The Crazy SOB Actually Did it!

[Allhallowsday]

...
But I've been doing the opposite of evading the subject. If any, I think the majority were doing that by believing that this is a simple case of a "crazy SOB" invading a country to bring back the Soviet Empire. It's explained in the first paragraph here:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine
The counterclaim is that the attack was provoked by the West attempting to expand its power by pulling in countries near Russia to its orbit. If you read the rest of the article plus the sources I provided in earlier messages, then you will see that not only have I been addressing what many want to avoid but I've been providing multiple sources to explain them.
I think what Mearsheimer said makes sense because the U.S. has been doing such for many decades, and to countries ranging from the Philippines to Iraq. How can one discount what happened in Ukraine from 2004 onward?

[Morpheus, the unwoke.]

To quote a certain engineer ''The haggis is in the fire for sure. '' Russia just hit Poland with 2 missiles, destroyed part of a rail line that carried aid to ukraine and killed two farmers.

https://m.dailykos.com/softlaunch/stories/2022/11/15/2136338/-Russian-missiles-just-f-ing-hit-Poland

The claim is this was an accident, but a direct hit on a trainline seems hard to believe.

No one knows what will happen, but Poland is a NATO state and so an attack on it is an attack on NATO. One option is a no fly zone near the polish border that could involve NATO firing on Russian aircraft that get close.

[lester1/2jr]

If Russia were going to escalate this doesn't strike me as the way they would do it. Destroying a railway and killing two farmers will not change their situation significantly but who knows

[Rev. Powell]

If Russia were going to escalate this doesn't strike me as the way they would do it. Destroying a railway and killing two farmers will not change their situation significantly but who knows

I think there's no way this was an intentional strike by Russia. They're not suicidal. It's 15 miles across the border, a massive and tragic screwup, but accidents happen in war.

[Alex]

My gut feeling on this is I'd go with an accident. That is without having seen any reports into the incident though.

[Morpheus, the unwoke.]

Yeah, new reports say it's likely an accident given the poor status of Russia's military and the competence of it's forces. Also it might not have been a train track hit. Still it's a hit on a NATO member with fatalities. Something may happen.

Of course some might point out how many US drone strikes have killed non combatants and hit non military targets, which would be fair, but we usually hit the right country at least.

This might get sideshowed after all, but now is not a good time to be a Russian in Poland. Hostile acts against Russians in Poland could escalate matters in unpredictable ways.

Hmm, pooty did this to trigger attacks on Russians in Poland for some Machiavellian political reason?  Unlikely,  but as the thread says he's a 'crazy SOB'. (And that's being too polite.)

[Alex]

It may not have been part of a Russian attack gone wrong. It potentially could have been a Ukraine missile defence battery attempting to take down incoming missiles. I don't know what air defence systems they have in place in that region, I am not saying it was Ukrainian, or Russian, merely saying that don't jump to conclusions. Even if it was Russian-launched, I very much doubt that it would be enough to trigger article 5.

[Rev. Powell]

Yep, latest reports suggest the missile was Ukrainian in origin.

[lester1/2jr]

Zelensky issuing Israel/ Saudi style "can we just drop this?" denial

[ralfy]

Of course, the slight flaw in all of that is Putin himself at one point wanted to join NATO and the countries that didn't want to join NATO that used to be part of the USSR that Putin has grabbed bits of. But hey, you keep going and only seeing half the picture.

The problem with joining NATO is that it essentially works for the U.S. If Russia were allowed to join, then it would be like part of an effective version of the UN Security Council, and the goal would be to keep the peace, especially when Third World countries are also allowed to participate and decisions are made based on votes.

Also, according to Mearsheimer, the idea that Putin wants to revive the USSR appears to be a narrative concocted by the West to justify making weak nations part of the U.S. orbit of power:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine

What's more likely is that Russia has no reason to engage in aggression as it's part of BRICS and forty emerging markets that are now taking over the global economy:

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

OTOH, for the U.S., the rise of BRICS threatens the use of the dollar as a global reserve currency, and thus the ability of the country to borrow and spend heavily.

That's why, as the professor points out here:

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

the West has been engaged in long-term destabilization and manipulation of countries surrounding not just Russia but also China. Pilger also explains similar in this documentary about a coming war on China:

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

Both of these go back to Jeffrey Sachs' point about the military industrial complex:

Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

[ralfy]

This is what I mean about you going way off topic. No one is going to watch hour-long lectures or follow the seven links you post in response to a two-sentence explanation of a post. There are other forums where you might find more engagement on those topics if that's what you seek.

How is not having the patience to view hour-long lectures or giving evidence going off-topic?

I'll do you a favor and make it easier for you:

The U.S. has been engaged in manipulation, coercion, destabilization, etc., of many countries for years, and one of them involves Ukraine. It started around 2004 and went on in 2014, etc.

The U.S. is doing this because it needs other countries to keep using the dollar. That makes the dollar more valuable, and in turn allows the U.S. to borrow more money and spend.

That manipulation, etc., requires aggressive foreign policies and a strong military. That's why the U.S. has been following exceptionalism: the U.S. is always right. Anyone who questions it is wrong. That's also why it has to spend heavily (many times greater than the other countries combined) on its military.

Together with more than 700 military bases and installations worldwide, with around 400 used to surround countries like China and Russia, the U.S. needs to make sure that all of those countries continue to be dependent on the U.S. (i.e., keep using the dollar for trade). That's why NATO has been expanding since then. That's why experts like Kennan had been arguing since the late 1990s that if this path is pursued, there will be war.

Why? Because China and Russia, together with India, Brazil, South Africa, and over forty countries have become economically stronger the last three decades. More of them have been answering back at the U.S. and the West, have been supporting populist politicians who want the same, and prefer not the dollar but a basket of currencies for trade, as well as bilateral trade and new economic blocs.

For example, just recently Israel and Saudi Arabia said that they will continue remaining neutral, and so have countries like Malaysia, Singapore, and more.

Was that explanation easier for you?

[Alex]

Of course, the slight flaw in all of that is Putin himself at one point wanted to join NATO and the countries that didn't want to join NATO that used to be part of the USSR that Putin has grabbed bits of. But hey, you keep going and only seeing half the picture.

The problem with joining NATO is that it essentially works for the U.S. If Russia were allowed to join, then it would be like part of an effective version of the UN Security Council, and the goal would be to keep the peace, especially when Third World countries are also allowed to participate and decisions are made based on votes.

Also, according to Mearsheimer, the idea that Putin wants to revive the USSR appears to be a narrative concocted by the West to justify making weak nations part of the U.S. orbit of power:

That does not however change that Putin asked to join. Seems odd for someone worried about its eastward expansion. I have to be honest, in common with several other people I am not going to bother watching your videos. Your sources don't seem to be very good. I mean we were discussing battlefield situations and your reply was to link quotes from foreign policy experts. Don't see many of them in an ops room or on the ground commanding a battalion. I have no doubt that the people you are linking are intelligent and so forth, but I'll put my trust in the people I know on the ground who actually do these jobs currently and have plenty of real-world experience.

I am sorry, but you are seeing a small part of the picture and assuming you are seeing the whole. It's why you got so much wrong about the use of WMDs earlier (I am still trying to write a reply post explaining why it wouldn't go the way you think, but I really don't have enough time right now to write the essay sized document it would take to explain everything). There are a whole lot more factors to take into account than you are aware of.

[ER]

You guys are keeping this discussion admirably civil, despite disagreements, so nicely done there.

[Rev. Powell]

This is what I mean about you going way off topic. No one is going to watch hour-long lectures or follow the seven links you post in response to a two-sentence explanation of a post. There are other forums where you might find more engagement on those topics if that's what you seek.

How is not having the patience to view hour-long lectures or giving evidence going off-topic?

The original post you were responding to read

"I could be wrong, but I interpreted Allhallowsday's tap-dancing post as a reference to the American idiom "tap dance around the subject," i.e. refusing to answer a direct question or accusation by bringing up other subjects. So if I understood correctly he's not accusing lester of pro-Russia cheerleading, but of evasiveness."

Your response was to repeat your geopolitical theory again in full detail, with 7 or 8 links.

When I suggested you were off-topic, your response to my suggestion that you were off-topic was to restate your theory again. It has been repeated and rephrased maybe ten times in this thread?

It seems to me that you want to talk about what you want to talk about rather than following the flow of the conversation. Perhaps you should start your own off-topic thread, lay out your theory, and see if people are interested in discussing it. Or, as I suggested, find another forum to discuss this topic. badmovies.org, with it's dozens of regulars who are mostly interested in bad movies, seems like an odd choice of venue to carry out a deep discussion of political philosophy.

I get the gist of your argument. It has valid elements but sorry, I don't buy it as a catch-all to explain every geopolitical crisis. And I personally don't have the free time to discuss your theories in anything approaching the detail you present them.

[Allhallowsday]