Ukraine-Russia War Take 2
Here is what the preliminary take on the Ukraine thread disappearing is:
The site was hit with a massive spam attack wher
My thinking on this matter comes from conventional sources, mainstream academics who actually had actually studied the history and current dynamics if the region. These are people like Jeffrey Sachs, JOhn Mearsheimer, Stephen Cohen or Stephen Kinzer. These are mostly centrists or even conservatives, very mainstream thinking. There are also many former cold war era advisors who
Your sources sound Jewish. You sure you can trust them?
I hope so. Most all of my intellectual heroes are Jewish. I suppose you are asking me that because I'm against Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. But the U.S. resistance to that treatment is led by Jewish people and there is no contradiction between liking Jewish people, having no prejudices against them, and detesting the State of Israel - none whatsoever.
My thinking on this matter comes from conventional sources, mainstream academics who actually had actually studied the history and current dynamics if the region. These are people like Jeffrey Sachs...
Jeffrey Sachs is a malignant fool. His 'shock therapy' shattered the Russian economy and created Russian oligarchism (he of course claims 'that wasn't real shock therapy' , like a Western Communist claiming the USSR 'wasn't real Communism') and his long-term influence as a Vatican advisor and lately a member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences (
) probably explains the Pope's bizarre Putinist insistence a year ago that Ukraine must 'show the courage of the white flag' and let Vlad do whatever he wants.
It did not go down well and the Vatican had to backtrack furiously within a few days.
Moral: don't take advice from Jeffrey Sachs.
Jeffrey Sachs is a malignant fool. His 'shock therapy' shattered the Russian economy and created Russian oligarchism (he of course claims 'that wasn't real shock therapy' , like a Western Communist claiming the USSR 'wasn't real Communism') and his long-term influence as a Vatican advisor and lately a member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences (
Sachs main thesis seems to be that China is the future, the US is the past, and that the more we resist this the more pain and suffering we cause without altering the inevitable outcome. Whether this is a sincere belief, or he is just a paid operative, is a matter of contention.
He more or less sees Russia as a satellite of Chinese interests, and thinks we should just accept their inevitable domination of that part of the world.
Yes, hes clearly a traitorous anti-american piece of ****, just like most Republican politicians and mouth pieces that shroud themselves in the light of "patriotism"
Its incredible how much these "patriots" despise America and how its largely operated for the past ~80 years and how blindfolded someone would have to be to think they have our best interests at heart
Yes, hes clearly a traitorous anti-american piece of ****, just like most Republican politicians and mouth pieces that shroud themselves in the light of "patriotism"
Its incredible how much these "patriots" despise America and how its largely operated for the past ~80 years and how blindfolded someone would have to be to think they have our best interests at heart
The pro - Russia MAGA want to remove Russia from the chinese sphere of influence. Sachs wants the opposite.
Sachs is indeed a traitor to the west and should be treated as such but it's very different from people who want to "pull a Nixon" on Russia, re-normalize it for the west, and use that to counter China, which is most MAGA
Sachs main thesis seems to be that China is the future, the US is the past, and that the more we resist this the more pain and suffering we cause without altering the inevitable outcome. Whether this is a sincere belief, or he is just a paid operative, is a matter of contention. He more or less sees Russia as a satellite of Chinese interests, and thinks we should just accept
Well he sure comes off as a massive Russian schill
Yes, hes clearly a traitorous anti-american piece of ****, just like most Republican politicians and mouth pieces that shroud themselves in the light of "patriotism"
Its incredible how much these "patriots" despise America and how its largely operated for the past ~80 years and how blindfolded someone would have to be to think they have our best interests at heart
He is definitely not a republican. The biggest donor to his foundation is Soros. He is very much a globalist. Perhaps his biggest position is investing in green energy.
He just sees china as the future leader of a globalist world. Who knows. Maybe this is the correct analysis?
He is definitely not a republican. The biggest donor to his foundation is Soros. He is very much a globalist. Perhaps his biggest position is investing in green energy.
He just sees china as the future leader of a globalist world. Who knows. Maybe this is the correct analysis?
China power might increase even significantly from today's levels but it's almost impossible it will ever reach american power in the last decades, or the british power in the 19th century, because of several reasons.
Most important reason is their demographics are quickly going toward collapse so even if they perform "super-well" on everything else, they can't become as important as the USA and UK were at their prime.
Then there is India with exceptionally good demographics, right there on the side of China on the map, hard to believe they won't act as a huge counterweight to any chinese hegemonic approach to the world.
And there there is the west that even if on a bad trend and weakening is still decently powerful and at least for the USA, not in a terrible demographic shape.
I think we can bump that up to "almost certain it's the former". A very good throwing of shade it was too.
Also, the idea that the Russian Federation "would not invade Europe" is pretty damn stupid when they have done so repeatedly since their formation in 1991. Chechnya, Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine have all been on the chopping block.
You'd think "clever intellectuals who put mainstream idiots to shame" (paraphrased) would be capable of reading a map, and perhaps to grasp the concept of borders and regions, and how these mystical concepts relate to invasions and hypothetical future wars. They would perhaps also realize why letting Ukraine fall to Russia is horrifyingly stupid.
I think we can bump that up to "almost certain it's the former". A very good throwing of shade it was too.
your supremacy is showing
You'd think "clever intellectuals who put mainstream idiots to shame" (paraphrased) would be capable of reading a map, and perhaps to grasp the concept of borders and regions, and how these mystical concepts relate to invasions and hypothetical future wars. They would perhaps also realize why letting Ukraine fall to Russia is horrifyingly stupid.
A Russian sympathizer would point at the same map, and show some historical maps, and explain how the nations you named are rightfully part of Russia and were illegitimately created. You are coming from a viewpoint that the borders created when the Soviet Union dissolved are legitimate. Where a Putin apologist would say they are not legitimate.
And to illustrate Western hypocrisy, they would point out that Kosovo is clearly part of Serbia, and NATO defied the UN Security Council and illegitimately created it. I was listening to a podcast from a Singapore diplomat and he pointed out that outside the western world, pretty much the entire world views NATO activity in Serbia/Kosovo under the same moral lens as Russia's adventurism with its neighbors. And that isn't even getting into the US activities interfering with nations around the world, which most of the rest of the world probably views less favorably than most of Russia's adventurism.
I am not arguing who is right or wrong. I am just pointing out you have a very Western centric view of the "concept of borders and regions" that most of the world thinks is very hypocritical and self serving.
A Russian sympathizer would point at the same map, and show some historical maps, and explain how the nations you named are rightfully part of Russia and were illegitimately created. You are coming from a viewpoint that the borders created when the Soviet Union dissolved are legitimate. Where a Putin apologist would say they are not legitimate. And to illustrate Western hyp
Frontiers are just about historical dates ….
Before the Soviet union creation, there were other frontiers too that got decimated too .
And to preserve them , they killed tens of million people throughout the last 100+ years ….
So it’s isn’t to have a very western centric pov.
It’s just about choosing knowingly that frontiers aren’t eternal and the now frontier are far more important and Russia history isn’t peaceful at all !
Regardless toward foreigners or their own countrymen…..
Jeffrey Sachs is a malignant fool. His 'shock therapy' shattered the Russian economy and created Russian oligarchism (he of course claims 'that wasn't real shock therapy' , like a Western Communist claiming the USSR 'wasn't real Communism')
Moral: don't take advice from Jeffrey Sachs.
Did I say endorse everything the man says? Privatization was always going to be the program for post soviet Russia. You can't put that on him. The point is he's published on the topic of Russia well before 2022 and what he says makes sense. His position on the Ukraine war is filled out with relevant facts drawing from a wide body of thinking done by himself and others. What you're being told, by people you can't remotely identify, are fairy tales about bad guys and good guys. It's unbelievable to me how people fail to identify the difference between a reasoned argument and emotionally driven stories of good and evil.
You tell me what Sachs says about the Ukraine war which is wrong.
Frontiers are just about historical dates ….Before the Soviet union creation, there were other frontiers too that got decimated too .And to preserve them , they killed tens of million people throughout the last 100+ years ….So it’s isn’t to have a very western centric pov.It’s just about choosing knowingly that frontiers aren’t eternal and the
Like I said, tell that to the people in Serbia, Iraq, Syria, and probably 15 places in Africa I dont know about. Didn't the Trump administration recently announce they supported some breakaway nation in the Horn of Africa area?
I think there are valid reasons to support Ukrainian independence, and decry the Russian invasion. But I would caution against the "borders are sacrosanct" argument, as this is something the rest of the world finds the West is very hypocritical and self serving with.
A Russian sympathizer would point at the same map, and show some historical maps, and explain how the nations you named are rightfully part of Russia and were illegitimately created. You are coming from a viewpoint that the borders created when the Soviet Union dissolved are legitimate. Where a Putin apologist would say they are not legitimate. And to illustrate Western hyp
The Russian Federation accepted the sovereignty of Ukraine in the Budapest memorandum, which they signed in 1994.
The Russian Federation accepted the sovereignty of Ukraine in the Budapest memorandum, which they signed in 1994.
The UN Security Council also voted to not go into Serbia, and US/EU did it anyways. As I said, the rest of the world sees how the West views "international law" as very hypocritical and self serving. Don't go after me, I tend to lean in your direction. I just recognize 2/3 of the world's population are represented by govts that see things very differently. Which is one reason most of the world has no problems having normal relations with Russia right now. They dont make much of a moral distinction between what Russia is doing now and what the US has been doing the last 50 years.
I actually think Western nations should be much more aggressively self serving moving forward. They are ceding way too much leverage to the rest of the world, and getting nothing but contempt in return for it. But in the case of Europe this will require re-industrializing and re-arming, as at the end of the day economies and militaries are what determines who is right or wrong on the geopolitical stage.
The post WWII international order is over. Most of the world never really was committed to it. But they didn't have the leverage to say no, and so they just used the deindustrialization and pacification of the West (minus the US) to their advantage to build up their own power.
And now that the balance of power has shifted, most of the world is abandoning this framework. I dont agree with Trump's actions and rhetorics against our erstwhile allies. But at the same time, if his actions get them to wake up and see what time it is, it could be a good thing for the liberal world.
The post WWII international order is over. Most of the world never really was committed to it. But they didn't have the leverage to say no, and so they just used the deindustrialization and pacification of the West (minus the US) to their advantage to build up their own power. And now that the balance of power has shifted, most of the world is abandoning this framework. I
Only 6% of the world's population live in full democracies, and the number has been steadily declining for two decades, and even inside these countries the support for democracy is eroding.
Trump's ambition towards making the US into a hybrid regime will cause some minor responses and sense of unity, and after a few weeks have passed, we will return to complacency as we fast-track our way towards becoming an historical footnote.
Only 6% of the world's population live in full democracies, and the number has been steadily declining for two decades, and even inside these countries the support for democracy is eroding.Trump's ambition towards making the US into a hybrid regime will cause some minor responses and sense of unity, and after a few weeks have passed, we will return to complacency as we fast-tra
lol at the bold, "full democracy" as defined by whom? 6% of the population is 500m people, Japan + USA + EU is a billion.
and ofc Mexico, India, Brazil and others are just normal democracies as well
The post WWII international order is over. Most of the world never really was committed to it. But they didn't have the leverage to say no, and so they just used the deindustrialization and pacification of the West (minus the US) to their advantage to build up their own power. And now that the balance of power has shifted, most of the world is abandoning this framework. I d
we could start by doing something to permanently solve the houthi problem
Ansar Allah (the proper name for the Houthis) are a group that opposed and survived their own Western backed genocide and is currently the only country opposing the Western backed genocide in Gaza.
so yes, ofc the West wants to permanently remove them. opposing genocide is antithetical to Western values and interests.
