The Crazy SOB Actually Did it!

[ralfy]

"CIRSD Conference, "The Crisis in Ukraine", Prof. Jeffrey D. Sachs, Columbia University"

(from eight years ago)

Panel V The Crisis in Ukraine: Winds of the New Cold War?- Russia, the EU and U.S. are making moves in an increasingly tumultuous region of Eastern Europe in which each party seek to alter the balance of power in their favor. Understanding possible trajectories and how they can influence bilateral ties is assuming critical importance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIgfCT2fFCw

"Sachs: We've divided the world, now paying the cost"

"Russia needs to leave [Ukraine], but the United States doesn't need to fill in afterwards. That's the basic point."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5FoSgy-h5w

"Noam Chomsky & Vijay Prashad on Ukraine, Why U.S. Must Negotiate with Russia & What Media Gets Wrong"

We speak to world-renowned political dissident Noam Chomsky and political writer Vijay Prashad about the Russian war in Ukraine, now in its eighth month. When it comes to continuing the war rather than negotiating a peace settlement, "the United States and Britain are pretty isolated on this," says Chomsky. "The United States saw Ukraine as a kind of loose nail under which they place their weapons, billions of dollars of weapons ... in order to egg Russia on," says Prashad. Chomsky and Prashad are co-authors of the new book, "The Withdrawal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Fragility of U.S. Power," which covers failed U.S. foreign policy in recent wars and the importance of seeing beyond dominant media narratives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGZyj-_T6hQ

"How Giant Investment Bank Goldman Sachs Is Profiting On Ukraine War"

Goldman Sachs is cashing in on the war in Ukraine by selling Russian debt to U.S. hedge funds — and using a legal loophole in the Biden administration's sanctions to do it. Stephanie Ruhle and Jonathan Allen follow the money.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xl5pHAYpIiY

[ralfy]

From Prof. Wolff:

https://twitter.com/profwolff/status/1594382566399782913

Zelensky says Ukraine war lasts until Russia returns Crimea, etc. Since US and EU $ billions to Ukraine's made its war against Russia possible, Zelensky cannot alone set conditions. Or did Biden give him a blank check?

Related:

https://twitter.com/profwolff/status/1592569870318592000

Biden regime deliberately attacks China via economic warfare, forcing allies to choose sides as US policy abandons globalization, shifts to aggressive nationalism, splits global economy. Possibility of military war grows.

https://twitter.com/profwolff/status/1591475916592611329

Who is the more important trading partner: China (red) or USA (blue)? How drastically the world economy has changed. No wonder US and EU miscalculated how sanctions would "weaken" Russia. Thanks to Henry Hakamaki for the graphic.

Interestingly enough, someone pointed out that another major trading partner is the EU.

In addition, China, the U.S., and the EU have each other as major trading partners. Will all that untangle given economic warfare?

[Alex]

Going to skip most of this. Ultimately you are provably wrong on WMDs even if you refuse to accept it. I am going to waste no more time on the matter.

Where did you think that I'm Russian? "As to arguing that the US doesn't have WMDs, are you not aware you have the world's second-largest supply of nuclear weapons?" Who's "you"?

As mentioned before and doubtless again, I never thought you were Russian. You asked me where I got that idea . "You" in this case would be yourself. You asked what made me think you are Russian. I replied. Seems very simple to me.

Do you understand what "neck and neck" means? The difference between the two numbers is around 10 pct.

Yes I do. It is a subjective term. I referred to the Russians as having more nuclear weapons and the US as having the second most. Spin in how you like, doesn't stop it being true.

Where did you get the idea that Russia (not Putin) wants to be a major military power? Or is it because you need to repeat that in order to justify U.S. military spending, among others?

I said Putin wants Russia to be a major world power. I did not say what you have written. Again you are seeing things that are not there. If you don't understand that Putin wants this, then you have missed so much I can't even begin to cover it.

Where did you get the idea that we've been talking about ground warfare? The decision to attack Iraq was not based on that but on the claims that Saddam possessed WMDs and was supporting terrorists. Neither could be proven.

*sigh* Once more I will say this. I wonder how many more times I will have to. We were on a section of this thread where we were discussing ground warfare. It came after you said if the US had conducted the invasion it would be have been over in 24 hours. I am not sure how this cannot be perfectly clear to you. This was then replied to directly by ER. You then quoted ER and you in turn replied with a link to a list of foreign policy quotes. I may just have to accept that you are incapable of understanding this and move on though.

I did not refer to ground commanders. My sources are political scientists, historians, government officials, journalists, economists, etc.

Indeed you did, and once more I will point out that these are sources you used during a point in the conversation where we were discussing warfare. You then in subsecquent posts have made reference to ground commanders multiple times. Go back and read your own posts. I would also point out that at least two of your source types are notorious for being shall we say economical with the truth? I would also point out that some of your experts said that Putin had never wanted to join NATO and I was able to counter that with words from the man's mouth himself. Maybe you need to find better experts. That they managed to miss something as basic as that really doesn't inspire me with any confidence in you or your sources.

Earlier you argued that I should expand my sources. Now, I'm reading too much. Reminds me of that "too many notes" line from Amadeus:

Nope, I did not. Still making up claims.

Next, Youtube links: click on the link below the blank space and you can view them.

I am aware of this. I was pointing out though that it leaves big blank areas in your posts that puts people off reading them. As I have a full-time job, a young family and a busy social life though and I simply do not have enough time to watch your links.

I never argued that it's a black-and-white situation. If any, I've been countering that claim. See for yourself: the dominant black-and-white situation discussed in this thread is that Putin is crazy, Russia wants to form an empire, and the West is here to save the day. I'm questioning that.

Everything you have written has said it is a black-and-white situation caused by the west. If you mean to suggest otherwise then you seriously need to revise how you present your cases. Multiple people have told you that in different ways. You have denied this, but personally in this case, I am going to go with the majority.

Finally, about Putin being pushed by the West, wait for my subsequent posts. I have a lot of evidence for that.

I look forward to scrolling past them. I find I am reading less and less of your posts. Your one-sided arguments are not compelling, nor is simply reposting the same stuff over and over again. I am sure all you are going to write is more of the same and that I won't miss anything by not reading them.

[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! 

The CIA would say the opposite of my points.

Then maybe there's a lesson in there, huh?

[Allhallowsday]

...As for the the rest of your questions, I will address them in my subsequent (and last) posts on the matter.

We can only hope.   

[ralfy]

Going to skip most of this. Ultimately you are provably wrong on WMDs even if you refuse to accept it. I am going to waste no more time on the matter.

Same. I notice that you skip the critical points of my arguments and focus on the ones where you can say something that you think makes sense. But even those don't make sense.

Here's the gist:

I didn't refer to ground commanders, and it's absurd to even mention that.

What you want to look at concerning Iraq isn't even the definition of WMDs, etc., but the fact that the U.S. found nothing and couldn't even prove that Saddam, which they armed for years, was supporting terrorists. That's definitely a false flag and makes the invasion a war crime.

The claim that Putin wants Russia to become a major power makes no sense whatsoever. Kennan and others are right: Russia has been in a process of trying to become an economic power, and can't afford to engage in the type of warmongering that the U.S. does.

Given that, it's very clear why he attacked Ukraine: the U.S. and its allies were trying to enlarge NATO, an organization that had no purpose after the Soviet Union fell, and was thus used by the U.S. as not only a shield but even a testing ground:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/world/europe/ukraine-weapons.html

"Ukraine is the best test ground, as we have the opportunity to test all hypotheses in battle and introduce revolutionary change in military tech and modern warfare," said Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine's vice prime minister and minister of digital transformation..

...

"We're learning in Ukraine how to fight, and we're learning how to use our NATO equipment," Ms. Grybauskaite said in an interview last week. "And, yes, it is a teaching battleground."

This is not a new phenomenon, as both the U.S. and its Soviet rivals had been doing the same thing throughout the Cold War: use other countries for their proxy wars:

https://noahcarl.substack.com/p/is-ukraine-a-proxy-war

It's certainly not a stretch to imagine the US would wage a "proxy war" of this kind. The Reagan Doctrine was all about building up the US military and arming anti-communist guerrillas in order to overwhelm the Soviet Union and, ultimately, win the Cold War. This included arming both religious and political extremists.

But we don't have to go back to the eighties. In 2019, the RAND corporation published a report on strategies to "overextend and unbalance" Russia. The report identified "providing lethal aid to Ukraine" as one that would "exploit Russia's greatest point of external vulnerability". (Interestingly, it concluded that any increase in aid would need to be "carefully calibrated" to avoid provoking "a much wider conflict".)

[ralfy]

Then maybe there's a lesson in there, huh?

Yes, it's "realpolitik."

In the end, more will realize that "crazy SOBs" are not involved in such events.

[ralfy]

We can only hope.   

Done. Scroll up for details.

In my case, I can only hope that for once you will give a response that not only makes sense but is meaningful, but I doubt that.

[ER]

That is not dead which can eternal lie....

[Alex]

Going to skip most of this. Ultimately you are provably wrong on WMDs even if you refuse to accept it. I am going to waste no more time on the matter.

Same. I notice that you skip the critical points of my arguments and focus on the ones where you can say something that you think makes sense. But even those don't make sense.

Here's the gist:

I didn't refer to ground commanders, and it's absurd to even mention that.

What you want to look at concerning Iraq isn't even the definition of WMDs, etc., but the fact that the U.S. found nothing and couldn't even prove that Saddam, which they armed for years, was supporting terrorists. That's definitely a false flag and makes the invasion a war crime.

The claim that Putin wants Russia to become a major power makes no sense whatsoever. Kennan and others are right: Russia has been in a process of trying to become an economic power, and can't afford to engage in the type of warmongering that the U.S. does.

Given that, it's very clear why he attacked Ukraine: the U.S. and its allies were trying to enlarge NATO, an organization that had no purpose after the Soviet Union fell, and was thus used by the U.S. as not only a shield but even a testing ground:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/world/europe/ukraine-weapons.html

"Ukraine is the best test ground, as we have the opportunity to test all hypotheses in battle and introduce revolutionary change in military tech and modern warfare," said Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine's vice prime minister and minister of digital transformation..

...

"We're learning in Ukraine how to fight, and we're learning how to use our NATO equipment," Ms. Grybauskaite said in an interview last week. "And, yes, it is a teaching battleground."

This is not a new phenomenon, as both the U.S. and its Soviet rivals had been doing the same thing throughout the Cold War: use other countries for their proxy wars:

https://noahcarl.substack.com/p/is-ukraine-a-proxy-war

It's certainly not a stretch to imagine the US would wage a "proxy war" of this kind. The Reagan Doctrine was all about building up the US military and arming anti-communist guerrillas in order to overwhelm the Soviet Union and, ultimately, win the Cold War. This included arming both religious and political extremists.

But we don't have to go back to the eighties. In 2019, the RAND corporation published a report on strategies to "overextend and unbalance" Russia. The report identified "providing lethal aid to Ukraine" as one that would "exploit Russia's greatest point of external vulnerability". (Interestingly, it concluded that any increase in aid would need to be "carefully calibrated" to avoid provoking "a much wider conflict".)

Whatever you've written dude, I saw my name at the top and skipped it all. Your continual nonsensical claims of me saying things that just weren't there have convinced me whatever you think you are saying wasn't worth reading.

[indianasmith]

The best thing for Ukraine, and the world, right now would be for Vladimir Putin to suffer a spontaneous cranial detonation.

[Morpheus, the unwoke.]

The best thing for Ukraine, and the world, right now would be for Vladimir Putin to suffer a spontaneous cranial detonation.

I hope that's true, I hope whoever replaces him isn't as bad or WORSE than pooty.

I am reminded if a little known ww2 factoid: At a certain point in ww2 the British suspended all efforts to whack Hitler after making many failed attempts to punch uncle dolf's ticket.

The British military intelligence community decided that Hitler was so incompetent as a strategic leader killing him could be counter productive as a more competent leader may have taken over abd made things worse for the allies.

Maybe if pooty falls out a window or starts glowing in the dark his replacement will be as bad but more competent. Who knows what he might do? (And yes I'm saying 'he' as the odds of Russia having a female leader are about the same as the  Kremlin picking ME to be Russia's next leader. Russia is not a fan of woke.)

Another issue I keep hearing about is the 'inevitable' collapse of 'Russia's economy'. What happens then? What if Russia's economy does utterly collapse? Do we want utter chaos in a country with countless nukes laying around? What could do wrong with that?

It could be like killing Godzilla. Sure it's dead, now what do you do with a 400' radioactive decomposing corpse?

Honestly I think whatever happened with russia it will be one big fecal fest no matter what.

[ralfy]

Whatever you've written dude, I saw my name at the top and skipped it all. Your continual nonsensical claims of me saying things that just weren't there have convinced me whatever you think you are saying wasn't worth reading.

From what I remember, you mentioned Iraq because you wanted to show that the U.S. is a "good guy," and with that the invasion of Iraq was justified. To do that, you had to show that the definition of WMDs refers to chemical, etc., weapons, which Iraq had. The problem is that the U.S. was never able to prove that. In fact, it wasn't even able to prove the second reason for invasion, which is that Saddam was supporting terrorists. And what makes matters worse is that it turns out that the chemical weapons Saddam did have were sold by U.S. companies and by allies, that the U.S. provided him with military aid to oppress Kurds and Islamic fundamentalists in Iraq, to attack Iraq after the U.S. puppet the Shah of Iran fled, and together with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan funded, trained, and armed the "freedom fighters" from which terror groups and even drug pushers would emerge.

After that, you pointed out that the U.S. also did bad, but you still stuck to claims that WMDs refer only to chemical, etc., weapons, and then added even points that one has to look at "effectivity" (implying that MOABs are not considered WMDs because they're not that effective). You also said that you'd trust "military experts" more while assuming that my sources are "ground commanders."

Given that, I think you've been struggling with your beliefs, acknowledging that the U.S. is not wholly a "good guy" but can't let go of that idea because that puts to question the dominant reason why Russia invaded Ukraine: Putin is a "crazy SOB" and wants to form a "Soviet empire."

I've been questioning that reason, and I think I've provided enough evidence. I don't think you read them carefully because you thought I was relying on military officers, which is why you wanted me to "expand" my "sources." But I think I can't go beyond former policymakers like Kennan and experts like Mearsheimer, which is why I asked you for suggestions. For some reason, you did not do that, and instead kept talking about yourself.

I also asked Powell to point out the weak elements in what Kennan and others wrote, but no response, either. The same goes for Allhallows. Instead, I get this reasoning from your recent post: since you're making nonsense claims about me (Alex), then we should assume that everything else you say also makes no sense and isn't worth reading.

[ralfy]

The best thing for Ukraine, and the world, right now would be for Vladimir Putin to suffer a spontaneous cranial detonation.

FWIW, the U.S. has been following similar across decades:

https://sites.evergreen.edu/zoltan/interventions/

That is, it engaged in covert activity, destabilization, low intensity conflict, support for coups, assassinations, funding of revolutions, and intervention in order to cause political leaders it did not want to suffer something like "a spontaneous cranial detonation," and then replace them with leaders it preferred. But neither helped countries affected.

[Allhallowsday]

We can only hope.   

Done.

Hadn't you already announced that? 

Scroll up for details...

Not likely.