In reply to mtn :
Yeah, it can be pulled into the insanity of victim blaming, but... Don't let that abuse of the idea prevent thinking about a problem in terms of achieving a better result as opposed to just making sure there's punishment after the bad result. And I'm going to drop this before I contribute further to topic drift.
I think Volvo's point (and thanks for clarifying it btw) is that the "robber" and the invader are still total a-holes, but THEY see the justification by the way the "rich guy" or country wanting to be less Russian, is acting.
Being able to understand peoples motivations, as twisted as they might be, is very important.
E.g. while I do not buy into the fact that NATO / EU "caused" this, it's entirely reasonable to say the Putin certainly believes that.
Now, if NATO / EU knew that already (how Putin would see it)... they you can blame them a bit... but I highly suspect that is not true at all (EU's foreign policy people are about as worthless as the US's).
The teenager who tracked Elon Musk's jet is now tracking Russian oligarchs
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/02/business/russian-jets-tracker-twitter-account/index.html
Rather than attempting to find the right analogy, allow me to offer a generic scenario that may help to think about policy options (and that's really what this is all about). I'm going to radically simplify the scenario for clarity. All countries mentioned share borders.
Country A is a dictatorship that has lost power, status, and territory in recent decades through a combination of non-war circumstances. It is still militarily powerful, but its economy is in bad shape. Current leadership wishes to arrest, and if possible reverse, the decline, while retaining power. It sees the realignment of Country B as potentially threatening its hold on power.
Country B was formerly part of Country A, but is now independent. It is the smallest of the three countries, and has limited resources. It was politically aligned with Country A previously, but recently shifted its orientation to Country C.
Country C is the strongest of the three countries, and has a liberal democratic, market-based system. It has steadily grown in recent decades, largely at the expense of Country A, and wishes to continue this trend by aligning with Country B. Though it has substantial military power, it has not shown a willingness to use it.
If you were in the position of Country A's leadership, what would you do to achieve your objectives? What options do you have available? What are your alternatives?
The first of 16,000 foreign volunteers are ready to defend Ukraine, said the President of Ukraine. Earlier, The Minister for Foreign Affairs Kuleba said that the volunteers came from 16 countries, including Great Britain, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Israel and others
https://twitter.com/dsszzi/status/1499360527977676803
Basic situation on the ground seems to be similar to yesterday, Russia stepping up bombardment, which will almost certainly increase civilian casualties.
Here is Vlad's justification, in his own words:
Vladimir Putin – ‘Empire of Lies’ Speech – Full – February 24, 2022 - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
Shipping isn’t waiting for sanctions. It’s refusing to move Russian cargo
The tanker sector is seeing the same pattern of behavior among shipowners and operators. Many are refusing to load Russian oil cargoes even though sanctions don’t bar them from doing so.
“Not only do you have to make sure [a shipment] is legally permissible, you’ve got to make sure every other party to the transaction thinks so: your banks, insurer, shipper, receiver, charterer, owner, etc. Otherwise, you won’t get paid, you won’t have a completed shipment or you’ll lose your insurance.”
What happens if the counterparty that you just signed a charter party with or shipped cargo for gets sanctioned tomorrow, or in the next hour, or in the next 20 minutes?”
Practically speaking, this is convincing shipping companies to “say no to Russia” because it’s not worth the risk, said Wolff.
02Pilot said:Rather than attempting to find the right analogy, allow me to offer a generic scenario that may help to think about policy options (and that's really what this is all about). I'm going to radically simplify the scenario for clarity. All countries mentioned share borders.
Country A is a dictatorship that has lost power, status, and territory in recent decades through a combination of non-war circumstances. It is still militarily powerful, but its economy is in bad shape. Current leadership wishes to arrest, and if possible reverse, the decline, while retaining power. It sees the realignment of Country B as potentially threatening its hold on power.
Country B was formerly part of Country A, but is now independent. It is the smallest of the three countries, and has limited resources. It was politically aligned with Country A previously, but recently shifted its orientation to Country C.
Country C is the strongest of the three countries, and has a liberal democratic, market-based system. It has steadily grown in recent decades, largely at the expense of Country A, and wishes to continue this trend by aligning with Country B. Though it has substantial military power, it has not shown a willingness to use it.
If you were in the position of Country A's leadership, what would you do to achieve your objectives? What options do you have available? What are your alternatives?
I would seek to be more like Country C. Obviously it's working. You lose a race, you don't bash in the car coming in second place, you figure out what the winner did that you didn't do, and go do that.
aircooled said:I think Volvo's point (and thanks for clarifying it btw) is that the "robber" and the invader are still total a-holes, but THEY see the justification by the way the "rich guy" or country wanting to be less Russian is acting.
Being able to understand peoples motivations, as twisted as they might be, is very important.
E.g. while I do not buy into the fact that NATO / EU "caused" this, it's entirely reasonable to say the Putin certainly believes that.
Now, if NATO / EU knew that already (how Putin would see it)... they you can blame them a bit... but I highly suspect that is not true at all (EU's foreign policy people are about as worthless as the US's).
Bingo. Thank you.
tuna55 said:
I would seek to be more like Country C. Obviously it's working. You lose a race, you don't bash in the car coming in second place, you figure out what the winner did that you didn't do, and go do that.
but..... they have won many races before by bashing cars. It's just what they do, and I have gotten away with it before.
It's not right, it's not within the rules, but sometimes (many times?), it works.
If you want to win a race against that person, or avoid getting spun off, it would be a huge advantage to be aware of it.
(insert inappropriate Ernhart comment here)
volvoclearinghouse said:Bingo. Thank you.
Wait, did I just understand how volvoclearinghouse thinks?
Let me see how I can use this to my advantage.... 
mtn said:In reply to volvoclearinghouse :
This is uncomfortably close to the "she was asking for it because of how she was dressed" bullE36 M3.
That analogy was also running through my head. But it's also true that if I'm a good looking, well-dressed, petite female, I don't go walking through a high-crime area after dark, alone and unarmed.
Again, causality vs. blame. Its important to understand the difference.
The other side of this is what some consider the "victim mentality" for criminals- Blaming society, bad upbringing, lack of jobs, drugs, etc for a criminal's behavior. None of these things make a criminal any less of a criminal, but they help us understand why they became one- and possibly how to prevent future criminals. I think that's especially relevant here.
aircooled said:volvoclearinghouse said:Bingo. Thank you.
Wait, did I just understand how volvoclearinghouse thinks?
Let me see how I can use this to my advantage....
*liked*
tuna55 said:02Pilot said:Rather than attempting to find the right analogy, allow me to offer a generic scenario that may help to think about policy options (and that's really what this is all about). I'm going to radically simplify the scenario for clarity. All countries mentioned share borders.
Country A is a dictatorship that has lost power, status, and territory in recent decades through a combination of non-war circumstances. It is still militarily powerful, but its economy is in bad shape. Current leadership wishes to arrest, and if possible reverse, the decline, while retaining power. It sees the realignment of Country B as potentially threatening its hold on power.
Country B was formerly part of Country A, but is now independent. It is the smallest of the three countries, and has limited resources. It was politically aligned with Country A previously, but recently shifted its orientation to Country C.
Country C is the strongest of the three countries, and has a liberal democratic, market-based system. It has steadily grown in recent decades, largely at the expense of Country A, and wishes to continue this trend by aligning with Country B. Though it has substantial military power, it has not shown a willingness to use it.
If you were in the position of Country A's leadership, what would you do to achieve your objectives? What options do you have available? What are your alternatives?
I would seek to be more like Country C. Obviously it's working. You lose a race, you don't bash in the car coming in second place, you figure out what the winner did that you didn't do, and go do that.
How realistic do you think that is? A dictator who wants to retain power over a declining nation is not likely to fare well in democratic elections, and thus he has no incentive to allow them.
Thinking out loud.
Globally one trend I despise is "cancel culture". In my opinion it has created a space where a person (entity, company, et al) are punished for missed steps and teachable errors.
We are about to witness a temporary change in my opinion on this.
The one thing that 21st century leadership is truly not prepared for is the retribution of a globally sourced cancel culture. The Oligarchs are starting to see it come into view but the politicians are far too self absorbed to be bothered by it.
The west has come together on the side of Ukraine and God help those that feel that Putin is righteous in his actions, this new world will make their existence very complicated.
I'm digging into the potential geopolitical strength that Russia has based on landmass, resources, access to markets.
As a geographer, our "place" in the world is sometimes highly dependent on our location, but the modern world economy is quickly changing this. Germany and Japan are economic powerhouses despite their lack of landmass or resources. Australia has a very large landmass and quite a bit of resources, but it's economy pales in comparison South Korea, which is considerably smaller, lower population, and surrounded by adversaries for which it has trouble trading with.
In world history, especially on the topic of the USSR, we were always told that Russia needed warm-water ports. That Russia's lack of warm-water ports was why it struggled economically. This may have been true during the 19th and early 20th century, but it certainly isn't true today.
Russia could very easily capitalize on its land access to the EU, relatively easy access to the Mediterranean, remote, but easy access to northern China, Japan, South Korea, and Pacific Trade Routes.
In summary, I think Russia has all the landmass, ports, resources, and economic ABILITY to be one of the top 10 largest economies in the world, the problem is as it has been for many other nation, the USA included - ego.
I think Russia tends to think of itself much higher in the world order than it is, and its economy is based around this idea of trying to force trade around prices that it simply doesn't deserve. Instead of being a loss-leader like China, Russia want to be a Gain Leader. It wants to sell things (like gas or military equipment) like it offers something unique and superior. In order to be successful in business, you've got to be realistic. I don't think Russia is realistic with the products it offers.
Secondly, I think the level of corruption in Russia siphons off much of what it could use to promote growth. Maybe not today, but decades ago, Chinese manufacturing was all about that loss leader strategy. It wasn't about making a profit, it was about keeping anyone else from beating you to market. China did this without threats of aggression or hegemony, it did it by simply saying "what do you need? We'll make it cheaper." I don't know if its Russia's corruption or what, but it seems like it's squandering it's natural resources.
QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:Thinking out loud.
Globally one trend I despise is "communism". In my opinion it has created a space where a person (entity, company, et al) are punished for missed steps and teachable errors.
We are about to witness a temporary change in my opinion on this.
The one thing that 20th century leadership is truly not prepared for is the retribution of a globally sourced red-scare. The Oligarchs are starting to see it come into view but the politicians are far too self absorbed to be bothered by it.
The west has come together on the side of capitalism and God help those that feel that Khrushchev is righteous in his actions, this new world will make their existence very complicated.
Fixed this for you. Hmm....
02Pilot said:tuna55 said:02Pilot said:Rather than attempting to find the right analogy, allow me to offer a generic scenario that may help to think about policy options (and that's really what this is all about). I'm going to radically simplify the scenario for clarity. All countries mentioned share borders.
Country A is a dictatorship that has lost power, status, and territory in recent decades through a combination of non-war circumstances. It is still militarily powerful, but its economy is in bad shape. Current leadership wishes to arrest, and if possible reverse, the decline, while retaining power. It sees the realignment of Country B as potentially threatening its hold on power.
Country B was formerly part of Country A, but is now independent. It is the smallest of the three countries, and has limited resources. It was politically aligned with Country A previously, but recently shifted its orientation to Country C.
Country C is the strongest of the three countries, and has a liberal democratic, market-based system. It has steadily grown in recent decades, largely at the expense of Country A, and wishes to continue this trend by aligning with Country B. Though it has substantial military power, it has not shown a willingness to use it.
If you were in the position of Country A's leadership, what would you do to achieve your objectives? What options do you have available? What are your alternatives?
I would seek to be more like Country C. Obviously it's working. You lose a race, you don't bash in the car coming in second place, you figure out what the winner did that you didn't do, and go do that.
How realistic do you think that is? A dictator who wants to retain power over a declining nation is not likely to fare well in democratic elections, and thus he has no incentive to allow them.
Your questions were "you..." three times. I told you what -I- would do.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
"I would seek to be more like Country C. Obviously it's working. You lose a race, you don't bash in the car coming in second place, you figure out what the winner did that you didn't do, and go do that."
Some lessons there for a post-American hegemony as well. We're certainly still the strongest in a lot of ways, but the rest of the world is catching up. When the rest of the world starts to be our equal from an economic standpoint, the successes of others will become more visible. Will we learn from them?
When there is no-one left to push around, you become far more aware of your weaknesses.
jharry3 said:Here is Vlad's justification, in his own words:
Vladimir Putin – ‘Empire of Lies’ Speech – Full – February 24, 2022 - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
I did not know that Mike Lindell had a Russian brother. That could not have been a speech because nobody could possibly follow it; it was a diatribe at best.
pheller said:"I would seek to be more like Country C. Obviously it's working. You lose a race, you don't bash in the car coming in second place, you figure out what the winner did that you didn't do, and go do that."
Some lessons there for a post-American hegemony as well. We're certainly still the strongest in a lot of ways, but the rest of the world is catching up. When the rest of the world starts to be our equal from an economic standpoint, the successes of others will become more visible. Will we learn from them?
When there is no-one left to push around, you become far more aware of your weaknesses.
A rising tide may raise all ships, but that means that there's deeper water or something....
My take on the why...
Because Putin saw an opportunity and went for it before the window closed. He's wanted this for a long time and was waiting for the right moment. After the way we left Afghanistan, it was obvious that the western world no longer had the stomach for conflict. And after the well trained and well armed Afghan army just rolled over and couldn't surrender to the Taliban fast enough, he expected the same of the Ukrainians. He also knew that the west would be hesitant to support Ukraine, as they would be concerned about the same outcome. He and Xi had a couple conversations that went, "You go first.""No, you go first." Maybe Putin lost at rock, paper, scissors. He was partially right, there has been no direct effort from the west to stop him, except- he miscalculated the amount of fight in the Ukrainians. And their ability to garner support from the west through their defiance. Had they just rolled over, the reaction from the world would be very different today. Lots of hand wringing with little action.
As to why the why- Putin is a thug, and he needs to do thug things to continue his thug life. He wasn't worried about western aggression. If he was, he wouldn't have risked invading Ukraine, inviting aggression. The theory that he wanted Ukraine as a military buffer zone to the west is pretty thin too. "Ukraine, we miss you and love you, welcome back to the family! Now go stand over there as a human shield and protect the important people in the family." More likely as others have mentioned, the real threat is a neighbor with a similar background embracing conflicting ideology and succeeding. That is a much more realistic threat to Putin's hold over his people. Kind of like when a group of losers has friend that turns his life around. Instead of being happy for him or trying to join him, they try to tear him down, as he is a threat to their version of reality.
Taiwan definitely owes Ukraine big time. I'm sure China is sitting back watching what's happening to Russia, thinking forget that right now. The difference is Putin is running out of time, China has 100 years.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
I think that's pretty decent, but I'd like to add something-
China's mindset is one of payback, and it's felt nationwide. They refer to the ages when the West addicted them to Opium until the defeat of the Kuminotang as "The Years of Shame", and consider their toppling of the West's power to be an already foregone conclusion- that this century is a mere lead-up. Even though reality of china's finances and birth rate says otherwise, that nation will absolutely wait more than 100 years for this. Their nation is one that didn't see serious external conflict for thousands of years, so they think in terms of thousands of years. TOTALLY agree on Taiwan tho; China is running in overdrive to try and prop up the image that Ukraine is little more than a "Western Puppet".
In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :
Explains why they're shipping fentanyl over to the US by the boatload. Payback. berkeleyers.
You'll need to log in to post.
