Deception is at the heart of all warfare.
4 Aug 2022
"Now I have no clue if any of this or other such claims are true, and nor I suspect do the officials propagating it or the journalists spreading it. But it is out there, shaping the opinions of the public, the elites and the experts, most of who believe Ukraine is able to pull off some sort of an upset if not an outright victory against its largely more powerful neighbour. But the Western and especially Anglo-American media seems to suffer from short, or should I say selective memory when it takes the official line at face value, as if the official deception during yesterday’s wars in Afghanistan, Iraq or Vietnam, has no bearing on covering today’s war in Ukraine.
In 2019, the Washington Post newspaper revealed that senior US officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan throughout the 18-year campaign, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable. In other words, they lied. But media outlets, think-tanks and influential pundits continued to rely on these “officials”; even after it was revealed that they have also lied about another war – the Iraq war, which was also fought on false pretence and fabricated evidence.
Official deception was even worse during the Cold War. For example, the “Pentagon Papers” published about half a century ago revealed that the US government was guilty of an enormous cover-up regarding the terrible losses in the Vietnam war, which led to some 55,000 American and more than a million Vietnamese deaths. Any expectation that US media and the public’s trust in the government’s take on wars was “forever diminished”, turned out to be premature, as official lies about the “dirty wars” in Asia and Central America continued to be widely reported as facts.
Even today, as US Special Operation Command covertly deploys special forces across Africa to fight “shadow wars”, it blatantly preaches “free and transparent press”. One does not know whether to laugh or cry."
In spite of Western bias in its reporting and numerous examples of deception by Western governments in war, I'll take the free press reports over authoritarian state media every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Yes, me too, joj!
We have many things to be thankful for.
Most concerning to me, however is their mission to obliterate fossil fuels which is the recipe to destroy our economies.
Am I obsessed with this?
It's probably the most important thing in the lives of most people living in the Western World since WW-2..........but the vast majority have no clue.
It's my responsibility to enlighten.
Enjoying life to the maximum in the best time in history, in the best country but not wasting opportunities for sharing.
Earlier this month/last week we were bombarded with this propaganda from the West:
On My Mind | Sep 16
For months it looked like Russia was waging – and winning — a battle of attrition. But last week Ukrainian forces made dramatic gains on the battlefield, retaking vast areas of land, including the area surrounding Ukraine’s second largest city. And now some experts say this could be the beginning of a victory for Kyiv.
Then, suddenly this week, we find out the opposite is true via the markets(which react to the truth):
Russias plan to annex occupied Ukraine
Lesson: Everyone knows to take things out of Russia with a grain of salt because it's likely propaganda. It's easy to recognize propaganda when it's coming from the enemy.
People from the West, however because they WANT TO BELIEVE stories about Ukraine doing well and Russia doing bad are vulnerable suckers for Western propaganda.
For most people, it's almost impossible to recognize propaganda FROM THEIR SIDE. The reason is that they WANT to believe it and so they are not skeptical/suspicious. As a result they don't do fact checks on information that states what they want to believe.
What do you do to thwart efforts from message gatekeepers targeting your side and making YOU a victim of their propaganda?
It's happening in every political realm and even in science and other fields.
Read this thread for some wonderful tips, especially on using the Scientific Method(scrutinizing YOUR side):
Listened to NPR's absurd war propaganda on the radio today with a guest they had on.
According to him, Putin drafting hundreds of thousands to fight in the war is a sign that Ukraine is winning and that Putin is desperate and all these new soldiers will be untrained and not very good on the battle field..... and the Russian people will revolt.
The interviewer asked well into the interview "could this actually mean that Putin is more committed to winning the war"
He said "that's possible but it doesn't matter because he will lose with these tactics"
The West's way of misleading everybody to think that Ukraine is doing much better and Russia is losing reminds me of how I coach chess with young people.
Most chess coaches don't go easy on kids when playing them. They crush them, while teaching the lesson.
I often use a strategy similar to both sides in this war.........only I'm honest with the kids.
If you want to maximize keeping a person's or team's head in any competitive game or sport...........or a war, they must believe there's a chance for them to win.
When a football team is behind 48-0 or a basketball team 60-20 the players on the team getting crushed know they can't win and the incentive to win is lost.
Doing their best is still the objective and scoring as many points but it's just a fact of human nature. You have less to play for once you know there's no chance to win.
Same thing with chess. Even though they know the chess coach can mop the floor with them, I will tell them my moves ahead of time and give them suggestions in many cases so they don't get demoralized. If they make really smart decisions........FOR THEM, they can beat me. But I don't pretend that they won from being better than me. They understand how it happened.
The West is doing the same thing with the war in Ukraine but in a deceptive way. Everybody knows that Putin does this but most don't realize the West does it too.
They want everybody to think that Ukraine is winning. This keeps everybody wanting to support them with more weapons and money, providing incentive to keep supporting Ukraine to finish Putin off because they think victory is just a matter of staying the course and is right around the corner.
In doing so, they distort Putin's strengths and commitment downward, while exaggerating or manufacturing weaknesses. They do the exact opposite with Ukraine's strengths and weaknesses.
I agree that Putin needs to be defeated but strongly prefer the truth to propaganda.
Wow cutworm! I'd never seen that game before.
Great example of never giving up when you still have a sliver of a chance to win.
Boy, those officials made several bad calls in the waning moments. 1 against the Colts(onside kick) and 2 for them, including getting to do the field goal over.......that somehow managed to deflect inside the uprights.
That has to be the best finish in history for any NFL game. Thanks
So the West is leading me with news of Ukraine successes?
If so, then why is this war still ongoing after 7 months when Russia was expected to crush their smaller neighbor.
The Russian mobilization, in the reporting that I've listened to, is not so much an act of desperation as Putin bending to the will of the military hawks. But you can't read it as a Russian success. Putin called it a "military operation". Mobilization of hundreds of thousands is a preparation for war, not an "operation". Can Russia still win? Of course.
David Ignatius, a writer on military issues for The Washington Post as well as the fine publication of Foreign Affairs magazine, sat in on a Ukrainian cabinet meeting with Zelensky and members. Their position on negotiations has hardened due to military successes. They have 3 conditions.
1. Complete return of all territory taken from them by Russia including the 2014 invasion.
2. Financial reparations for all the damage caused by Russian aggression.
3. Putin has to step down.
Obviously this isn't going to happen but it indicates to me that Ukraine is doing pretty well militarily (and probably that reports of Russian atrocities are true). It looks like it is going to continue grinding on.
As for Afghanistan, the reporting I read was never rosy throughout the stupid mission. I'm not saying that you can't find biased reporting but my recollection from my Western news sources is that it was a woeful attempt at nation building. I didn't like Bush going in and I didn't like Obama listening to the generals. Generals always have a "can do" attitude.
Iraq 2003 was full of government lies (I was never persuaded that Saddam was a threat).
Gulf war 1992 was Bush 41's finest leadership in my view. I regretted not voting for him vs Dukakis.
Vietnam was US government lies through and through but the Western press exposed them eventually, Unfortunately, too late.
I strongly agree with you on Vietnam, Iraq and other things.
"So the West is leading me with news of Ukraine successes?
If so, then why is this war still ongoing after 7 months when Russia was expected to crush their smaller neighbor."
Not sure where you're getting that Russia was expected to crush their small neighbor, as if Ukraine never had a chance because that's NOT the story being sold from the get go or now as I remember it.
The one that I remember, right from the start is that Ukraine can beat Russia but only if they get tremendous support from the West, like we've been giving them.
I'm not going to have a debate with anybody on this (discussion, yes) because there isn't reliable data or authentic facts to base it on.........so its just opinions based on whatever propaganda a person believes in.
Nobody really knows the truth because manufactured narratives rule the news.
Maybe Putin has a serious disease and will die soon. Maybe this, maybe that. Propaganda to get people to stay the course by painting pictures of Putin's weaknesses and demise.
Here's something that seems fairly accurate. There's alot of red on that map below but not much purple.
Red is bad for Ukraine and purple is good for Ukraine.
Because of the purple, Putin is calling up/mobilizing 300,000 reservists.
Take that to mean whatever you want it too but the PBS guest described a scenario that sounded like purple was taking over the map and Putin's goose was cooked.
Which seems to be a familiar theme the last 7 months.
I really hope the purple does win because that's the good guys!
Generals always have a "can do" attitude.
You got that right, joj and that's an understatement!
When people go to military school, they don't focus on how to stay out of wars and maintain peace. Just the opposite:
Winning Wars and Military Education: Crossing Both Spans of the Strategy Bridge
As Colin Gray reminds, there is more to war than warfare, and more to warfare than lethality. The solution will not be found by simply emphasizing “warfighting” in schools. However, an informal survey of faculty that I conducted in the United States found agreement about the need to inject more warfighting into school curricula diluted by regional studies and distracting non-military subjects. Army and Marine Instructors at Leavenworth and Quantico identified a clear need to expand the study of military history and major wars.
Looking closely at your red and purple map gives me pause. The red/white striped area are denoted as "Russian advances". The red indicates "Russian military control". Does that mean that the red/white striped area represents the Russian military "success" in this 2022 campaign and the solid red was from the invasion in 2014? If so, your map indicates a pretty woeful effort on the part of the Russian military. (unless it's a Western biased map)... ;-)
You might be missing the main point but maybe you were just joking and I can clarify better than previously.
You're trying to interpret small details based on some map drawing entity that is in sync with whatever propaganda that side might be following and applying that based on slight changes going either way that are making news headlines and amplified to be the entire war.
You could be right with your analysis(I can't know) but that's exactly why I stated I'm not having a debate ON THAT POINT but can have a discussion....if that makes sense.
My point was THE BIG PICTURE which is how much red overall compared to how much purple overall which would seem clear to everybody, regardless of what side we are hoping is winning.
So that you don't have to scroll up, here it is again:
My point is not the current battlefield and borders of red or purple that are currently changing the most that are best used for propaganda by both sides and I have low confidence in but just stand back and tell me who's winning base entirely on how much solid red there is vs how much solid purple.
Then, pretend that you are Putin for instance and read the headline of this story again:
Russian President Vladimir Putin has announced that Russia is annexing four regions of Ukraine.
Once Putin officially annexes these 4 regions covered in red below that he clearly has taken over in red, he considers them Russian territory which flips his position from being offensive, taking over Ukraine to defending Russia.
This allows him to justify more extreme measures, that could very well include nuclear weapons. The West will never recognize his annexing but they also don't recognize 1 iota of what he's doing now and he does it anyway because he doesn't give a darn. He's also sending in 300,000 more troops.
This is in contrast to headlines telling us about Uraine winning back periphery territory and turning the tide in the other direction. Putin is annexing 4 key territories as his that were not his before the war for Pete's sake.
This is extremely immoral and against humanity but...........IT IS.
Annexation is less meaningful when it is recognized by almost no one as legitimate.
And, it is even less meaningful if it isn't accompanied by military and political control.
The town of Lyman, which was part of the annexed territory has recently been abandoned by thousands of Russian troops. This was even admitted by the Russian defense ministry.
Words are cheap. Joj announces he is annexing Crimea. (you get my point)
The military hawks in Russia are pressuring Putin to get more aggressive (low grade nukes?). At this point, I'm not sure if I want Putin overthrown or not...
I agree, joj that nobody recognizes the annexation but Putin......
"The West will never recognize his annexing but they also don't recognize 1 iota of what he's doing now and he does it anyway because he doesn't give a darn. He's also sending in 300,000 more troops."
However, that's not the point.
The point is that it tells us what Putin is doing and what his mind is thinking. Everybody is playing a guessing game trying to figure that out but not giving enough weighting to this.
As a chess coach, I've told every student tons of times: "The most important move in the chess match is the one that your opponent made last"
After a chess player moves(while their opponent is on their turn), they should be focusing most on their potential next moves.......basically THEIR STRATEGY which SHOULD be finally engaged based ON THEIR OPPONENTS LAST MOVE and all that information isn't in yet.
Where students/players(and me) mess up the most, is that we decide on our next move too early(before our opponent moves). Then, after the opponent moves, we continue with our strategy/planned attack because.........that's what our plan was before the opponent moved and thus, overlook the importance of their last move.
This is probably the biggest mistake that has cost more losses to evenly matched players!
You can't read the opponents mind but their last move is the next best thing to it on the chessboard.
Putin's last moves this month on the battlefield(which often uses chess type strategies) are powerful indicators of where this is going.......and he's set the tone from the get go.
Like you, I want the West to win badly. The West has well known strategies that include A, B, C and more.
The potential for Putin to engage in strategies, X,Y and Z have long been discussed, including nuclear weapons.
And the West has long ago decided that they will respond a continuation of A, B and C or even adjust to plans D, E and F.
However, I didn't hear much discussion a few months ago about Putin calling up 300,000 military reserves/draftees. This, in combination to him formally annexing these areas of Ukraine were his last move.
NPR and others are telling us that him drafting that many men, will cause the Russian people to revolt........SO WE SHOULD NOT CHANGE OUR PLAN (as is Russians revolting is now part of it). And that it means Putin's desperate and losing badly. No, that's just the needed justification that must be maintained in order to continue with OUR strategy and keep feeding the world nothing but distorted, one sided interpretations so they see it that way too........allowing Putin to cause monumental damage to Ukraine, while the West pretends Ukraine is winning and its Putin that has been caught off guard by this. Either the West is the one being caught very off guard or this is one of the worst strategies ever. Let yourself get obliterated and tell everybody you're winning. These last moves by Putin don't bode well for what's coming next. Putting fake positive spins on it, just makes what's coming next tougher. The West has no viable plan to end the war. Fighting Putin and taking massive losses forever out of principle is a bad strategy.
The West's strategies all along are based on many denials of realities on the ground and about Putin's capabilities and his complete commitment.
Again, I side entirely with Ukraine and if there was justice, Putin and those in leadership positions should be held accountable for their heinous war crimes.
Speaking of chess.........how about applying the cheating in chess principle here.
Only with one difference. Chess games in high rated tournaments are monitored closely and a proven cheater will receive very harsh punishment.
On the chess battlefield in Ukaine, Putin has been cheating his arse off from the get go. Sadly, the fact is, that unrestrained cheaters will always have an advantage over those playing by the rules.
That's the entire reason that they do it.
Putin has a massive advantage in this realm, which is always overlooked in discussions about beating him.
US President Joe Biden warned on Thursday (October 6) that the world currently faces its biggest risk of an “Armageddon” in the last 60 years, in his most outspoken remarks about nuclear weapons in the war between Russia and Ukraine.
Biden, during a Democratic Party fundraiser, said that Putin’s indirect threat of using tactical nuclear weapons marked the first prospect of a nuclear armageddon since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, when the Soviet Union and the US almost engaged in nuclear warfare.
“I don’t think there’s any such thing as the ability to easily (use) a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon,” he claimed.
Moscow on Thursday condemned Zelensky’s statement in which he suggested that NATO should launch preventative strikes so that Russia is unable to use nuclear weapons, as reported by Reuters.
“Such statements are nothing other than an appeal to start yet another world war with unpredictable, monstrous consequences,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.
During Putin’s announcement in September, when he said he would use all means at his disposal to protect his territory, Putin claimed that the atomic bombs that the US dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 had “created a precedent” for the use of nuclear weapons.
metmike: Biden's statements were one of the smartest, reality based statements from anybody in the West since the war started. This is good to see.
Zelensky will do anything to win.
Calling for NATO to go in and take out Russia's nuclear capabilities BEFORE they use nuclear weapons, if he said that, for me, means that his credibility is shot.
Not only can't we do that effectively but it would trigger, with 100% certainty WW-3 and a billion+ could be killed or have extreme suffering.
We would have 1 million times more damage to planet earth than even the fake climate crisis is manufacturing in a nuclear war. Maybe a billion times more damage.
And that's part of his battle plan in order for Ukraine to not lose the war?
Evil Russia should be stopped at any cost.......without a nuclear war!
Zelenski is our leader for the West and calling the shots for his armies. I just became very concerned about his ability to think clearly because of this extreme statement.
He's too desperate to keep his country at any cost, and expects the entire planet to risk being destroyed by the dumbest tactical strategy in history.
Zelensky knows that Putin is in it to win it but I'm willing to let Putin win it and Zelensky lose it if it means REALLY saving the planet (not the bs climate crisis versions of saving the planet.)
Again, Putin is an evil leader and Russia should be stopped but ethics and principles have to be reconciled to physical realities that are actually happening.
I would love to feed billions of hungry people and a get water to a billion people that don't have enough water and overthrow a dozen+ evil regime countries that are blatantly violating human rights too.
And to fight crime in the United States and take care of our poor.
Making progress to do those things doesn't have the risk of a planet wrecking nuclear war.
In recent years, a small group of scholars has focused on war-termination theory. They see reason to fear the possible outcomes in Ukraine.
By Keith Gessen
If once there was space in Ukrainian public opinion for concessions to Russia, that space has now closed. “Sometimes war generates its own causes of war,” Goemans said.
Dozens of outside actors have been pulled into the conflict: the thirty countries of NATO, on the side of Ukraine; Belarus, for now, on the side of Russia. “This is a large European war, something we thought we would not see,” Goemans said. “It’s trench warfare, like World War One. And it’s for the existence of Ukraine as a state.” The implications are enormous. “This will shape the rest of the twenty-first century. If Russia loses, or it doesn’t get what it wants, it will be a different Russia afterward. If Russia wins, it will be a different Europe afterward.” The scope and complications of the war foreclose a quick resolution. “This is what made World War One so big, this is what made World War Two so big,” Goemans said. “It’s not just ‘I want a piece of territory because my ethnic brethren are there.’ It’s—all this shit.”
He believes that the Russian front in the Donbas is still in danger of imminent collapse. If this were to happen, Putin would need to escalate even further. This could take the form of more attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure, but, if the goal is to stop Ukrainian advances, a likelier option would be a small tactical nuclear strike. Slantchev suggests that it would be under one kiloton—that is, about fifteen times smaller than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. It would nonetheless be devastating, and would almost certainly lead to an intense reaction from the West. Slantchev does not think that NATO would respond with nuclear strikes of its own, but it could, for example, destroy the Russian Black Sea Fleet. This could lead to yet another round of escalation. In such a situation, the West may be tempted, finally, to retreat. Slantchev urged them not to. “This is it now,” he wrote. “This is for all the marbles.”
These leaders, Goemans found, would be tempted to “gamble for resurrection,” to continue prosecuting the war, often at greater and greater intensity, because anything short of victory could mean their own exile or death. He reminded me that on November 17, 1914—four months after the First World War began—Kaiser Wilhelm II met with his war cabinet and concluded that the war was unwinnable. “Still, they fought on for another four years,” Goemans said. “And the reason was that they knew that if they lost they would be overthrown, there would be a revolution.” And they were right. Leaders like these were very dangerous. According to Goemans, they were the reason that the First World War, and many others, had dragged on much longer than they should have.
“Branislav is very worried,” Goemans told me, “and he is not a scaredy-cat.” Goemans was also worried, though his hypothetical time line was more extended.
For the moment, Goemans still believes that the nuclear option is unlikely. And he believes that Ukraine will win the war. But that will also take a long time, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. ♦
metmike: Seems likely to me that Putin will use nuclear weapons BEFORE he would ever admit defeat or agree to go away.
So that reality is that Putin either wins or nuclear weapons are used.
I don't like that outcome or reality one bit but it is what it is.
President Vladimir Putin said in a televised address his military launched the strikes as revenge for a blast that damaged the bridge connecting Russia and annexed Crimea over the weekend.
metmike: I repeat. The most important move in a chess match is what your opponent did last. The best chess players ADJUST THEIR PLANS based on that last move. It appears that the West will just stick with the current plan until........what? And what exactly is the plan and how do they intend to accomplish it?
Putin's annexing large areas of Ukraine(yeah, I know NATO doesn't recognize it but what matters is that he did it) , calling up 300,000 more troops and now this seems to counter the propaganda about Ukraine winning the war and giving the West all these misleading positive signals to keep us believing.
In the beginning of the war, speculation and principles and optimism can go a long way towards driving actions......when nothing had been lost or gained yet to judge whether all the sacrifices would be worth it.
But now, we're at the 10 month point in the war and we should step back and ask these questions:
What has been lost?
What has been won/gained?
The losses are pretty easy to tally in physical realities like human lives, property, Ukrainian territory, energy and food markets and so on.
The gains? Those still seem to be elusive and based on embellishment and ideals/believe system principles. Using objective physical realities, the losses must be 1,000 times greater than the gains, unless I'm completely missing something. The West keeps blaming Putin for inflation and for energy and food issues to vilify Putin but if it's true, they are admitting to these massive losses which have no offset in gains.
So if the war never happened, the vast majority of these losses would not have happened.
10 months later, today there are massive losses, 1,000 times greater than gains to the world that will never be compensated for.
Today, with the bombings and last month with Putin enlarging his army and annexing parts of Ukraine, are we seeing signs that the losses will be getting better or worse or staying at the current, devastating 1,000 to 1 ratio?
The answer can be gleaned by using your opponents last move(s).
None of what Putin has done in the last month indicates that things will be getting better. NONE of it. But NATO will just keep ignoring what Putin does and accept 1,000 to 1 losses over gains because fighting Putin and losing alot is better than not fighting Putin and letting him get away with this.
Because that's what we are told is the right thing to do.
Dozens of tyrants running countries that blatantly violate human rights that should be eliminated that we could fight without having even a tiny fraction of the losses caused by Putin.
Dozens of situations in the world where billions of people are poor and lack basic items needed to live or to have freedom or human rights and we've picked the one that carries the greatest losses by an extremely wide margin with no substantive gains so far. ........because the gatekeepers of messages tell us that this is the one place to fight because its the evil Putin that we must fight.
Why aren't we in China fighting for those people? Or Iran?
If I had 10 wishes that could be granted, eliminating Putin probably would make the list.
But wishful thinking and honest realities are 2 different things here and NATO/the West is loading us up with propaganda to make us think our wishful thinking will become a reality.
What would have happened if Putin was allowed to take over Ukraine?
I get that he's violated international law with his take over of Ukraine and appeasement is not an option. But how much worse off would Ukrainians be in the massive areas that are being devastated by fighting/war?
In WW-2 there was a plan to defeat Hitler and it worked after millions of lives were lost and tremendous amounts of structural damage. Many Americans lost their lives too.
The entire concern with Ukraine here is that there is no such plan to win a war with Putin. There's a near 0 chance that we could ever go in and take over Russia to win the war. All that will happen is an endless battle in Ukraine between Russia and NATO and Putin will NEVER acknowledge defeat. He will use nuclear weapons before that will happen.
More 1,000 to 1 losses to gains for months and months and if it goes nuclear, 1 billion or even 1 trillion to one losses to gains.
Thank God that Hitler didn't have nuclear weapons but as much as people like to compare Putin to Hitler, the dynamics of this war are much different with incredibly more potential risk vs not much reward and no serious planning that would take us to an endpoint.
Just keep fighting Putin with these losses as long as he lives and hope that he dies or something else happens.
Good chess players will often sacrifice key pieces to win the game but they have a strategy in their minds that they can see which results in them winning on the board based on the REAL relationships of the pieces to each other.
In chess, if you lose, it can be costly in a championship tournament but then, it's no big deal too because your army is a bunch of plastic pieces that come back to life again when the board is set up for the next chess match and your record has a loss on it. Every player in your army is restored to full power and you get to try again.
In a war, human lives are not immortal and its unfair for all the politicians/government and leaders of armies to sacrifice the human lives, that include many civilians in the war torn areas. Media and other sources with no skin in the game cheer for the side taking 1,000 to 1 losses to gains and pretending it's not really that way.
We need more truth about it.
I get that Ukrainians have a false sense of hope that they can defeat the Russians and WANT our help. They are extremely biased too. Besides us providing them with help, we need to be able to view the big picture objectively and not blindly like a person living in Ukraine that only cares about defeating Putin.
What is the plan here that ends up in Putin being defeated and how much more losses could happen to get there?
1. There is no viable plan
2. The losses could include a nuclear war that exceeds the losses of every war in history by a wide margin.
3. Yeah, I get that Ukrainians are still on board with that because it's their country on the line. However, for everybody else, it's OUR planet. And Putin can really hurt the US with serious cyber attacks that make us wish we were never in it.
4. The planet is greening up from a beneficial gas(building block for all life) and fake climate crisis. Many millions of fake and confused environmentalists want to save the planet by eliminating the thing greening the planet up up........AT ANY COST. Many of the same people, will risk a nuclear holocaust that could do a trillion times more damage to the planet than even their fake climate crisis purportedly will do. Are any environmentalists even considering the damage to the planet that this war might cause? Ironically, they are actually using the war and Putin's control of fossil fuel to advance their anti fossil fuel agenda! People only care about their agenda, which often causes them to be completely detached from the real world and critical thinking.
Another extremely negative element to this war is something nobody thinks about…..at least not the way I’m about to describe it.
We can all agree that Putin is an evil guy.
Does that mean most Russians are evil?
the majority support the war and half of the population strongly supports the war.
Russia has a big military fighting in Ukraine. Are they all evil, miniature Putins, killing ukrainians in cold blood to please their leader?
I would bet that the majority are not evil at all. Probably patriotic, brave Russians fighting for Russia and risking their lives because they think it’s the honorable thing to do.
When Bush got us into the Iraq war based on bogus information, how many of our soldiers that went to Iraq were dishonest people who knew the war was based on bogus facts but just wanted to go over there to kill Arabs Because they hated Arabs?
how about almost none of them.
they went there as brave, patriotic Americans fighting for our country based on what our leader told them. Most of us have tremendous respect for our military and are greatly in debt to them for their service to our country.
this includes other wars, some bogus, like Vietnam.
Our soldiers are soldiers 365 days a year and answer the call of our government when asked or told to fight for our country.
The Russian army is the same way…..except that they were born in Russia.
Brave patriots risking their lives to fight for Russian causes determined by their government and not picking and choosing what cause THEY prefer to fight in, or being defiant and questioning orders that they don’t like.
doing their duty, risking and sometimes giving up their lives. Being unselfish and devoted to their country.
Are they evil killers or are they brainwashed victims?
when our soldiers went to Iraq and killed people there, what were they?
in the 60s and 70s, when young Americans were drafted against their wishes and sent to Vietnam, then killed people over there for their country, what were they?
Brainwashed to hate and trained to kill ”Gooks” over there. Refusing to go (draft dodging) meant jail.
what makes Russian soldiers different?
when a soldier fights for OUR side, we see them as brave, patriotic, unselfish hero’s fighting for a just cause And saving the world for whatever the cause is.
Soldiers on the other side doing the exact same thing for the exact same reasons are evil killers with no conscience, committing war crimes against humanity.
I agree with you in general.
Putin is the evil one. Not the Russian citizenry. Soldiers answer the call.
Russians are brainwashed to believe the cause is just. But not all of them.
Us citizens were brainwashed to believe the Vietnam cause was just. I was 13 at the time and was myself duped by the line "If we don't fight the communists in Vietnam we'll be fighting them in California in 10 years. That was the last time I completely trusted our government. Still, millions of US citizens protested. So not all believed.
A poll taken before the invasion of Iraq showed 2/3 of Americans thought Saddam was behind the 9-11 attacks. Cheney (evil?) pushed that lie with some garbage about a meeting in a hotel in Europe between an Iraqi agent and someone from Al Qaeda.
The difference I would like to point out is we have free press, and Russia does not. One could argue "What difference does that make?" We prosecuted 2 stupid wars with a free press and Russia is prosecuting a stupid war with state run media fully behind them. Perhaps. But....
Perhaps the potential oversight of a free press has kept us out of a war or 2 that we are unaware of? (Because they didn't happen we don't know about them)
The other observation I would make is that there was a backlash against Putin's mobilization effort by those Russians who clearly did NOT want to serve. So the Russians are not all completely blind and it suggests that much of the citizenry thinks the cause is perhaps not worthy.
If every US citizen had to serve in the military then the political leadership would have a harder time getting into stupid wars. But instead, the military personnel and their families have to bear the burden.
I wish Biden would make an outreach to the Russian citizens. (Not that it would make any difference at this point)
Putin has no exit ramp. And even if we could offer him one, Ukrainians would never accept it.
Difficult to see how this ends well.
It's always nice when we can have some agreement.
Related to that, thanks for reminding me about something I wasn't thinking about.
The difference between the free press and ability to express ourselves in the US compared to Russia which makes it even worse for them.
I agree that this could have kept us out of other dumb wars because it provides a level of accountability for government decisions.
In spite of that, the Vietnam War went on for 2 decades. Hard to believe:
Our use of Agent Orange for a decade was one of the worst war crimes using chemical weapons in history.
And all that happened with the free press in the US!
The internet and global connections in 2022, do allow Russians to have more contact with the world outside of Russia than US citizens had in the 60s and 70s. I can't imagine that all of it is blocked in Russia but don't know. Do you?
We can go back IN 2022, to these horrible wars and see the truth but at the time, (and with Iraq) we didn't see the truth. Yes, there were many protesters and brave people like Ali, speaking out(that were vilified by the government and others) and we have those in Russia today but the truth is often very elusive while events like this are taking place and its only until you do an autopsy of them years later........when objective facts, absent propaganda/DISinformation, extremely biased political agenda and emotions. And the OUTCOME IS KNOWN!!!
Nobody knows the outcome here.
Both sides must be pretty convinced that they will win because both sides are taking enormous losses. In the end the total losses to both sides will be several orders of magnitude greater than any gains by either side.
I say that, assuming that Putin won't die or some other miracle happen that suddenly causes Russia to withdraw and give back all of Ukraine to the Ukrainians........which is the only way this is worth it.
Hundreds of millions died in WW2 but it was absolutely worth it. At least 6 millions Jews died in the Holocaust alone which tells us that the level of evil for Hitler was even greater than Putin. I have no doubt that you have a great understanding of that history, joj.
This gets back to my original point on the truth.
1. Clearly, people in Russia are mostly good people without the chance to know the truth. Even less than we have had with our horrific wars, that were also supported by good people misled by propaganda. Since WE were wrong in Vietnam, would it have been justice when our soldiers in that war died because they were fighting for a bad war?
Putin is running the show but he has to have millions of good people brainwashed to believe in this cause in order to fight his war. We celebrate when bad things happen to the Russians because that's how you win wars. But it's sad that this means killing misled, otherwise good people who are fight for this wrong cause.
2. There has never been a big political or big global theater event that featured 2 diametrically opposed sides that didn't feature massive propaganda from both sides. The gate keepers of messages collude with each other and speak with 1 voice that drowns out and vilifies people that disagree. Telling the truth is not the objective. In fact, discarding the truth is done FOR the objective. Once you get somebody to believe in something......it takes 20 times more information that contradicts it for some of them to change their minds. Some will never change because this causes them to process all new information that supports what they think that they know and reject all information that contradicts it. That's what makes propaganda so effective. It works on people that already WANT to believe it.
In war, nothing is inevitable and not much is predictable. But the war in Ukraine has a direction that observers can see and that we should name. What began as a criminal Russian aggression against Ukraine has become a proxy war between Washington and Moscow. The two sides are locked in an escalatory cycle that, along current trends, will eventually bring them into direct conflict and then go nuclear, killing millions of people and destroying much of the world. This is obviously a bold prediction and certainly an unwise one to make — in part because if I’m right, I’m unlikely to be around take credit for it.
No rational or even sane leader plans to start a nuclear war. And for all of the Russian regime’s risk taking, it does not show signs of suicidal tendencies. The essence of the problem is more insidious than mere insanity: Once an escalatory cycle begins, a series of individually rational steps can add up to a world-ending absurdity. In Ukraine, both sides have publicly pledged that they cannot lose this war. They hold that doing so would threaten their very way of life and the values that they hold most dear. In the Russian case particularly, a loss in Ukraine would seem to threaten regime survival and even the territorial integrity of the country.
metmike: With both sides committed to nothing short of total victory and no middle ground and no signs of a negotiated compromise of any kind, we've had nothing but an escalation by both sides to accomplish their objective and reject everything from the other sides, the mounting, tremendous losses by both sides just makes it more palatable to accrue additional losses since this has become the "new normal" instead of being shocking anymore.
The threat of nuclear war has been discussed so much this year, that even that has established a certain amount of complacency in the psyche of the world which has dialed in "the threat" as the "new normal"vs it being shocking.
There can be no doubt that Putin is the bad guy here but the continuation of just using that to sell the blind message, with no endpoint and unlimited risk that is not only resulting in very significant REAL accumulating damages to all sides with no gains but includes a legit possibility of obliterating the planet is dishonest.
We know why. Being honest would weaken the resolve and support for NATO/The West because its a good vs evil battle and evil just cannot win.
We want to believe that but it's absolutely NOT true. There are thousands of evil people in the world and some of them are more powerful than others. Some of them are part of regimes that violate the rights of people that are being suppressed or abused in some manner. And they get away with it because the world lets them get away with it for a host of reasons. The biggest one is that the world chooses to look the other way and not use military force to oppose them and free the oppressed.
I get that Ukraine is different for many reasons and that Putin is especially evil. He also has more power to obliterate the planet before he will accept a total defeat that NATO/The West insists is the only one they will settle for.
Seriously, something could have been negotiated long before the war started to prevent the war. But now?
if I missed it in all your posts forgive me. I agree that it is possible that we have missed diplomatic opportunities prior to Russia's invasion. I am curious about what you think the proper policy of our government should be now?
I think Biden/NATO has gotten it about right.
Arm democratic Ukraine to defend it self against the totalitarian aggressor. But don't escalate beyond a certain line.
Russia attacks civilians inside Ukraine with no military objective.
Do not arm Ukraine with long range weapons to hit Russian civilians.
The MAGA crowd (Tucker Carlson) wants to sell out Ukraine to reduce the risk of nuclear war. I do not. I live in NY city. Surely there are nukes currently aimed at me.
What is one willing to die for?
"I am curious about what you think the proper policy of our government should be now?"
You're ignoring the main points of this thread.
Not sure if lining this up with the MAGA crowd/Tucker has anything to do with it and is just being used as a discrediting tactic for a position because I never said anything about him or them.
My position is independent of that and based on stopping the propaganda aimed at people to convince them to support something by intentionally being dishonest about dynamics in key realities.
Under your plan, as I understand it, if Putin destroys the planet and kills a billion people in a nuclear war, it was worth it because doing the right thing in a foreign country against an evil dictator is worth losing the entire planet and a billion people.
I get that position for people living in Ukraine. I question the sanity of others that state it with such high confidence as being the right thing to do.
I'm sure as heck not willing to lose loved ones and the entire planet over this. You and your wife are deeply in love. Would you give her away and others in your family, along with the planet to free Ukraine?
20 times more dead people on the wrecked planet than even live in Ukraine(44 million).
If that's the case, would you spend $10,000 trying to win something that's worth $500?
Of course not but would you spend $10,000 to win something that's worth $500 out of principle? That's what you're saying.
This is much higher stakes so, how about risking $1,000,000 to obtain $50,000? Stating that you would still do it based on a financial principle that would bankrupt you and your family means that emotions have taken over your decision making ability.
Regardless, my biggest issue is the extreme spinning of every situation to make it misleading in order to generate support.
Never the realistic dynamics that include risk/reward and an endpoint. There is none. Putin is extremely evil and we must stop him. I agree that he is extremely evil and we should oppose him and try to stop him but must look at how much damage our attempts are actually causing us.
The losses during a long lived attempt to stop him, at some point soon will greatly exceed winning. They may have already.
44 million people is a lot of people. According to these same sources that blame Putin for inflation and energy spikes, he's punishing almost 8 billion people every day.
They use that to vilify Putin and make us more determined to defeat him.
But the reality is that this is a reaction by Putin because of our tactics to stop him. An extremely predictable reaction.
In a chess match, if you make a really dumb move that causes you to lose material on the board because your opponent capitalized by doing what they needed to do to win the game..............who's fault was it?
If you make a smart sacrifice that gives you a better position, or to even win.....it's brilliant. I haven't seen a brilliant move thus far(other than convincing people to go all in to beat Putin without appreciating the mounting losses-which is actually just denial of the reality and not a position on the battlefield).
How many less people would be for the war if they knew the objective truths/realities?
This is all part of the equation of the war we are choosing to be in with somebody that we know with certainty will do anything to win the war. How many of our current tactics, will obviously backfire and boomerang on us numerous times? Many.
Then, we blame it entirely on Putin for responding to something we knew he would do.
Maybe this is part of the plan to get people to hate Putin even more by causing him to hurt us even more, which sustains the support.
You want to know what my solution is.
By that, you mean how to free the Ukrainians and eliminate Putin and minimize damage?
You are asking a question that doesn't have a solution, joj.
If I ask you how you would colonize Mars and grow crops there to help reduce the pressure on our planet's natural resources, what would be your answer?
It should be.........that's impossible so don't waste 20 trillion dollars trying to do something that's impossible. Even after investing the first trillion, you can still save money by realizing the objective is impossible and not flush another 19 trillion down the toilet.
So there is no solution that would satisfy the outcome that you want, joj but we have to reconcile the mounting losses and potentially catastrophic losses with that reality.
I agree that truth is often a casualty in war. I didn't think it was necessary for me to start a new thread. On that subject, Putin is clearly a bigger liar than the West. Calling the Ukrainian government Nazis etc...
I did not ask for a solution from you, as you stated toward the end of your last post.. I asked what your policy would be now. Big difference.
The current policy of Biden/NATO is not to cause nuclear war, which you seemed to suggest, but to risk nuclear war. Big difference.
If that is unacceptable to you and avoiding nuclear war at all costs is your preference, then one would have to conclude that you are in favor of complete capitulation to Putin. That gives us the most likely outcome of avoiding nuclear war.
If we wanted to save lives we would make the speed limit on the highway 30 mph. I can assure you that would save lives and make your loved ones safer.
So I ask you again. What is your preferred policy at present? Feel free to start a new thread if you think the question is irrelevant to this thread.
If we wanted to save lives we would make the speed limit on the highway 30 mph. I can assure you that would save lives and make your loved ones safer.
False equivalency based on an analogy that is extremely unrelated.
So I ask you again. What is your preferred policy at present?
I gave you my answer and thought is was crystal clear. Pretending like I didn't and asking again doesn't make it not so. Or maybe you didn't like that response and are trying to get a different one that you might have a better argument against.
I'm glad that we agree that truth is a casualty of this war.
As a reminder of why I'm here.
Go to this link and under Objectives/Mission, please read the last sentence.
Most people gravitate to echo chambers where people like themselves repeat the same, sometimes really wrong political things.
Others like to go to places to have endless/un(re)solvable political battles that feature one or both sides making personal attacks and often saying dumb things.
This place is the opposite of that. I'm sincerely glad that you've decided to stay under those conditions and made so many positive contributions, including valid points in this thread.
Not pretending at all.
I reread your response twice. I guess I'm not smart enough to understand your stated policy preference.
Perhaps one last try...
Is the Biden/NATO response too hawkish? Not hawkish enough? Or about right?
I’m not ignoring you. I’ll have a response later today.
Will it entail some juicy details of the fake climate crisis? (Just kidding)
BIDEN IS COMPROMISED IN UKRAINE, CHINA & RUSSIA...ETC. ETC. ETC. WORLDWIDE, IMO
UKRAINE ISN'T AN EXAMPLE OF A TRUE DEMOCRACY. WHERE ARE HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS?
LET'S REMEMBER WHO WAS IN THE WH IN 2014, WHEN CRIMEA GOT STOLEN
AKA ~ JEAN N.
Seriously funny, joj!
Typically, at this stage in discussions, when I've already responded more than once with the same answer(s) and the other party won't accept my response but instead wants to keep a debate/argument going on a topic that is impossible to agree on and the argument will go on endlessly because its about winning an unwinnable argument for them or something like that...........I just analyze them and why they say whatever they are saying which is not consistent with facts or a position, while at the same time showing that I answered to the best of my ability.
My knee jerk reaction was to resort to that yesterday to your last response but I decided to give it much more thought. Especially considering your past history here and me seeing something different/special about you that's different than what caused my typical responses in the past in discussions like this.
You've shown open mindedness on numerous issues and a willingness to acknowledge points from somebody that disagrees with you. This is a wonderful trait.
I think that you also recognize why I'm here and its not to fight with people but to try to represent the authentic and objective truth that's independent of politics.
With that being the case, I'll assume that you could be looking for somebody that represents my position to explain it better that isn't just a MEGA brainwashed person spouting the party line that Fox tells them to follow.
Even though I thought that I did already, let me go on(repeating many things).............just for you and you know I don't have a problem with that (-:
1. Top priority is telling the truth. Everybody knows that Russia lies but they don't realize our side is massively deceiving too. They do it so that everybody will continue to support our side. If the truth accomplished this, they would tell nothing but the truth.
2. There was a fairly long window of opportunity(years) to work this out before the war in a way that could have completely avoided it. But it would have required concessions. Most of us had no clue what was happening and what was at stake but they had that opportunity and decided not to concede anything........so here we are and there's no going back.
3. Here means that the objective of both sides today is a theoretical total victory. A step back to contemplate how total victory would ever be accomplished in the real world shows a disconnect between that and the theoretical world.
4. Both sides are taking enormous losses while this battle continues with no end in sight. I mentioned 1,000 to 1 losses to gains for the West/Nato. And at this point, we are willing to take 20 times more losses than what the best case scenario gain might be. In the real world, this is retarded but its sold as being the right thing to do out of principle. As in......its worth destroying the planet and killing a billion people so that the Ukrainians can have complete freedom. No it isn't.
5. The tactic from the West is to vilify Putin and blame him for everything and use that to sell the need to defeat him........at ANY cost. Inflation? Putins fault. Energy problems from fake green energy schemes failing? Putin's fault. Fact is, much of it is Putin responding in the way that we knew that he would after WE acted the way that we did. WE had complete control over OUR actions and caused Putin to act exactly like he should if he's trying to win a war against us.
6. Again, here we are in a tough spot. You can't expect me to have a solution to an unwinnable war after the opportunities to avoid it were blown for years. Like I said several times before, there needs to be an actual plan to win the war that's feasible that doesn't greatly risk a nuclear disaster. We here constantly from the same people who want a total victory is that Putin is losing and that's why he's becoming desparate. Calling up more troops. Bombing Ukraine. This is when we hear that he is most likely to use nuclear weapons. When he's losing and has to do something extreme because everybody on both sides knows that Putin will never take the loss the West is calling for with their current, absurd plan to win. It's actually the recipe for a nuclear war. Let me repeat that. The trajectory of the war is headed for a nuclear crisis based on the West's plan to win. That is completely unacceptable.
7. What they are doing is the exact opposite of what would avoid that. If you wanted to have a concession or negotiation to avoid the nuclear war, you don't maximize the vilifying of the person you want to work it out with. This would be like a marriage counselor telling a couple that in order to work it out, you should call each other names and make up stories to each of your families about how horrible your spouse is. They don't want to work it out because the plan is just to get as much of the world behind us, the good guys and completely defeat Russia, the bad guys.........whatever the cost is. There is no other plan. That's what I object strongly too because, again, unless Putin dies or "something unexpected happens" we are on the path for a nuclear war.
8. Here's my chess analogy, just for you, joj. It's well known in chess that the higher the ratings of the players, the bigger the chance for them to agree on a draw at some point in the game, sometimes early in the game, instead of playing the game out. The highest rated players are actually more likely to draw than anything else, which probably shocks most people and it disappoints chess fans.
Why is this so and how does it apply to the war between Ukraine and Russia?
Winning a game earns 1 point, losing is worth 0. A draw is worth 1/2 point each.
A big reason for so many draws is that the highest rated players usually know what all the best moves are in most situations and they also know what their opponent will do after they make that best move(because their opponent knows what they know) and they know what they will do after that and their opponent will do after that.........out for many moves.
With that being the case, it's almost like playing chess against yourself.
You can't out think yourself because your one mind controls both sides. With extremely high rated players, they all know much of the same things. That's how they got up there.
They all have photographic memories. ALL of them.
They've all memorized tens of thousands of historical chess matches and even more than that with regards to set ups on the board that involve the relationships between pieces. They all know what the best moves is for every set up.........even though each game has its own twist and is never the exact same as another one.
They memorize "chunks" of information that involve thousands of set ups with different pieces.
With that being the case, after a certain point in many games, when they and their opponent are playing error free chess, doing the expected moves, one player will offer the other one a draw. There are several reasons for this and one could be that they only need 1/2 point to win the tournament and don't want to risk a 0 point outcome. Or they might feel they can't win and if their opponent feels the same........they agree to splitting the 1 point and saving the mental energy for the next game. Long chess tournaments are extremely exhausting mentally.
You can guess why I bring the draw topic in chess up here.
Both sides pretty much know what the other side will do but there is 1 twist. BOTH SIDES ARE LOSING A LOT!!!
The West has losses 1,000 times more than gains to this point.
Even if it eventually wins, it's victory could come at a price that cost a couple of orders of magnitude greater losses to get there.
So we're playing a chess match that is not playing for a clean and clear winner that takes an entire point and the other one gets 0 points.
We're playing a chess match where the loser might get -10 points and the winner does better with -5 points.
The longer it goes on, the more negative the numbers become for BOTH sides.
At any point, the carnage can stop if they call for a draw. No more negatives but both sided would have to be willing to give up or concede something.
That would mean not being able to declare a formal, resounding victory for one side. At this point, that's all both sides want........at any cost. There seem to be 0 indications that either side would concede anything. A win at any cost and no viable way to get there. The objective is to prevent the enemy from getting anything they want.
Keep in mind that the majority of Russians support Russia. Countries like China and in the Middle East are NOT taking our side. The West has hopes that if it gets the rest of the world to gang up on Russia, they can force it to finally cry uncle. So far...........so bad.
Under the current scenario, there is no solution that I can provide. It's pointless to suggest negotiations because that is completely counter to fighting entirely for the principle to accept only a total victory.
You live in the NY city area and apparently think that since you could be one of the main targets, that you have more skin in the game and this gives your opinion more weighting?
My dissertation above speaks for the planet and people living on it.
In order to not disappoint you....The climate crisis killing the planet being sold to us is actually a climate optimum. The war in Ukraine sold to us as a must win at any cost out of principle is the real potential crisis to the planet and the human race with the risk being 10 to the 1 millionth power greater than the fake climate crisis.
Another thing that I repeated many times is that the West is ignoring Putin's last moves and pretending they don't matter. Then, continuing with their propaganda about how Ukraine is winning the war.
Here's just the latest example:
Putin is crippling Ukraine's energy infrastructure in a move that nobody in the West ever mentioned as a possibility and ahead of Winter, could be a devastating blow to the Ukraine. Read the article below, there is no way to sugar coat it, pretend as they try that its really not that bad. It's REALLY bad and like I keep saying GETTING WORSE but they let the losses continue to mount and just keep repeating the same rhetoric to mislead the West that they are winning the war and this is good vs evil, so that's all that matters.
Ukrainian President Zelenskyy says the use of Iranian weaponry is an admission of failure by Moscow. Meanwhile, Russian-backed officials say the battle for Kherson will begin in the "near future." DW has the latest.
metmike: So Russia crippling Ukraine's energy infrastructure is evidence of it being militarily bankrupt and admission of failure of the Russians? What kind of a delusional spin is that? When the 1st nuclear weapon demolishes half a city in Ukraine, I guess then Ukraine can declare victory is getting closer (-: Then, after Russia obliterates half a dozen cities with nuclear weapons, Ukraine will have their victory over Russian confirmed (-:
Let's respond to these crippling blows in Ukraine..........by ramping up the propaganda and saying bad things about Putin. Earlier in the year, we got dozens of stories about how Putin was extremely sick and might not have long to live. And that the people in Russia are revolting against him. I stopped believing in this hogwash months ago.
Russian President Vladimir Putin "doesn't control" the progress of his disastrous war in Ukraine, according to a former member of the Russian parliament now opposing the Kremlin from abroad as a prominent human rights lawyer.
The instability has left Putin more isolated and more afraid, Feygin said.
Here's some TRUTH for you:
MOSCOW – The West and the Kremlin have one thing in common: both like to point out that Russian President Vladimir Putin has an 80% approval rating, and opinion polls have consistently shown that a majority of Russians support the war in Ukraine. What was once carefully referred to as “Putin’s war” has now become “Russia’s war” – or so it seems.
In August, less than half of survey respondents (46%) reported that they “definitely support” the Russian military’s activities, with 30% saying that they “mostly support” it (figures that have barely changed since April).
As widespread as these beliefs are, the Ukraine war still has plenty of detractors in Russia. Currently, about 17-20% of Russians say that they do not agree with their country’s actions in Ukraine, up from 14% in March. This group is dominated by young urban dwellers who consume news from the internet, rather than state-controlled television, though people who fit this description were still more likely than not to support the “special operation.”
Putin has the backing of his people as well as several in the Middle East, not shown on this map, China and some other countries.
The point is that the West's strategy to alienate Putin from the rest of the world cannot work. China, Russia and the Middle East can hurt us much more than the other way around. Especially since their economies and GDP depend on fossil fuels and the West is spending trillions to eliminate the exact thing most precious to them and their economies. Of course they would side with Putin. It's absurd and ignorant to think otherwise. The West has no way to win this war without incurring many times more damage to itself than any potential victory could have. The more likely scenario is NOT being victorious and having massive damage and the potential of it being unthinkable damage in a nuclear war.
Red/pink are with Russia.
Blue is with Ukraine.
The rest is neutral (might as well be for Russia) or no data.
You pressed me for an elaboration of the previous responses a couple of times, so I provided it because of your insistence.
Again, I think Putin is evil and Ukraine has the right moral/human rights position. There are also many dozens of other things that I believe that are morally wrong and wish we could change in this world. On this one, we have to look at the physical realities that determine the authentic dynamics which determine the outcomes in the real world. Theories, wishful thinking and dreams are a wonderful thing to have but they must be reconciled with physical realities and powerful evidence that defines them.
A question that somebody that doubts that could be asked.
Is Putin getting closer to giving up or resigning his effort(I'm not talking about the made up stories about him being sick or his people revolting against him or him being crushed on the battle field). This would be the reason to press on because it shows our effort thus far is making good progress.
The answer is to just look at his last several moves.
1. Annexing large sections of Ukraine
2. Calling up more troops
3. Massive drone bombings taking out energy infrastructure in Ukraine ahead of Winter
Things are getting much worse not better and the damage just keeps accumulating with no significant benefits to offset it.
This link is for Jean:
Zelensky beat the incumbent by a whopping margin. That was a legitimate election.
I thank you for your long elaborate answers to a simple multiple choice question.
Biden too hawkish, not hawkish enough or about right.
Since you won't answer that directly you leave me no choice but to infer your answer is that he is too hawkish. I guess that means you favor allowing Ukraine to be annexed militarily, which would certainly be the result without western military aid. I agree with you that that result is much better than a nuclear holocaust that kills a billion or more people.
You should also consider that allowing that would then pose us with the next dilemma. What do we do when he proceeds to invade Poland. (That's a democracy too Jean) If you don't think that is next, just ask some Poles. Note the overwhelming support Polland has given the refugees from Ukraine.
As for the polling data in Russia. Would you express dissatisfaction with the invasion to a Russian pollster? I wouldn't. I'm surprised it isn't 100% unanimous.
I thank you for your long elaborate answers to a simple multiple choice question.
Biden too hawkish, not hawkish enough or about right.
Your very welcome, joj. I've heard that one before from you. Others too, with vandy doing it the most often.
A person asking questions at MarketForum is not allowed to determine the form of the answer or the length of the answer, especially if the person answering is sincerely and respectfully answering. I won't go into details about what that tells us about the person asking the question but this isn't a courtroom following legal protocol. It's a forum with people freely expressing opinions that encourages elaborating.
As always, I'm extremely appreciative to you for insisting that I answer it. What happens is that I end up learning a ton of things in the answering because I literally spend hours obtaining facts(and enjoying every step of it) that I didn't have before to adjust and/or solidify the opinion as a moving target. If things change in Ukraine, I'm very willing to change my opinion but always based on authentic facts.
I had not done extensive research on several elements to my previous opinion. Like Russia's strong support for Putin and actually verifying the countries that support Putin/Russia as well as other stuff.
What do we do when he proceeds to invade Poland.
I believe strongly that this is DISinformation being pushed by the West to incentivize them to support the effort to stop Putin now, because he will just keep taking over more countries if we let him get away with Ukraine. I have a brother that's an attorney that lives in Prague and he fills me in on how people there feel about this. Most are convinced that Putin will do as you mentioned.
As for the polling data in Russia. Would you express dissatisfaction with the invasion to a Russian pollster? I wouldn't. I'm surprised it isn't 100% unanimous.
I was just contradicting the propaganda/false narratives that we often hear about Russians are revolting. I don't believe that you really are surprised that he's not getting 100% unanimous support. I do think that he will be LOSING more and more support as we go along but can't count on that to be the reason for Ukraine and the West to just hang in there taking monumental losses, as they currently are until enough people in Russia revolt to stop Putin at home. I believe the story below.
Finally: Since you won't answer that directly you leave me no choice but to infer your answer is that he is too hawkish. I guess that means you favor allowing Ukraine to be annexed militarily, which would certainly be the result without western military aid.
Good inferring, joj!
What I strongly would have preferred was much better negotiating that conceded more than they wanted to Russia in order to avoid where we are now. They can look back to a year ago and justify NATO/The West not giving into demands from Putin but NATO either grossly miscalculated or they wanted this war.
Now it's too late and their win at any cost, no matter how much greater the losses are than gains suggests that they wanted this war much more than to give Russia anything.
We keep hearing that Russia is the one that totally miscalculated because more resistance was given to their invasion. That is probably correct.
Does that mean NATO/The West knew their decision would lead to this(it's not a surprise)?
1,000 times more losses than gains for Ukraine and they expected that, but still went with that option?
And still no viable plan to end this war, with losses mounting. Yeah, I think allowing Ukraine to be annexed is 10 times better than the best case scenario right now and if it turns nuclear 1 million times better.
Putin is evil and what he's doing is very wrong but sometimes you have to choose the lesser of 2 evils!
And do it by presenting honest facts so that people are not misled with blatant propaganda to support the wrong evil choice.
Early this year, when we were having this discussion BEFORE the war, I mentioned the connection with the climate crisis.
I know you think it’s loony but the fingerprint came up again when gathering info to answer your question.
its loony to people that don’t get it.
not by any coincidence the countries that are not active CO2 emission cutting advocates are also either on Putins side or neutral.
the UN and NATO have all the same objectives.
as I keep saying the climate accord has 0 to do with the climate And saving the planet from a beneficial gas that’s greening up the planet and a big part of the reason for the best weather and climate for life on earth in the last 1,000 years….the last time it was this warm.
you joke about my obsession and I laugh with you because I am obsessed with this and do see it affecting so many realms.
because I’m right Based on all the authentic evidence and empirical scientific data…….that I generously share here but not from being loony.
nobody has ever been able to show it’s wrong….because they can’t.
if I am right and all these things that you and the rest of the world are being fed lies about which is part of trying to obliterate our current wonderful, efficient energy delivery system is exactly what my shown evidence says……you should agree that being obsessed with trying to enlighten others with the truth is not only justified but a moral obligation.
the thing that wrecks the credibility of my authentic scientific position is when people like Trump or places like Fox get on board. They are so wrong on some obvious things that the other side assumes they are wrong on everything.
both political sides lie big on SOME things.
both political sides are exactly right on other things.
most people aligning with one party believe everything that defines the belief system for that party.
embracing its truths, embracing its lies and not being able to tell the difference.
MAGA fans will interpret that like….hey I’m on your side on the fake climate crisis, why did you have to discredit us like that???
Because there are no “sides” for the truth.
it stands alone, independent of SIDES based on authentic facts and evidence And isn’t determined by manufactured realities and narratives that serve as propaganda used by both SIDES.
The side which is lying about the truth about the current climate optimum and the massive benefits of CO2 to the booming biosphere and using a fake Climate Accord to eliminate fossil fuels............are the exact same countries selling us the NATO propaganda about the war in Ukraine. They showed that they will not just lie to get what they want but they actually hijacked climate science, then rewrote climate history and completely manufactured a bunch of alternative facts that are based on junk science, exaggerations and outright deceit.
Again, I've generously shared almost 100 threads and well over 1,000 posts jam packed with rock solid empirical data to prove that's what they did.
Yes, Russia's propaganda on this war is many times worse and Putin, their leader is extremely evil but at least Russian is being honest about fossil fuels.
Does that matter if he's wrong here? No
But for me, it matters when it comes to believing his opponent's propaganda that is clearly propaganda. That's how they operate to get what they want.
Corrupt schemes that will do tremendous damage to humanity and the planet being sold as rescuing the planet. That's pretty dang evil too!
Based on the serious of events the past 9 months, my thoughts, have been adjusted to feel even stronger about the issues below:.
Thoughts on Ukraine
Started by metmike - Feb. 24, 2022, 1:44 p.m.
metmike: Propaganda about using anti environmental, fake green energy schemes to replace the energy source that is actually greening up the REAL planet..........fossil fuels.
Fake beer crisis/Death by GREENING!
IT MAKES SENSE TO ME, IN PUTIN'S HEAD
WELL, NOW......... HE KNOWS WHAT HE'S TALKIN' ABOUT, IN THIS INSTANCE!! HE'S DOIN' THE SAME THING TO AMERICANS!!
The upper house of Russia’s parliament quickly endorsed Putin’s decision to impose martial law in the annexed Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia regions.
In Russia’s regions bordering Ukraine, authorities plan to tighten security at key facilities and conduct checks of motorists, among other measures, according to Andrei Kartapolov, head of the defense committee of Russian lower house of parliament.
Ukraine to restrict electricity use; Putin declares martial law in four Ukraine provinces; Kyiv describes Moscow’s plans to resettle civilians in Kherson as ‘propaganda show’
The cost to Ukraine of downing “kamikaze” drones vastly exceeds the sums paid by Russiain sourcing and launching the cheap Iranian-made technology, analysis suggests. The total cost to Russia of the failed drone attacks unleashed on Ukraine in recent weeks is estimated by military analysts to be between $11.66m (£10.36m) and $17.9m (£15.9m).The estimated cost to Ukraine to bring down the drones stands at more than $28.14m (£25m).
metmike: Last I checked, 28.14 is bigger than 17.9 and the lights/power are still on everywhere in Russia and Putin still apparently has control of the areas he annexed. And Ukraine still has losses that exceed gains by 1,000 to 1.
Interesting, that as this has progressed the past several weeks, the number of stories telling us that this shows how badly Putin is losing have quadrupled.
Seriously, I really hope they're right............FOR THE FIRST TIME in this war and it's not just a continuation of the same old propaganda to trick people into continuing to support the war they wanted(by refusing to budge an inch in negotiations before the war).
Here's my entire problem. How will we be able to recognize the actual truth when they finally tell it?
I am dead serious about this. Biden's biggest motivator to end the war right now by an extremely wide margin, would be to do it before the election for political reasons to help the democrats….but then he wouldn’t have anybody to blame for some of his failed policies.
Bombarding us with news that we are kicking Putin's arse just ain't gonna cut it anymore for me, especially since we've been told all along, that when that happens, Putin is most likely to use nuclear weapons out of desperation!