The Crazy SOB Actually Did it!

[lester1/2jr]

ISIS are/were more like modern day nazis. Putin is an outmoded post totalitarian leader of a pretty boring seeming country

[Morpheus, the unwoke.]

Well this is actually a nice conversation.

Wonder how Russia's army became a paper bear?  Here are a few videos on the matter.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j6yA7Ge0EmY

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kAp9lPRbmoc&t=94s

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ejjKbpXn1S0&t=631s

[Morpheus, the unwoke.]

 Russia's main issue has aways centered on corruption, even under the Soviet union corruption was endemic to levels the American military wohkd never have accepted.

 In one really spectacular case rampant corruption, incompetence and 2 rolls of blank newspaper created a situation that could have triggered WW3.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZU1f47SC_A8&t=67s

 A different Soviet leader may have jumped to the conclusion the west caused this situation and decided to attack first.  Thankfully that did not happen.

[lester1/2jr]

I don't think their army has become a paper bear. There seems to be a ton of casualties on both sides?

[ralfy]

ISIS are/were more like modern day nazis. Putin is an outmoded post totalitarian leader of a pretty boring seeming country

Indeed. Check out some of Adam Curtis' documentaries. They talk about not only the background of ISIS but even of groups like Al Qaeda and what led to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. Links to the U.S. are notable.

[ralfy]

Well this is actually a nice conversation.

Wonder how Russia's army became a paper bear?  Here are a few videos on the matter.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j6yA7Ge0EmY

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kAp9lPRbmoc&t=94s

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ejjKbpXn1S0&t=631s

As implied by Sachs and others, the main reason why many military powers look good on paper is because they can't outspend the U.S. That is, the U.S. military budget is larger than those of other military powers combined. The country can do that because the dollar is used as a reserve currency globally, which means more people worldwide need dollars for trade.

With that, the U.S. creates large amounts of dollars as part of debt, and then uses it to spend heavily on the military, etc.

The catch is that that ponzi scheme can only be maintained as long as more people worldwide remain reliant on the dollar. To do that, the U.S. has to use the same military plus onerous foreign policies to keep other countries weak, and thus dependent on rich ones.

Such is the case for Ukraine, which has a per capita GDP that's barely above that of countries like the Philippines and Vietnam. The irony is that more than two decades ago Ukraine was one of the richest republics of the former Soviet Union, with significant levels of manufacturing plus earnings from natural resources. Across the same decades it started de-industrializing, relying on more trade with the EU as it was persuaded to move away from its Russian trading partner, and on services.

[ralfy]

Russia's main issue has aways centered on corruption, even under the Soviet union corruption was endemic to levels the American military wohkd never have accepted.

 In one really spectacular case rampant corruption, incompetence and 2 rolls of blank newspaper created a situation that could have triggered WW3.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZU1f47SC_A8&t=67s

 A different Soviet leader may have jumped to the conclusion the west caused this situation and decided to attack first.  Thankfully that did not happen.

I also recall some more points raised by Curtis, and they may even be seen in his latest documentary on Russia. That is, when Communism fell apart because it was unable to keep up with U.S. neoliberalism, oligarchs took over and tried to use politicians like Putin as puppets. After that, Putin reversed things and took over himself.

What most don't know is that similar has probably been in place in countries like the U.S. One expert interviewed by Pilger for the documentary "The Coming War on China" pointed out, for example, that the difference between China and the U.S. is this: China is ruled by the Communist Party. The U.S. is ruled by Wall Street.

[Alex]

This is an older document, but it does explain why Ukraine's economy is the way it is, without going into too much depth.

https://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/09/underachiever-ukraine-s-economy-since-1991-pub-47451

Be warned though, it is fairly long.

[Morpheus, the unwoke.]

One thing to remember is Ukraine produces a lot of food sold to Europe, maybe pooty decided to wanted to hold european food supplies as well as oil and gas supplies by the throat.

 Also tens of thousands of Ukrainian people have been,  it's reported,  basically kidnapped into Russia. I wonder why it's being done and why it isn't being talked about much?

[Alex]

The forced repatriation has been mentioned on the news here as it is a war crime.

[ralfy]

This is an older document, but it does explain why Ukraine's economy is the way it is, without going into too much depth.

https://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/09/underachiever-ukraine-s-economy-since-1991-pub-47451

Be warned though, it is fairly long.

What Ukraine should have done was follow what Asian countries did, which is to promote nationalist economics. But it was dominated by oligarchs that took advantage of the populace and foreign partners who thought the same.

Interestingly enough, the article implicitly reveals how the West was manipulating Ukraine. That is, the former was never interested in making the latter an economic partner, and was more interested in encouraging it to open up its economy to foreign investments, privatize, drop price controls, and select political leaders amenable to all three views.

That's because all these are part of neoliberalism, which with manipulation of media and co-opting of Ukraine politicians (as seen in the Color Revolutions) allows the U.S. to control weaker countries. When that's no longer possible (which is happening because neoliberal policies are falling apart in many countries), then they employ neoconservatism, which involves a range of intervention, from covert activities to invasion.)

I suspect Putin realized this, which is why he attacked but stopped only with the regions dominated by Russians. He also did not follow the U.S. strategy of using WMDs to bomb countries back to the stone age, and thus end wars quickly.

[ralfy]

One thing to remember is Ukraine produces a lot of food sold to Europe, maybe pooty decided to wanted to hold european food supplies as well as oil and gas supplies by the throat.

 Also tens of thousands of Ukrainian people have been,  it's reported,  basically kidnapped into Russia. I wonder why it's being done and why it isn't being talked about much?

I won't be surprised to find out that he knew that all along. In addition, I get this feeling that the EU wanted Ukraine to remain weak, in order to access such resources cheap. Meanwhile, U.S. officials could visit, meeting with Ukraine officials who favored the U.S. while others struck deals with Ukraine oligarchs to gain access to the same resources.

[Alex]

This is an older document, but it does explain why Ukraine's economy is the way it is, without going into too much depth.

https://carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/09/underachiever-ukraine-s-economy-since-1991-pub-47451

Be warned though, it is fairly long.

What Ukraine should have done was follow what Asian countries did, which is to promote nationalist economics. But it was dominated by oligarchs that took advantage of the populace and foreign partners who thought the same.

Interestingly enough, the article implicitly reveals how the West was manipulating Ukraine. That is, the former was never interested in making the latter an economic partner, and was more interested in encouraging it to open up its economy to foreign investments, privatize, drop price controls, and select political leaders amenable to all three views.

That's because all these are part of neoliberalism, which with manipulation of media and co-opting of Ukraine politicians (as seen in the Color Revolutions) allows the U.S. to control weaker countries. When that's no longer possible (which is happening because neoliberal policies are falling apart in many countries), then they employ neoconservatism, which involves a range of intervention, from covert activities to invasion.)

I suspect Putin realized this, which is why he attacked but stopped only with the regions dominated by Russians. He also did not follow the U.S. strategy of using WMDs to bomb countries back to the stone age, and thus end wars quickly.

He stopped with the regions dominated by Russian speaking people because his troops are getting their arses kicked. If he could have, he'd have taken the whole thing, but a combination of under prepared troops, too few numbers of men used (standard protocol says he should have used a force three times as large as he did in the initial invasion. You attack with a force three times the size of the defending army, not one more or less equal in size). The only way his invasion plan makes any sense to me is if they'd expected the Ukrainians to not fight back at all, either collapsing early on in the attack or even welcoming the invaders in.

[ER]

The leader of Russia is not the man today that he was in the past, not only owing to personal factors such as the infirmities brought on by age, but because he has ruled by terror within his own government for so long that there are few voices near him speaking either an opposing viewpoint or an unpopular one, which has led to Putin making decisions from a place that hasn't aligned with reality. Yes-men confirming his personal biases created expectations which reality did not support. In short the way Russia's war has unfolded has been contrary to Putin's expectations. For years the Kremlin has been a place out of step with actual reality, and now the world sees it.

[lester1/2jr]

can't believe there is still an appetite for trying to bring "democracy" to russia or something. Our country is 30 trillion dollars in debt, we just got through a massive era defining plague (some of still not quite through it) and now inflation is rampant. I'd prefer to see say 10 million more Americans with health insurance rather than Russians having the right to a speedy trial or something. they seem mostly content now and the ones who aren't are totally free to leave.