The Crazy SOB Actually Did it!

[Allhallowsday]

While I disagree with almost everything ralfy has posted in this thread, he's stayed reasonably polite and has stuck to his convictions even amid mockery and disagreement. I do give him credit there.

That is true and ralfy does deserve credit for not turning troll...

Check out ralfy's feedback, I've been a fan since day one.   He's been here nearly 10 years.  Not a troll. 

[ralfy]

That is true and ralfy does deserve credit for not turning troll.

On the other hand, he doesn't seem to realize how disruptive his posting style is. He clutters up the thread with 5 times as many posts as anyone else, each a wall of text, sometimes containing multiple supporting links. I don't have the free time or interest to respond to him in the level of detail he insists on, and I have to fight the urge to post snarky rejoinders (which don't have an effect on his posting habits). So I feel I am left with no option but to ignore him. The rest of us are having a water cooler conversation, he is defending a Ph.D. thesis.

I was told earlier to expand my sources, that some of the elements in my theory are weak, and that I should consult the CIA. My sense, then, is that I'm taking to experts: one on military affairs, another on foreign policies, and a third on intelligence-gathering. That's why I asked each of you for advice but received none.

So I've taken the liberty to show that my sources are more expansive than imagined, that the elements of my argument are based on historical facts, that the same facts show that what I'm stating isn't a theory, and that several of them are backed by, ironically, the CIA and other agencies through de-classified:

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/

and still-classified material, via the Pentagon Papers, Assange, etc. These materials have been used readily by experts like Chalmers Johnson and can be verified through policies implemented as part of historical facts, like containment and expansion.

That said, I've no idea what forum members want. They want me to be more expansive, and when I do, they imply that they're overwhelmed by too much material. And when I don't give enough, I'm told to broaden my horizons or that I'm only giving not only theories but conspiracy theories.

Which advice so I follow? I've at least 20 more sources to share, several of them raising points that even I didn't realize. BTW, I'm doing this only to show that it's not simply about some "crazy SOB" doing it, but worse than we imagined. Citizen, would you like to know more?

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1	Small | Large

(I can do memes, too. LOL.)

One more point: I've no idea how my arguments are likened to a PhD paper. Except for NS Archives, etc., which use government documents, and one chart from the World Bank which looked at per capita GDP of Ukraine and Russia, everything else came from interviews, news articles, and opinions from various outlets, and are all found online. Anyone with access to the 'net can read them, and in my opinion can be understood even given a 12th-grade reading level.

When I went to school, I was told that such papers should involve even more complex material, usually detailed studies and analyses from journals and other things that are usually available only in university libraries. IMO, what I shared wouldn't even be good enough for an undergrad paper.

[ralfy]

Ralfy, can I ask what your background is? Some of us were wondering if you were an academic but I was thinking that observing the geopolitical landscape was more of a hobby of interest to you.

This will be a wall of text!

Yes, I'm an academic, but I specialize in literature (LOL). I started off as a poststructuralist (people who think that everything's relative), but I eventually valued and stuck with aesthetics (studying form, beauty, and the meaning of art) and canonical literature (works that are considered great on a national and global level). Many have similar beliefs. For example, the Norwegian Book Clubs once asked the top writers worldwide (from Garcia Marquez to Kundera) to name their favorite books, and then tallied the results. The top books were Cervantes' Don Quixote and Murasaki's The Tale of Genji. I completely agree, and my reaction reminds me of one film critic who, after watching one more recently produced movie, advised viewers to watch Kurosawa's Seven Samurai as many times as they can until they understand what a real masterpiece looks like (although I also like Rashomon).

However, for some reason the poststructuralist part stayed, and mainly because I'm a child of television, and started accessing the 'net during the early 1990s (before that were BBSes). That's why I enjoy things ranging from B-movies (especially the ones that Tarantino likes, including one of my favorite characters, Weng Weng) to sci-fi (especially the Alien franchise) to video games (from Starflight to the Ultima series to Fallout to online games like World of Tanks) to old-time radio (like The Shadow and Quiet, Please).

Sometimes I'm able to combine the two for purposes of appreciation. For example, Goethe's Faust, Mizoguchi's Ugetsu, Alien, Dante's Inferno, Dicksinson's poems (including the one shared earlier in this thread), etc. I think the phenomenon is part of "cultural studies," where young scholars try to analyze pop culture ranging from movies frequently mentioned in this forum to things like Calvin and Hobbes comic strips, and then see what makes them as important as canonical lit, but I don't want to be identified with that. My sense is that everyone matures and must eventually go for the heavy hitters even as one still seeks distraction. In my case, it's currently struggling with Spengler's Decline of the West and then taking a break by watching Megalodon, where I stopped watching after around 15 minutes.

I began to study geopolitics when I moved from the states to Asia, and studied great works from Third World nations (what my buddies would call "s***hole" countries). That's when I began to focus as well on what leftists call "neocolonialism," and from there studied both neoconservatism and neoliberalism: some manners by which powerful countries shape but also abuse weaker ones for realpolitik. It's a very extensive field, and also allowed me to see the importance of other works I was reading as part of the canon, like Machiavelli's The Prince, Marx, Nietzche, Clausewitz's On War, etc.

This also explains the "meme" I shared earlier in this thread: a clip from the movie Crimson Tide. That's actually a very good scene, and reminds of the students' presentation in the film Lions for Lambs.

[ralfy]

Check out ralfy's feedback, I've been a fan since day one.   He's been here nearly 10 years.  Not a troll. 

Thanks!

[ralfy]

This article contains multiple sources and gives new points, but I'll keep it brief:

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/russia-ukraine-joe-biden-war-us-regime-change-moscow

Biden referred to Putin as a "war criminal" and called for regime change in Russia, and then backtracked. The idea of regime change for other countries is the heart of U.S. foreign policy. The purpose is to make them malleable.

Ukraine was unsure of joining NATO, and likely because it would antagonize Russia. The West was unsure of letting Ukraine join for the same reason. Russia wanted to join to avoid aggression.

That's a very complex issue: the de facto head of NATO wants regime change but various regimes who want to join NATO also want to maintain independence.

The U.S. promised not to expand NATO, but it appears to do so for purposes of deception. Its intention was to maintain global dominance, and later "full-spectrum" after 9/11, and that required expansion. Meanwhile, Putin made similar claims--to "de-Nazify" Ukraine--but the likely purpose was to make sure that Ukraine would not fall under NATO expansion.

Another intention is to remake the world given the void left by the Soviet Union. That is documented by the report "Clean Break" from the 1990s, and called for "creative destruction" needed to undo "traditional societies." But because international law did not allow for that, false flags had to be created to justify attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan. One can see similar in Putin's doctrine of pre-emption, although his involves countries nearby while the U.S. dealt with countries far away from it. To gain support from the public, they had to show intervention as part of humanitarianism, and the narrative of good vs. evil or "Us vs. Them" was created. Terms like "axis of evil" and "war on terror" were also used.

One tactic of "creative destruction" were the "color revolutions," where combinations of covert activity (like assassinations, coup attempts, support for armed groups, funding for protesters and media outlets), destructive economic and trade policies, and other means would be used to weaken authoritarian regimes, and in their place regimes friendly to the U.S. would be established. That's likely what happened to Ukraine before the invasion.

One result of such intervention is a quagmire, and it can have several effects. For example, the U.S. used locals for proxy wars in other countries, and thus avoid quagmires involving U.S. lives lost. Instead, local lives were lost. Also, Putin was forced, for example, to provide ground support to Syria in order for the latter to avoid collapse. The ones who opposed them involved al-Qaeda and ISIS groups.

Given that historical precedence, one can argue that Ukraine is also now becoming part of a proxy war, but with some weird differences: Russia is attacking what is essentially a brother nation, and is holding on only to parts of Ukraine dominated by Russians. Europe, which cared for neither country in relation to NATO membership but is antagonized by the proximity of the conflict, want it ended quickly as it needs to trade with both Ukraine and Russia. Across the pond, the U.S. continues to send money to Ukraine, requires its allies to impose sanctions on Russia, and as the first point of the article states, wants regime change in Russia, just like what happened to Ukraine, before backtracking on that.

Again, the multiple sources are linked in the article. In order to avoid posting more, I won't share them here and instead invite forum members to consider them.

[indianasmith]

So once again, everything bad is America's fault.

[ER]

So once again, everything bad is America's fault.

That tends to be how most university-level academics see the world, and what's worse, they pass that erroneous mindset off to students at an impressionable age, perpetuating a shame and blame cycle. The prevalence of that outlook is one of two reasons I didn't become a college professor. (The other being I'd already entered a career at age seventeen.)

[lester1/2jr]

 NOTHING is America's fault. all other countries are just EVIL

[Rev. Powell]

Some things are America's fault. Other things, like Russia's invasion of Ukraine, are the fault of other countries.

(Also, almost nothing is ever ENTIRELY anyone's fault, there are always multiple factors in play.)

[ER]

NOTHING is America's fault. all other countries are just EVIL

FINALLY lester gets it!

[indianasmith]

I just get sick to death of the moral equivalency games.  The Soviet Union murdered some 40 million of its own citizens during the 75 years of its benighted existence.
Communist China murdered 40 million of its own during Mao's tenure, and probably another 10 - 20 million since then.
Each nation completely suppressed free speech, freedom of the press, and persecuted anyone who dared make a public profession of ANY religious faith.
But CLEARLY the United States is the greatest force for wickedness in the last century, according to Ralfy's endless sermonizing.
I'm frankly sick of it.

[Morpheus, the unwoke.]

This makes the second time Russia has invaded a country only to be dealt grevious blows by American arms sent in to support la' resistance.

The troubling thing I see is that pooty might learn from his carnival of errors abd get Russia's shi... er, act together and launch a new offensive . Even poots must have realized bubblibg himself in with sychophantic yes men who were robbing the military blind and toothless was a colossal Charlie foxtrot, he might try looking at the real situation and changing tactics.

[ER]

Really it is so much the norm across the world for people to live in fear of their governments that democracies that enshrine human rights truly are exceptional. And Indy is exactly right in his post. No nation is perfect, but Americans have much to be proud of, and I can think of nothing shameful in US history that most or all other nations were not also guilty of. At least we've tried to right our (and other's) wrongs and tried to balance the scale. The United States is a great and good nation. As Craig Ferguson put it in the day he became a US citizen: "America is the best place anyone's come up with yet." And any American who disagrees should take a moment to reflect you are ALLOWED to disagree. And that feeling you get when you realize this? Maybe it's a realization of the exceptionalism of democracy I mentioned at the beginning.

[Morpheus, the unwoke.]

I'm a Bill Maher Democrat as I make plain, and Bill recently rounded on people who criticize America for having slavery in it's past with 'You know who else had slaves in the past? EVERYONE!''

Yes we have skeletons in out closet,  and on the record I believe we were wrong to invade Iraq after 911. But we've also lead much of the world in advancing human rights. We treated our enemies humanely after WW2. We sent aid to people in need. We pioneered preciscion weapons to minimize mass civil casualties in military actions.

No we're not perfect but we are trying to advance, sadly we have those who want to drag us back but we're opposibg and resisting them .

So yes I'm supporting indy here.

Back on topic...

Poots seems to have forgotten many vital military Maxims. One is that anateurs think tactics, experts think      logistics. Russia's logistics have sucked all their this war, partly due to poorly maintained trucks, partly due to loooted supplies being sold on the black market by corrppt oligarchs running the military.

Also Russia's economy really sucks too, see this:   https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAMz5kgb7V4&t=966s

Heres one that looks at Russia's future economic issues. Not hopeful.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAMz5kgb7V4&t=966s

[lester1/2jr]

The Military Industrial complex appreciates you guys' support. war is peace, freedom is slavery