the most corrupt...are you sure its not racist  ?

That is difficult question to give truthful answer .

As to answer if scoring is racist you need to determine if their methodology or data sources they use have any racial/regional bias that could cause data prefer or discriminate one or more country/population group/region

So you need to determine does their criteria of selecting data sources have any racial/regional biases

Is there something that causes racial/regional bias in their method of standardize data sources

And does their aggregation of rescaled data cause any biases towards regions/races

And how well their measure of uncertainty takes account possible biases in the data sources

You can find their methodology from https://images.transparencycdn.org/images/CPI-2021-Methodology.zip

[BruceVC]

23 minutes ago, pmp10 said:

Candidate status at this time would be a strong message to keep on fighting.
The question if this is a fight to the last Ukrainian just to punish Russia is still open. 

You have a very strange definition of an invasion and people defending their country from destruction

The West is not forcing the Ukrainians to fight. The Ukrainians will be the ones to decide when it ends one way or another 

Not sure how you think this is about punishing Russia. A better question is " when will Putin end his invasion and return to meaningful negotiations " ?

[BruceVC]

1 minute ago, Elerond said:

That is difficult question to give truthful answer .

As to answer if scoring is racist you need to determine if their methodology or data sources they use have any racial/regional bias that could cause data prefer or discriminate one or more country/population group/region

So you need to determine does their criteria of selecting data sources have any racial/regional biases

Is there something that causes racial/regional bias in their method of standardize data sources

And does their aggregation of rescaled data cause any biases towards regions/races

And how well their measure of uncertainty takes account possible biases in the data sources

You can find their methodology from https://images.transparencycdn.org/images/CPI-2021-Methodology.zip

Yes I agree, their would be many variables and metrics that define corruption and create these scores

But I dont think its racist, its looks more or less accurate

[xzar_monty]

37 minutes ago, pmp10 said:

Candidate status at this time would be a strong message to keep on fighting.
The question if this is a fight to the last Ukrainian just to punish Russia is still open. 

What do you mean by "just to punish Russia"? If the fight goes "to the last Ukrainian" as you write, then it surely must be a defensive fight, in which case there is no way it can be "just to punish Russia" as you also write.

[Mamoulian War]

57 minutes ago, pmp10 said:

Candidate status at this time would be a strong message to keep on fighting.
The question if this is a fight to the last Ukrainian just to punish Russia is still open. 

Casualties on Russian side are still 3x bigger. And there is slowly anger boiling in Russia. It will be very painful, but it's Ukrainian decision, how long they will fight to defend their country. If they want to do it, and we have means, we should provide help to them. Unless you want to see sooner or later another war in Poland or Baltics to appease the bear's hunger for power...

[pmp10]

32 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

The West is not forcing the Ukrainians to fight. The Ukrainians will be the ones to decide when it ends one way or another 

Except that without western support Ukraine cannot carry-on fighting.
With Ukraine and Russia being effectively out of options this makes the collective west the most responsible party for the future outcome of this war. 

 

22 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

What do you mean by "just to punish Russia"? If the fight goes "to the last Ukrainian" as you write, then it surely must be a defensive fight, in which case there is no way it can be "just to punish Russia" as you also write.

I don't see why it can't be both. 
You just need to think of Ukrainians as expendable and their position as hopeless.
There are suspicions that Ukraine will be kept on a lifeline just to inflict as much damage as possible before they are forced to surrender.

[xzar_monty]

28 minutes ago, pmp10 said:

With Ukraine and Russia being effectively out of options this makes the collective west the most responsible party for the future outcome of this war.

Don't be ridiculous. Russia always has the option to just stop. There is no way this can ever be taken away from them. The reponsible party is Russia who disregarded everything and just went on and started the war. I wonder what your agenda is, making claims that are so utterly against reality.

If your argument against this is that Putin would lose face, that doesn't make any sense, either. If he stops the war or loses it, he can simply claim victory. If anyone inside the country disputes that, these people will be jailed or outright killed. Remember, according to Russia, there is no war, and there haven't been any notable demonstrations against this blatant lie. All other lies will also be accepted.

Edited June 14, 2022 by xzar_monty

[BruceVC]

17 minutes ago, pmp10 said:

Except that without western support Ukraine cannot carry-on fighting.
With Ukraine and Russia being effectively out of options this makes the collective west the most responsible party for the future outcome of this war. 

 

I don't see why it can't be both. 
You just need to think of Ukrainians as expendable and their position as hopeless.
There are suspicions that Ukraine will be kept on a lifeline just to inflict as much damage as possible before they are forced to surrender.

Okay I see your point but the main reason for the Ukrainians fighting back is that their country was invaded and they literally face an existential threat. They would be fighting back even without Western resources?

I doubt they  would stop fighting even if the West said " stop fighting" because the Russians are within their country and killing their citizens. So the concern that the Ukrainians are on a Western lifeline I dont think makes sense

I think if Russia is able to defeat the Ukrainians in the east they will offer their definition of peace terms, the question is will the Ukrainians accept it

[Zoraptor]

I'm always amused by corruption measures that have New Zealand near the top. Guess we could be, but everywhere else would have to be terrible.

56 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

Don't be ridiculous. Russia always has the option to just stop.

Eh, that's super simplistic. And that rhetorical construct is abused all the time.

"Don't be ridiculous. Palestine always has the option to just stop" <--> "Don't be ridiculous. Israel always has the option to just stop"

The practicalities are that Russia has less to lose continuing than by stopping, no point wishing it hadn't happened. If you want them to stop then you need to reverse that calculus.

[rjshae]

2 hours ago, pmp10 said:

Except that without western support Ukraine cannot carry-on fighting.
With Ukraine and Russia being effectively out of options this makes the collective west the most responsible party for the future outcome of this war. 

I don't see why it can't be both. 
You just need to think of Ukrainians as expendable and their position as hopeless.
There are suspicions that Ukraine will be kept on a lifeline just to inflict as much damage as possible before they are forced to surrender.

This is a fundamentally incorrect analysis in so many ways. The West can't intervene directly because of the likelihood of nuclear escalation. Ukraine had the resources to fight this war without Western aid, but having that aid has made the defense more effective. Getting the Ukraine army equipped and trained up to western standards won't happen overnight; it will probably take a year or more. Meanwhile, I'd expect the goal of the West is to create a stable outcome. If that means giving Russia a bloody nose so they think twice before invading again, then so be it. If it takes an extended guerrilla war lasting a decade, well that will be up to the two sides to resolve.

[kanisatha]

3 hours ago, Mamoulian War said:

Casualties on Russian side are still 3x bigger. And there is slowly anger boiling in Russia. It will be very painful, but it's Ukrainian decision, how long they will fight to defend their country. If they want to do it, and we have means, we should provide help to them. Unless you want to see sooner or later another war in Poland or Baltics to appease the bear's hunger for power...

25 minutes ago, rjshae said:

This is a fundamentally incorrect analysis in so many ways. The West can't intervene directly because of the likelihood of nuclear escalation. Ukraine had the resources to fight this war without Western aid, but having that aid has made the defense more effective. Getting the Ukraine army equipped and trained up to western standards won't happen overnight; it will probably take a year or more. Meanwhile, I'd expect the goal of the West is to create a stable outcome. If that means giving Russia a bloody nose so they think twice before invading again, then so be it. If it takes an extended guerrilla war lasting a decade, well that will be up to the two sides to resolve.

Piece from a very highly regarded academic that puts this very issue in great perspective:

https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-could-be-an-inflection-point-eu-us-west-war-russia/

[Gorth]

5 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

Don't be ridiculous. Russia always has the option to just stop.

In an ideal world (not that there is anything ideal about this war), yes. But some things take on a life and a momentum of their own once you start it. The hand that sets something in motion can't always stop it. E.g. Hitlers Germany (because, we haven't used him as a reference for several pages I'm sure) didn't really have any other option than war. It doesn't make sense to sensible people, but once you start a movement along a certain trajectory, especially when relying a lot on nationalism as the tool to mobilize popular support, you also have to follow through with your declared intentions. Whether it be German "Unification" or restoration of the old CCCP. If you slow down or even stop, the crowd gets restless and you (the despot/autocrat) lose control.

[Gorth]

12 hours ago, Elerond said:

https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021

Awww... just look how hard it is to do a bit of private enterprise in those socialist northern countries. No free market economy there

[BruceVC]

9 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

I'm always amused by corruption measures that have New Zealand near the top. Guess we could be, but everywhere else would have to be terrible.

Eh, that's super simplistic. And that rhetorical construct is abused all the time.

"Don't be ridiculous. Palestine always has the option to just stop" <--> "Don't be ridiculous. Israel always has the option to just stop"

The practicalities are that Russia has less to lose continuing than by stopping, no point wishing it hadn't happened. If you want them to stop then you need to reverse that calculus.

No those examples are not the same as Putins War and Im surprised we still honestly debating this

Russia invaded a sovereign country, their are many examples where wars end where an invading army is defeated or stops its invasion. 

The obvious solution to this Ukrainian crisis is Putin ends the war and pulls all Russian forces back within the borders of Russia. Thats the first step to end this war, its not simplistic at all because this will end the carnage 

Edited June 15, 2022 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

4 hours ago, Gorth said:

Awww... just look how hard it is to do a bit of private enterprise in those socialist northern countries. No free market economy there

And their is also no typical socialist systems in those countries, they hybrids of socialism and Capitalism but they still Democracies which is what "normal " socialist\autocratic countries arent  like Cuba, Russia, Syria, China and Venezuela

So the take-away and success of the Nordic countries for me is not " socialism works " but rather " hybrids of socialism and Capitalism works " when you have a stable Democracy and a government that is effective 

Historically by design most socialist\Communist countries are not Constitutional Democracies which is why they inevitably fail 

 

[pmp10]

11 hours ago, Mamoulian War said:

Unless you want to see sooner or later another war in Poland or Baltics to appease the bear's hunger for power...

Might be inevitable the way things are going.
And maybe it's not right for us to use Ukraine just to buy time.

11 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

Don't be ridiculous. Russia always has the option to just stop. There is no way this can ever be taken away from them. The reponsible party is Russia who disregarded everything and just went on and started the war. I wonder what your agenda is, making claims that are so utterly against reality.

If your argument against this is that Putin would lose face, that doesn't make any sense, either. If he stops the war or loses it, he can simply claim victory. If anyone inside the country disputes that, these people will be jailed or outright killed. Remember, according to Russia, there is no war, and there haven't been any notable demonstrations against this blatant lie. All other lies will also be accepted.

You seem convinced that Putin wields absolute power and can get Russians to do anything.
I think having sacrificed economy for greatness there will be serious upheaval if he fails to deliver. 

11 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Okay I see your point but the main reason for the Ukrainians fighting back is that their country was invaded and they literally face an existential threat. They would be fighting back even without Western resources?

They would but as we recently learned they have just ran out of shells for their artillery.
And that is despite sourcing plenty from stocks of eastern European countries.
3 months of fighting seems about what they could support by themselves. 

9 hours ago, rjshae said:

The West can't intervene directly because of the likelihood of nuclear escalation. Ukraine had the resources to fight this war without Western aid, but having that aid has made the defense more effective. 

Debatable but you could arm them seriously enough to stalemate Russia.
Of course this also means supporting Ukraine financially over a long war of attrition.

The problem with that approach being in that support in EU is not there.
I don't think US will want to do this with eastern Europe alone, especially after all the talk of rebuilding alliances. 

[BruceVC]

4 minutes ago, pmp10 said:

Might be inevitable the way things are going.
And maybe it's not right for us to use Ukraine just to buy time.

You seem convinced that Putin wields absolute power and can get Russians to do anything.
I think having sacrificed economy for greatness there will be serious upheaval if he fails to deliver. 

They would but as we recently learned they have just ran out of shells for their artillery.
And that is despite sourcing plenty from stocks of eastern European countries.
3 months of fighting seems about what they could support by themselves. 

Debatable but you could arm them seriously enough to stalemate Russia.
Of course this also means supporting Ukraine financially over a long war of attrition.

The problem with that approach being in that support in EU is not there.
I don't think US will want to do this with eastern Europe alone, especially after all the talk of rebuilding alliances. 

I do think you raising valid concerns, I think your initial comment wasnt framed correctly when you mentioned " punishing Russia " which is why most of us responded in a more critical way to your post 

What surprised most people is the perception that you think the Western  response is about punishing Russia when the reality is its the Ukrainians who  are suffering and having their country destroyed by an invasion. Thats the main  reason for the Western response and general anti-Russian sentiment. Its not personal but due to the actions of Putin

But I agree the idea of the West of funding the Ukrainians indefinitely is not realistic which is why we all want to find a way to end this war 

[Darkpriest]

It's rare for me to say this as faith and logic/numbers are usually quite far apart, i do agree with Pope's assessment. There are trends of oversimplification to have people feel good and be able to easily be on the good side of the good vs evil, but the real picture is rarely if ever that simple and there are a lot of various interests at play. 

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/pope-doubles-down-ukraine-war-comments-russian-invasion-was-provoked

 

Edited June 15, 2022 by Darkpriest

[Elerond]

33 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

But I agree the idea of the West of funding the Ukrainians indefinitely is not realistic which is why we all want to find a way to end this war 

Currently West has given relatively little to Ukraine.

With current speed amount of aid to Ukraine would be about half what USA spend in Afghanistan if they would continue to give aid in same speed for next 20 years

[Darkpriest]

@BruceVC

EU simply has no money to give and EUR zone will have very soon a very real soverign debt issue. 

https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/how-will-ecb-contain-fragmentation-risk-euro-area-bond-markets-2022-06-14/

 

US is not much better, especially if FED will hike 75 or a shocking 100 today to try contain the inflation. 

 

At least everyone was happy when they were locking people down when it was no longer needed (anything from Nov 2020 onward) and printing money to give stimmies nd other hand outs.... 

[BruceVC]

19 minutes ago, Elerond said:

Currently West has given relatively little to Ukraine.

With current speed amount of aid to Ukraine would be about half what USA spend in Afghanistan if they would continue to give aid in same speed for next 20 years

Thats good news because the US funded Afghanistan for 2 decades and if the current spending on Ukraine is not as much as I thought then its more sustainable than I believed

Good to know because its puts less pressure on "how long can the West continue to fund Ukraine " if the amount of support is not that great compared to other historical funding examples 

[BruceVC]

55 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

It's rare for me to say this as faith and logic/numbers are usually quite far apart, i do agree with Pope's assessment. There are trends of oversimplification to have people feel good and be able to easily be on the good side of the good vs evil, but the real picture is rarely if ever that simple and there are a lot of various interests at play. 

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/pope-doubles-down-ukraine-war-comments-russian-invasion-was-provoked

 

I like the new Pope and he genuinely means well but he is not an economist or a politician and he has said things in the past I dont agree with or are not accurate

For example he has often made comments that Capitalism just creates inequality and profitability is about greed when in fact profitability is a measurement of good corporate governance  and is critical to both a country and any business being sustainable. For example if every company runs at a loss you wont collect much tax and your economy will collapse so profitability  is not a bad thing but it cant be at the expense of labor laws and basic human rights 

Would you also agree with the Pope when he said a month ago that the Russian Orthodox Church "  mustnt become Putin's altar boy"  and Francesco also criticized Kirill for "approving the stated reasons of Russia for the occupation of Ukraine"?

https://www.txtreport.com/news/2022-05-04-pope-criticizes-russian-patriarch--do-not-become-"putin-s-altar-boy".B1JHr1g89.html

Would you agree he is right about those comments about Putins War?