Russia warns it may cut bilateral ties with United States

giegs

Anarchist
577
289
Arid
Has the military option done anything other than keep the military option humming?
Interesting thoughts, thanks. I don't disagree on the dangers of feeding the MIC. I think you misunderstand the importance of thinking post-Putin here - it's also about creating opportunities for more peaceful outcomes in the current moment. That mindset may not be the most helpful to the Ukrainians, admittedly.

One thing the military option has always been fantastic at is reducing excess young males in a population by throwing them at the excess young males of another population.
 

phill_nz

Super Anarchist
2,854
899
internet atm
I don't want my son drafted into an endless war.
presumptive .. your son is from the dis united states
just another stupid statement of yours
if the usa and russia go into a full scale war .. it certainly wont be an endless one
do try to use some common sense .. work through the pain
 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
60,899
4,948
De Nile
You're getting the idea. Of course, it's a structured payday, tranched, so "Uncle Vladdy" has to continue to behave to continue to get the subscription fees. Perfect solution? Nope! Better than pulling dead children from mortar attacks?

Perhaps in your opinion, no ... but they are not your dead children, and the war is far from your doorstep.
I think the Ukrainians are better qualified to define how to defend their country than you are.
 

The Dark Knight

Super Anarchist
6,738
1,477
Brisvegas
Laugh Lol GIF by Minions


I just read Mickeys reply ......

Good to see he is consistent....

I like that I don't see his posts without switching browsers. It keeps threads shorter and I do not miss out on any valuable insights or shared content. However when a thread becomes yet another thread all about him, it does get a bit disjointed.
 

BeSafe

Super Anarchist
7,918
1,231
I posted this before and why Putin wants what he wants - I've seen nothing to change my mind. I think the map below is still his goal and I don't see how its prevented without direct military intervention (i.e., troops on the ground planes in the air) by country equal to France or bigger. What Putin stands to gain is improved military security and a huge financial boon - he's taking the most valuable parts of Ukraine. What he stands to lose? Good question. At this point its sounding a bit like the old joke - What happens when you're excommunicated? You get a 10% raise and Sundays off. That's not true of course - there will be some actual bad shit - including losing most of the expertise to maintain their oil fields. But, the oil isn't going anywhere and demand is on their side for at least another 30 years as the rest of the world continues to industrialize.

Economic sanctions and economic warfare are a fine strategy - except that the 'out of favor' countries now account for 1/5th of the worlds population and frankly, Africa (another 1/5th) is getting a bit tired of promises - like having no vaccine while the West is fretting about whether round 4 is going to be the new designer cocktail or the old model. Convincing Africa to go along to get along with sanctions gets harder and harder, particularly when food and energy are at stake. And Russia has both in abundance.

What Russia DOESN'T have is transporation capabililty to provide said resource. The US could - and might - seize Russian ships for example. That's where the more recent moves in Turkey start to make a lot of sense. For example https://www.axios.com/2022/08/17/turkey-israel-normalize-ties-ambassadors. Turkey is positioning itself to be the distribution hub for Russian goods into Africa and southern Europe. Istanbul is angling to become the hub of trade - NE to SW, instead of West to East.

1660780040761.png

Interesting thoughts, thanks. I don't disagree on the dangers of feeding the MIC. I think you misunderstand the importance of thinking post-Putin here - it's also about creating opportunities for more peaceful outcomes in the current moment. That mindset may not be the most helpful to the Ukrainians, admittedly.

One thing the military option has always been fantastic at is reducing excess young males in a population by throwing them at the excess young males of another population.

I suspect that's going on in the background but it's fairly bleak. Putin's most likely successor is a man who's singular talent appears to be "have more Russian Olegarcs hate me than Putin". It's like Dan Quayle if Dan Quayle was a sadistic arm's dealer. There's some hope that Navalny might somehow rise to power through a populist reform movement but that seems a stretch.

I'm sure I'll get grief but I think this war is over, except for the dying and the final borders. Russia has physical control of most of what they wanted, they're arranging to live in a world without the west, and Europe has already thrown in the towel - they're not fighting this fight. The only way to change that outcome is to add some new variable.
 

phill_nz

Super Anarchist
2,854
899
internet atm
how close is the analogy of the USA's treatment of Amerindians in the 18th century and pootin wanting to put Ukrainians onto a reservation of shit land while he takes all the useful bits and then still demands to be able to control their political system
 

BeSafe

Super Anarchist
7,918
1,231
Its not a bad one. The biggest difference is historical precedence. "Manifest Destiny" happened ostensibly once. Ukraine has been shuffled around a dozen times over thousands of years

The "black soil of Ukraine" is one of the most agriculturally valuable areas on the planet. The Asian steeps end in region "B" which is why its been the "titration of empires" for a very long time. If you're living in central Asia, the grass is literally greener the more west you go. The region east of Kiev is pretty good too - which is why the Russians would have preferred the whole country as puppet vassal - but they got what they got.
 
Last edited:

kent_island_sailor

Super Anarchist
26,906
4,876
Kent Island!
how close is the analogy of the USA's treatment of Amerindians in the 18th century and pootin wanting to put Ukrainians onto a reservation of shit land while he takes all the useful bits and then still demands to be able to control their political system
Sort of, but it seems more to me like a classic European war from anytime in the last 10 centuries or so. Country A thinks it is bigger and stronger than Country B, so it makes up some bulllshit excuse and attacks. If they are successful, now they own B. Isn't that pretty much how Europe worked from the end of the Roman Empire to 1945?
The big difference with the Indians is they were not seen as peers that would be incorporated into the newly conquered lands, more like vermin to be chased off or killed :( Russia very much thought that the Ukranians would mostly be happy to rejoin Mother Russia and found out they really didn't want to the hard way.
 

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
28,711
3,808
New Oak City
I can't be arsed to go into the wayback machine, but I'm sure there is evidence here of you supporting Trump.

Thanks, I plan on it!! I don't know whose "backs" you are speaking of, other than my own? Worked from age 11 to 66, starting with delivering newspapers at 11. And, WTF is this "abusive lifelstyle" of which you speak?

I delivered newspapers by bicycle in Knoxville, TN. Tip of the hat, bro.
 

mikewof

mikewof
44,860
1,087
when your ' approach ' is just the formality of going in head down bum up your ideas just dont make any sense
" peace in our time "
you have no idea how to de escalate the problem
hint
your approach would only do the opposite
do try to use some common sense .. pahhleese
Why are you committed to drawing the USA into a war with Russia? If if means so much to you, why don't you draw New Zealand into a war with Russia?
 

mikewof

mikewof
44,860
1,087
Interesting thoughts, thanks. I don't disagree on the dangers of feeding the MIC. I think you misunderstand the importance of thinking post-Putin here - it's also about creating opportunities for more peaceful outcomes in the current moment. That mindset may not be the most helpful to the Ukrainians, admittedly.

One thing the military option has always been fantastic at is reducing excess young males in a population by throwing them at the excess young males of another population.

Post-Putin ... to get there, how many Ukranian innocents have to be burnt on his pyre? As far as I can see, the ones planning most for Russia's markets are the Chinese, and they are waiting for post- anything, they're doing what they do now.

The point that none of us can ignore is that over the decades and centuries, the civilian casualty ratio continues to rise, with relatively more civilians kills to combatants. Back in the Revolutionary War era, most of the casualties were combatants, to the point that prior to that war, spectators would gawk on hillsides at the action. Through the years it rose past 25%, then up to about 40% for WWI, past 65% for WWII, and then potentially exceeding 100% in the Iraq and Afghan wars, depending on which data you use, the numbers are contested. In the Ukraine, it's "only" about 50% now, because the war has stayed within the Ukraine and not entered Russia, but a high percentage of those Ukranian casualties are civilians, pressed into combatant service by the urgency of their cause.

But wars -- through better technology, ironically -- do seem to kills lots and lots of non-combatants. Is this the new design of war? To depopulate populations already struggling with population inversion? Is it a kind of lion-in-the-jungle operation, where less-than-virile and monied males who find a way not to go to combat (for instance someone who lives in New Zealand) get rid of their perceived competition by hurling them into walls of shrapnel? Could males really hate competition to the point that we would incinerate our brothers? What you write up there is 100% correct, it's the one thing that war continues to do, time after time, it throws males at other males.
 
Top