The Crazy SOB Actually Did it!

[ER]

"German TV: We must not forget that Russians look like Europeans, but they are not Europeans. They are completely different in a cultural sense, they have a different attitude towards violence and death."

https://twitter.com/CanadianKitty1/status/1593530108543135744

Gee, and that from the Beastly Huns, eh? Dude, the Russians love their children too. Sting said so.

[ralfy]

From the wiki page about her:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Gaub

Florence Gaub (born 1977) is a Franco-German researcher, security expert and futurist who focuses on foresight based policy formation for international relations and security policy. She worked as deputy director at the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) in Paris February 2018 until May 2022[1] and since then as foresight advisor at the General Secretariat of the Council.[2]

...

With regard to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine Gaub has been among the notable German female security experts[11] routinely commenting in the media and in particular German late night political talk shows. Furthermore, Gaub contributed to the understanding of the military strategy employed or the changing nature of war,[12] published in media such as Die Zeit, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Die Welt. An interview on 12 April 2022 on the show Markus Lanz she explained the considerable losses endured by the Russian military and societal tolerance levels of violence.[13] During this appearance, Gaub argued for a reassessment, stating that culturally Russian society does not prescribe to a liberal, post-modern sense of life, and views violence and death differently if compared to today's Germany.[14] Gaub detailed her theses on the need to rethink Europe's attitude or acceptance of violence in consequent writings in FAZ and Zeit and also clarified her quote in a debate setting for die Zeit, where she detailed her take on value-driven violent behaviour from domestic abuse to death penalty or loss of life by soldiers. Researchers such as Ksenia Krimer further explored this thesis in the FAZ, quoting domestic violence statistics and more.[15]

I guess the implication is that Russia isn't European (read: civilized?) in a cultural sense and thus must be dealt with harshly. I wonder if the same applies to the Chinese and some of the other non-European countries.

Finally, does this include the Ukrainians?

[ER]

From the wiki page about her:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Gaub

Florence Gaub (born 1977) is a Franco-German researcher, security expert and futurist who focuses on foresight based policy formation for international relations and security policy. She worked as deputy director at the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) in Paris February 2018 until May 2022[1] and since then as foresight advisor at the General Secretariat of the Council.[2]

...

With regard to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine Gaub has been among the notable German female security experts[11] routinely commenting in the media and in particular German late night political talk shows. Furthermore, Gaub contributed to the understanding of the military strategy employed or the changing nature of war,[12] published in media such as Die Zeit, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Die Welt. An interview on 12 April 2022 on the show Markus Lanz she explained the considerable losses endured by the Russian military and societal tolerance levels of violence.[13] During this appearance, Gaub argued for a reassessment, stating that culturally Russian society does not prescribe to a liberal, post-modern sense of life, and views violence and death differently if compared to today's Germany.[14] Gaub detailed her theses on the need to rethink Europe's attitude or acceptance of violence in consequent writings in FAZ and Zeit and also clarified her quote in a debate setting for die Zeit, where she detailed her take on value-driven violent behaviour from domestic abuse to death penalty or loss of life by soldiers. Researchers such as Ksenia Krimer further explored this thesis in the FAZ, quoting domestic violence statistics and more.[15]

I guess the implication is that Russia isn't European (read: civilized?) in a cultural sense and thus must be dealt with harshly. I wonder if the same applies to the Chinese and some of the other non-European countries.

Finally, does this include the Ukrainians?

OK, I called those people and asked and they said to tell you the Chinese, yes, the Ukrainians, yes, but not those bastards in Lichtenstein!

[ER]

I got you figured out, ralfy, you're CIA, aren't you? You're sitting there giving us these inside warnings wearing your black suit and black tie and those special shoes for sneaking up on.... Wait that's what those punks in the FBI wear. What do spooks dress in? Oh! You're sitting there in a ball cap and dark glasses, nondescript T-shirt, trying to benevolently tip us all off with your covert intelligence. Hey, did I get it right? Please say I got it right! 

[Allhallowsday]

^ ER, you are on fire today!   

...If I'm not mistaken, this is part of an off-topic discussion section, and thus not part of banter that is natural for topics on bad movies.

Also, the event described is a very serious one, as some believe that it may lead to a third world war. Right now, it is leading to high inflation, and although offset by what might be revenge shopping (hence, a 5+ pct world GDP bounce) I don't know if the latter will last.

I get this feeling that you are not aware of either, which is why you choose to post memes and smiley icons.

It's still a bad movies forum.  Deep political discussions are perhaps better served elsewhere.  Certainly nothing to invest in or express anger about.  But feel free, it is a democracy. 

You can choose to hit a panic button, but I'd rather not.  "The event described"...?  Which event?  War in Ukraine?  The ascension of the United States?  German philosophies regarding Russians?  World War 3?  (Questions are merely rhetorical.) 

[lester1/2jr]

To recap, my point is that Putin attacked Ukraine not because he wants to revive some Soviet Empire but because he's countering NATO enlargement

I agree with this and also that this war is abut the US and it's actions in Eastern Europe in general.

[Morpheus, the unwoke.]

To recap, my point is that Putin attacked Ukraine not because he wants to revive some Soviet Empire but because he's countering NATO enlargement

I agree with this and also that this war is abut the US and it's actions in Eastern Europe in general.

Driving more nations into nato and getting Germany to increase her military budget plus getting European nations to even talk about a European union military are not very wise ways to deal with an expanded nato.

In Europe people are better educated about world history than the typical American, and remember how Hitler started out seizing small neighboring states ,they also are educated about how well that worked. (It sucked, to be honest.)

As far as Pooty goes he is be very unpopular in Russia now. In fact I hear he's staying in a Bunker to avoid windows...

[Alex]

Only going to bother responding to a few points here. The post is too long and rambling to address everything.

No, my response concerning how the U.S. defines WMDs is in response to your claim that WMDs don't involve explosives. According to the U.S., it's anything that causes great harm to masses of people. An example of that would be MOABs.

Still thinking that the US defines what WMDs are. I didn't say explosives weren't WMDs as nuclear weapons funnily enough are very explosive. I said they are not officially defined as WMD because there is no official designation of a WMD. It is just a mistake made by armchair generals. That however was just a side note to your assumptions on how such weapons would be used which I felt was a lot more important.

Finally, how are those two points connected? By showing that WMDs don't involve explosives, you can show that U.S. use of MOABs isn't part of that, and therefore what it does isn't criminal.

Maybe if MOABs were effective they might count. My point was (and this is the part you keep failing to understand, although as mentioned in a previous post it is a very minor point compared to the errors you made in how those weapons could be used) that there is no legal definition of WMD. Post as many links as you want, each country can define it differently and no centralised body has yet to give an official designation that will count beyond one country's borders. Using them by themselves isn't criminal, but where you use them is. Look up LOAC and The Law of Proportionality if you wish to know more.

As for Saddam and WMDs, don't waste your time. The U.S. didn't prove anything then, and hasn't until now. That's why even Bush made a joke of it:

Shame. If you'd looked into my points you might have discovered I was agreeing with you there. I have never said Saddam didn't support terrorists or that he had stockpiles of WMDs ready to use on the west. I never raised or really went into it beyond mentioning there was some stuff you might want to look into that if you liked studying that kind of thing, might just interest you. Check it out or not. Either way it doesn't really affect me. If you are thinking that in some way I was supporting the US in this matter, you are entirely wrong. I didn't believe the claims when they were made never mind waiting until after the invasion.

Right, which is why the U.S. used MOABs. And yet they commit mass destruction, too.

And yet according to the US military's own reports into them, they didn't really achieve much and were rather ineffectual at taking out enemy troops and didn't have much effect even as a psychological weapon. Indeed there is some evidence that their inability to take out Taliban mountain strongholds increased their morale. The Russians have a nuclear weapon that can wipe out an entire country the size of Germany or France. MOAB is a cherry bomb next to that. Other countries have bigger conventional bombs. Time to move on.

You? Where did you get the idea that I'm Russian?

Where have I said you are Russian? Do you suffer from hallucinations and often read things that aren't there, because multiple times you've made comments that just come out of nowhere referring to things that haven't been said.

Russia and the U.S. are neck and neck:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2022/09/03/country-with-most-nuclear-weapons/7845467001/

I can't access your link, but the best estimates have Russia possessing roughly 500 more (5977 against 5428), meaning that Russia has more nuclear weapons. Much of what they have is smaller tactical ones (battlefield use), but at the top end of their arsenal, they have more powerful weapons than the US has, all in all giving them a greater range of tactical and strategic options.

Would you like to look at numbers of military bases and installations next, plus what's deployed for each of them?

You may not have noticed but you have already posted that multiple times already. It isn't going to add anything more than it has already.

Why would Russia want to be a major world power? It will just end up like the U.S., i.e., affected by the Triffin dilemma. Why do you think none of the members of BRICS want to use their currencies as a reserve and instead want SDRs?

You'd have to ask Putin why he wants it to be a major world power. My guess is it all comes down to his ego, national pride and his experiences when he was in East Germany when the communist block collapsed. I really believe much of his policies and how he has run things really goes back to that as a major formative event in his life. Perhaps the world isn't run by ivory tower intellectuals? Asking that question screams that you have missed much of history though as it is something countries repeatedly reach for. Think the BRIC nations aren't?

And how on earth do ground commanders become experts on geopolitical events? You're not making any sense.

I didn't say they did. You are the one who replied about foreign policy experts when we were discussing ground warfare. We keep coming back to this point.

What else is the reason why the U.S. would have such a large military budget, set up over 700 military bases and installations worldwide, and commit so much mayhem that its own former President refers to it as the most warlike in modern history?

And if you're going to give some Reagan "evil empire" speech or Dubya's "either you are with us, or you are for the terrorists," then I'll be very disappointed.

Again with the number of bases worldwide. See my comment below about the military-industrial complex, and maybe sometime we could have a chat separate from this thread about why I think the US has such a large military budget (although when you compare it to the total US budget it is pretty damn small).

Don't get confused: I wasn't referring to ground commanders. You were.

I guess you missed your own multiple references to ground commanders then. I guess I am not the only one who has been skipping through your posts. I keep having to mention this to you and it doesn't seem to get through. I mentioned ground commanders when we were discussing ground warfare. You mentioned foreign policy experts. I'll ignore the rest of your stuff there, as it really is just more of the same. My point when it was first made still stands. You can keep trying to twist it away from that if you wish, but I will keep bringing it back to that.

Who are these "ground commanders"?

Simple answer to that one. People who command troops on the ground.

I've cut out all the stuff about BRIC, because while I find it interesting it isn't really on topic. Again, if you want to discuss it, I am happy to do so elsewhere.

I can't think of any other reason why the U.S. has been spending heavily on its military, especially in light of Ukraine:

I can think of one really important one, but to explain it, I'd have to know more about what you think the military-industrial complex is, in your own words rather than using quotes and outside sources. Even then I suspect I'd be wasting my time. You do too much reading of things that aren't there and taking one part of a conversation, then joining it to an entirely different part of a conversation for such a talk to be really worthwhile.

FWIW, those "Youtube links" consist of interviews with Chomsky, Sachs, and others, as well as lectures from political scientists and full-length documentaries from Pilger. They've also written articles, reports, and books on the same, so there's no need to congratulate me for going beyond certain sources. I've been there from the start.

I wasn't congratulating you on moving beyond those sources. I was congratulating you for not just posting up new Youtube links that merely result in big blank spaces in your posts that put people off of reading them.

See, that's what I mean. This is not a black-and-white issue about one "crazy SOB" and being condemned by non-crazy, non-SOBs. Rather, we are looking at multiple military and economic powers engaged in shifting as part of realpolitik.

Everything you have posted says it is a black-and-white situation caused purely by the US and NATO. This is why I keep saying you are only seeing half the picture. This is something another reason why I've not clicked on most of your links and sources. I do not disagree with you that the actions of the west have contributed to this situation, however, I am also aware of what Putin has done and how he exploits the situation. If you are trying to show that it isn't a single issue topic, then I am sorry but you have failed very badly.

That's why India and others are neutral, might shift from that, or might be neutral for some policies but not for others.

I would say India and others have been neutral because of the trade deals they have with Russia myself. It is a debatable point but one that would be for a different topic/forum.

At this point, I hope that you realize that I've been on-topic from the start: I've been trying to explain what made the "crazy SOB" do it, and the answer lies way beyond the simpleton narrative that Putin simply wants to bring back the Soviet Empire.

I am aware it is not as simple as Putin wanting to build a new empire. What I am trying to get through to you is that it isn't as simple as Putin has been pushed by the west. Ever wondered to yourself, why do these countries like Ukraine and the Baltic States want to join NATO? All your posts say this is entirely the west's fault (specifically the US). I see no sign of balanced reporting (although I do admit I may have missed it thanks to skimming over some of your posts) if that is what you are trying to do. Believe me, I am not some flag-waving American patriot. Hell, I am not even American. I've made more than one post on this forum criticising the US and its international actions. Doesn't mean I hate it or love it for that matter. I do recognise when it has done right and done wrong though and can call it out or blame it as the situation deserves and requires. It is no different in its actions really from any of the other empires that came before it, nor different from any that will come after it I suspect.

Apologies for not addressing all of your points. As mentioned before I simply don't have enough time.

[ER]

To recap, my point is that Putin attacked Ukraine not because he wants to revive some Soviet Empire but because he's countering NATO enlargement

I agree with this and also that this war is abut the US and it's actions in Eastern Europe in general.

lester, nothing you've ever written has left me more disappointed in you.

[Morpheus, the unwoke.]

Wow has this thread strayed...

As a minor point people refering to BRIC (Brazil Russia India China) might want to note that South Africa is now often counted in this, making it BRICS.

[lester1/2jr]

ER - I would, however, not say Taiwan or Hong Kong is related to the US as China claims. That is not about keeping the US at bay its about weird cultural stuff and $$$

Also Putin was right about US assassinating gen Soleimani

https://www.yahoo.com/video/putin-outraged-assassination-iranian-general-150800464.html


that could come back to haunt us and for what? the guy was an ally in the fight against ISIS. as if we need to curry more favor with the israelis and saudis

[Allhallowsday]

God please forbid any escalation.

[Morpheus, the unwoke.]

I don't think this is 'divine retribution' but a pair of volcanoes just went active in Russia.

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2022-11-20/2-volcanoes-rumble-into-action-in-russias-far-east

They are in a remote and uninhabitated region of the far east.

[Rev. Powell]

ER - I would, however, not say Taiwan or Hong Kong is related to the US as China claims. That is not about keeping the US at bay its about weird cultural stuff and $$$

Also Putin was right about US assassinating gen Soleimani

https://www.yahoo.com/video/putin-outraged-assassination-iranian-general-150800464.html


that could come back to haunt us and for what? the guy was an ally in the fight against ISIS. as if we need to curry more favor with the israelis and saudis

Kudos for not applying a US-hegemony-is-the-cause-of-everything filter to China.

Putin is, of course, the ultimate hypocrite for complaining about another country's political assassinations. (Being a hypocrite doesn't mean you're wrong; Jeffrey Dahmer would be right to criticize Charlie Manson's morals).

[Morpheus, the unwoke.]

Putin pulled an assassination in England using a nerve agent that injured a non involved British citizen, and he was allowed to get away with it without consequences. This sort if thing just emboldened him over and over.