Russia-Ukraine War 2022 - Page 845 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15311956
@Tainari88

I have to agree with you about Kissinger that he did have a sociopathic sense of international relations. If I am to be honest, I probably do too, to a large degree (when it comes to international relations). I don't claim myself as a moralist or Mr. Perfect.

There was no moral calculation at all when it came to Henry Kissinger's view on foreign policy. But in the study of international relations, many would consider him as a realist. He is regarded as an unapologetic realist. One of the theories of international relations is realism.

There is also the liberal theory on international relations which you would fall into the category of a liberalist regarding your view of international relations. States are not moral agents and states want more power. Power confers more security for states, especially those within those states that wield the most power within those states and perhaps most of the world.

Honestly, I fall more into the category of a realist when it comes to international relations, though I do have a little bit of the liberalist view of international relations, but, not very much.
#15311958
RealPolitic wrote:@Tainari88

I have to agree with you about Kissinger that he did have a sociopathic sense of international relations. If I am to be honest, I probably do too, to a large degree (when it comes to international relations). I don't claim myself as a moralist or Mr. Perfect.

There was no moral calculation at all when it came to Henry Kissinger's view on foreign policy. But in the study of international relations, many would consider him as a realist. He is regarded as an unapologetic realist. One of the theories of international relations is realism.

There is also the liberal theory on international relations which you would fall into the category of a liberalist regarding your view of international relations. States are not moral agents and states want more power. Power confers more security for states, especially those within those states that wield the most power within those states and perhaps most of the world.

Honestly, I fall more into the category of a realist when it comes to international relations, though I do have a little bit of the liberalist view of international relations, but, not very much.


Each individual is a product of their environments, their family histories, their personal histories, their cultures, and their entire complex interactions with a lot of different social influences over a human lifetime. I am the same as anyone else in that sense too RealPolitic.

Is being a realist believing in killing, threatening and lying and using force, and being a greedy motherfucker with nasty ways of being abusive? And knowing my decisions killed, tortured, and condemned thousands to torture, death, and war by bombing including babies, children, old people, and innocents. And that shit makes me a realist in international relationships? No.

Real power is not about how many people are relieved when you die because your power hung over them like a dark cloud and now that your life is snuffed out like all of ours ultimately has to do? We all have to die...and what we leave behind is that kind of horrible immorality? Then there is no hope for the human race RealPolitic. Our destiny will come swiftly and we will destroy ourselves because it is like what Ellie Arroway said in Contact the book that is fictional written by Carl Sagan. A fine scientist astronomist and educator who through his fictional character gave us the truth of what we are about...

The faker Drummond knows she did not lie in the selection committee about being a nonbeliever in God. She is a scientist and needs evidence. So she can't lie for the sake of a position in the scientific voyage to explore the cosmos. He is a hypocritical asskisser and cynical man who wants that position so he claims to be a religious man. Not very ethical. But he wins. He tells her she was rejected as a voyager on the mission because that is the way of the world. (He is a realist).

And she only tells him, 'Funny, I always thought the world is what we make of it.' In other words, we make our own realities manifest by accepting the immorality as realism.

We fail ourselves with that RealPolitic. You accept immorality and the lack of empathy and compassion and the thought of considering the rights of the many before making tremendously terrible decisions in the world with consequences of a lot of impact....with a sociopathic lack of respect for human life? You will wind up making that world manifest.

You choose the other path? You will have the better world that you thought was only in your dreams and never possible.

We are both the destroyers of worlds and the creators of worlds. It starts in the human mind and in the human heart @RealPolitic.
User avatar
By Skynet
#15311974
starman2003 wrote:You're probably right but what if Putin really gains the upper hand, and wins a big victory by August? He may ask for substantially more, or keep fighting in the hope he'll ultimately get 80-100%.


The Russians are still open for negotiations:
#15311978
@Tainari88

Tainari88 wrote:Each individual is a product of their environments, their family histories, their personal histories, their cultures, and their entire complex interactions with a lot of different social influences over a human lifetime. I am the same as anyone else in that sense too RealPolitic.

Is being a realist believing in killing, threatening and lying and using force, and being a greedy motherfucker with nasty ways of being abusive? And knowing my decisions killed, tortured, and condemned thousands to torture, death, and war by bombing including babies, children, old people, and innocents. And that shit makes me a realist in international relationships? No.

Real power is not about how many people are relieved when you die because your power hung over them like a dark cloud and now that your life is snuffed out like all of ours ultimately has to do? We all have to die...and what we leave behind is that kind of horrible immorality? Then there is no hope for the human race RealPolitic. Our destiny will come swiftly and we will destroy ourselves because it is like what Ellie Arroway said in Contact the book that is fictional written by Carl Sagan. A fine scientist astronomist and educator who through his fictional character gave us the truth of what we are about...

The faker Drummond knows she did not lie in the selection committee about being a nonbeliever in God. She is a scientist and needs evidence. So she can't lie for the sake of a position in the scientific voyage to explore the cosmos. He is a hypocritical asskisser and cynical man who wants that position so he claims to be a religious man. Not very ethical. But he wins. He tells her she was rejected as a voyager on the mission because that is the way of the world. (He is a realist).

And she only tells him, 'Funny, I always thought the world is what we make of it.' In other words, we make our own realities manifest by accepting the immorality as realism.

We fail ourselves with that RealPolitic. You accept immorality and the lack of empathy and compassion and the thought of considering the rights of the many before making tremendously terrible decisions in the world with consequences of a lot of impact....with a sociopathic lack of respect for human life? You will wind up making that world manifest.

You choose the other path? You will have the better world that you thought was only in your dreams and never possible.

We are both the destroyers of worlds and the creators of worlds. It starts in the human mind and in the human heart @RealPolitic.


The problem with your perspective is that unfortunately, this is not an idealistic world we live in. There is the way world should be and then there is the way the world really is. In international relations, its the law of the jungle and not the law of justice. There is no justice in international relations. There is only order. Order and justice are not the same thing. Every country seeks to change that order to suit its own interests even if it comes at the cost of the interests of other countries. Most states understand this and so there is always this competition for power between states.

If you want to have some sort of idealistic justice in international relations then you need strong and effective international institutions that enforce genuine justice. But they have to have a lot of power to do so and they just don't have that kind of power and so such international institutions are ineffective. Moreover, the UN and perhaps even the International Court can be seen as nothing more than the instruments of powerful states. Yes, the International Court issued a criminal indictment against Putin, but do you really think Putin will go to prison?

It is very unlikely given the international court or any other state really doesn't have the power to just knock on his door and arrest him on a warrant from the International Court. You know, the International Court cops are not going to show up and arrest Putin for example given that Putin and the Russian state is more powerful than the International Court. Another example, which states have veto power at the UN? They are not the weak states, I assure you of that.

And given the fact that we don't have effective international institutions that obligates states to seek more power to assure the security of the people in their own care. So there is always going to be this competition for power among states. Unfortunately, in this competition between states for more power, the smaller, weaker states will have to suffer what they must while the stronger, powerful states will take what they can in their quest for more power and security against other powerful rival states. Its the weak and the powerless that suffer, but that's the way the world is rather than what it should be.

Due to the fact that the way international relations exists in that it is the law of the jungle, states have to adapt this reality and seek more power, otherwise the lions will eat them. That's Real Politic and reality.
#15311997
starman2003 wrote:You're probably right but what if Putin really gains the upper hand, and wins a big victory by August? He may ask for substantially more, or keep fighting in the hope he'll ultimately get 80-100%.


For Russia to change the strategic situation and claim a victory then they need to do the following:

1) They know themselves that they are working on borrowed time. So a victory condition needs to happen soon or better if it happened 2 years ago but it didn't. Weapon stocks, money, resources are not endless and Russia has a lot less compared to Ukraine + Europe not to even mention Ukraine + Europe + US + everybody else who pitches in.

2) To do that, realistically, to gain a serious advantage on the battlefield they need to mobilise 1 million and for a very good sake 1.5 million troops and equip it. Now here comes the first problem, is that even doable from a political standpoint? I know a lot of people like throwing memes that Russians are slaves but a mobilisation of 1.5 million is a very large number and highly likely will collapse the Russian regime before it manages to do so. Also the question should be why 1 to 1.5 million? Well the answer here is that Ukraine ain't small and you need to have significant advantage and thinking that Ukraine will just sit still and won't also mobilise as much as they can is a pipedream. Ukraine can probably mobilise 500 thousand to 1 million troops if the government of Ukraine is willing to take a very large popularity hit which by the looks of it, they aren't. So it is sort of a measure of last resort.

3) Then you come to the question of material. If Ukraine mobilises 500 thousand or 1 million then they can't equip all of them properly for sure and its very unrealistic to expect Europe and US to send that much in a short frame. But what is the situation for RUssia in that regard, well the answer is probably also that they can't equip a million to 1.5 million soldiers anymore since that material can't be removed from stock or produced that fast. It takes time and effort and money and other people actually doing the work. In a very hypothetical situation, may be if they prepare for a long time with material and then mobilise and start training. But once again, training and material all require manpower resources.

So basically the answer is that Russia will be unable to change the strategic course of the war unless all support from Europe and US siezes. Which will never happen. Poland, Baltics, Sweden, Finland, Romania, Netherland then will use veto to screw around with the EU nor is there a general popular support from stopping them support. US is also dubious besides election years by the looks of it. Its not that Republicans are against supporting Ukraine, they are against Biden having wins in an election year and want to use Ukraine as blackmail of sorts for domestic issues.
#15312009
JohnRawls wrote:1) They know themselves that they are working on borrowed time. So a victory condition needs to happen soon or better if it happened 2 years ago but it didn't. Weapon stocks, money, resources are not endless and Russia has a lot less compared to Ukraine + Europe not to even mention Ukraine + Europe + US + everybody else who pitches in.


That is highly optimistic, and just this week we've been told of China's massive support for the Russian war effort.

CNN Fri April 12, 2024

China is giving Russia significant support to expand weapons manufacturing as Ukraine war continues, US officials say


China is helping Russia ramp up its defense industrial base at such a large scale that Moscow is now undertaking its most ambitious expansion in military manufacturing since the Soviet era as it continues its war against Ukraine, according to senior Biden administration officials.

The support China is providing includes significant quantities of machine tools, drone and turbojet engines and technology for cruise missiles, microelectronics, and nitrocellulose, which Russia uses to make propellant for weapons, said the officials.


Just this week Gen. Chris Cavoli, the commander of US European Command, told lawmakers that Russia has been “quite successful” at reconstituting its military since it invaded Ukraine more than 2 years ago, and its capacity has largely “grown back” to what it was before the invasion. US officials are now making clear that China is largely responsible for that rapid build-up.

As a demonstration of this deepening China-Russia partnership: in 2023, 90% of Russia’s micro-electronics imports came from China, which Russia has used to produce missiles, tanks, and aircraft, a second official said.

And Russia’s rapidly expanding production of artillery rounds is due, in large part, to the nitrocellulose coming from China, officials said. This comes as Russia appears on track to produce nearly three times more artillery munitions than the US and Europe, CNN reported earlier this year.

Beyond the defense hardware, China is helping Russia to improve its satellite and other space based capabilities for use in Ukraine, and providing imagery to Russia for its war on Ukraine, the officials said.


The support from China is compensating for the significant setbacks that Russia’s defense industry experienced early in the Ukraine war due to US sanctions and export controls.
#15312012
China, North Korea and Iran, or at least their ruling regimes have a massive interest in ensuring that Russia is not defeated. The Liberals have tried to use their control of top financial and semi conductor technology and systems to turn the rest of the world into their vassals. The Liberal says you will own nothing and be happy. The Liberal intended to apply this both to the ordinary citizens of western countries but also to non western countries. China, North Korea and iran all have a massive interest in ensuring this vasselisation doesn't work. So probably does India if they don't want to have to permanently grovel at the western liberals feet.

At the start of the SMO, the Liberals engaged in one of their narcissistic, hissy fit tantrums. Most non western governments are perfectly aware of how this works. They know that the Liberal has a short attention span and an almost pathological inability to see a task through to a timely completion. The longer a task is left uncompleted the greater the chance that it will never be completed. Anyway when the Liberals are having one of their hissy fits, most non western governments calculate it is not in their best interest to directly oppose the Liberals. They often think, OK lets give these idiots couple of worthless UN motions and the like. Lets give them a bit of cheap virtue signalling. Why waste diplomatic capital for short term satisfaction?

The Liberal, moron that he is, mistakes this lack of direct and immediate opposition for unconditional and untime limited obedience. I tried to tell the Liberals at the start of the SMO that China and Iran would not support them in their plan to destroy Russia. The Liberals responded if China or Iran dares to disobey us over destroying Russia, we will destroy them as well.
#15312015
MadMonk wrote:That is highly optimistic, and just this week we've been told of China's massive support for the Russian war effort.

CNN Fri April 12, 2024


The amount of assistance from Iran, Korea and China is miniscule and is from 100 to 50 fold less compared to what EU gives to Ukraine.
Last edited by JohnRawls on 14 Apr 2024 13:52, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Rugoz
#15312025
JohnRawls wrote:Its not that Republicans are against supporting Ukraine, they are against Biden having wins in an election year and want to use Ukraine as blackmail of sorts for domestic issues.


It's difficult to comprehend. There could be a compromise with less than the Senate's $60bn for example, but nobody seems interested in that. It could be that Republicans just block everything, but then again Democrats, if united, would only need a few Republican votes to get something passed. It seems like a cynical game where both sides think they'll benefit from not budging.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15312036
JohnRawls wrote:Its not that Republicans are against supporting Ukraine, they are against Biden having wins in an election year and want to use Ukraine as blackmail of sorts for domestic issues.


Indeed.

The Republican party isn't actually pro-Putin. After all, don't we all agree the US (or any) government can't be trusted? MAGA is the wing of the government that is most hungry for power at any cost (hence their authoritarian and anti-democratic positions), and thus, they should be trusted even less than the typical level of mistrust in the long term. This means they are willing to sacrifice long term geopolitical positioning (... well sacrifice anything domestically or internationally) for their own power. This means, they could potentially turn on Putin too if conditions change. The Trump/MAGA grip on the party and the outsized power they have due to a slim majority, has turned what would normally be a "no brainer" for Republicans and Democrats, into a contentious issue. BTW, this has happened with slim majorities in the past. Things always get very contentious with slim majorities. However, what is different is that MAGA's priority is 100% in their own power and nothing else. This hasn't been as true in the past. While politicians always care about their own political power, there was some understanding that you don't sacrifice national security, and the security of key allies for it (and you use the support of security to maintain your political power anyway). On geopolitics, politicians tended to respect and play the long game. Not true with MAGA. Anyway, to your previous point, yes, if the US continues down this path. It will lose cooperation with key allies in Europe. Then again, many want exactly that (and don't care about Russia/Putin either). I would say, this is a massive win for the propaganda wings of the Russian government. Their masterful use of social media pushed us here quickly.

The other side of that coin is that many of those in the government that support Ukraine, aren't doing it because of democracy, or because it's morally right, or whatever, but because it benefits the western geopolitical position in the longer term. The analysis and intelligence community agree that supporting Ukraine would certainly benefit western powers on the geopolitical stage. Sure, some support it because in their mind "it's the right thing". However, many support it because it's just smart geopolitical maneuvering. This position, morally right or wrong, is the status quo position. Just that fact that this is the status quo position, is enough to get people to go against it. They don't care what the issue is, or the reasons, or the nuance. It's status quo, and thus bad.

No matter which side you support. There is a geopolitical component that cannot be separated from a moral/ethics/ideology component. This where all the back and forth comes from.

There are like a cross relation of arguments/points here.

moral/ethics/ideology points versus moral/ethics/ideology
moral/ethics/ideology points versus geopolitical points
geopolitical points versus geopolitical points

The middle one is where the contention in this thread lies. When people sort of, cross over their points.
#15312040
RealPolitic wrote:@Tainari88



The problem with your perspective is that unfortunately, this is not an idealistic world we live in. There is the way world should be and then there is the way the world really is. In international relations, its the law of the jungle and not the law of justice. There is no justice in international relations. There is only order. Order and justice are not the same thing. Every country seeks to change that order to suit its own interests even if it comes at the cost of the interests of other countries. Most states understand this and so there is always this competition for power between states.

If you want to have some sort of idealistic justice in international relations then you need strong and effective international institutions that enforce genuine justice. But they have to have a lot of power to do so and they just don't have that kind of power and so such international institutions are ineffective. Moreover, the UN and perhaps even the International Court can be seen as nothing more than the instruments of powerful states. Yes, the International Court issued a criminal indictment against Putin, but do you really think Putin will go to prison?

It is very unlikely given the international court or any other state really doesn't have the power to just knock on his door and arrest him on a warrant from the International Court. You know, the International Court cops are not going to show up and arrest Putin for example given that Putin and the Russian state is more powerful than the International Court. Another example, which states have veto power at the UN? They are not the weak states, I assure you of that.

And given the fact that we don't have effective international institutions that obligates states to seek more power to assure the security of the people in their own care. So there is always going to be this competition for power among states. Unfortunately, in this competition between states for more power, the smaller, weaker states will have to suffer what they must while the stronger, powerful states will take what they can in their quest for more power and security against other powerful rival states. Its the weak and the powerless that suffer, but that's the way the world is rather than what it should be.

Due to the fact that the way international relations exists in that it is the law of the jungle, states have to adapt this reality and seek more power, otherwise the lions will eat them. That's Real Politic and reality.


I have to say you make powerful and truthful points in all of your post Realpolitic.

But what happens to a jungle that has too many hunters always prowling around killing the Lions and the Tigers and so on? And cutting down the trees to make lumber? And poisoning the water to make more of their dirty energy sources. And fishing to the point of collapsing entire species of fish? And x, y and z? To the point of pushing a sixth species extinction event because their fucking realism is not really realistic for LIFE. Life on Earth. But a psychosis that brings mass death. For everyone.

But sorry that is what being realistic in international relations means. Bombed out homes in entire cities in Ukraine and most Ukrainians living as orphans or in deep poverty for the next 75 years...because realism.

No what is realistic is that the weak ass International courts, and weak ass UN, and the weak international group of nations sick of being pawns on a chess board and being kicked around by the arrogant ones on the international bodies of justice and law and relationships are going to have to create a system over time. Could take hundreds or thousands of years, but we will get there.....of effectively agreeing on what constitutes normal, non psychotic behavior internationally and what constitutes sociopathic anti life policies.

And whether we get there or not? Rests on how many nations want life and a future for all and how many want to allow the realistic psychotics to run the show and to run human civilizations into the ground and to ashes via nuclear war or hunting too many Lions and Tigers in a jungle that then let the deer population or other parts of the eco system get out of control....collapse it all for everyone. The hunters then say, shit but I PAID to not have to be subject to the same rules as the little insignificant nations or people....I paid to be privileged.

Why am I being affected too? Oh fuck, it is because I am part of the whole and the whole is part of me too...I am connected to it all. I thought I was not. I thought I was superpowerful and all mighty and better than the rest? That was a lie?

Why didn't someone tell me? Why did I believe realism was not being realistic.

because I am ignorant. Gee, ignorance is not bliss. But I wanted to control the world and I could not.

Realism. Shit. Power. Limits. Shit. ;)
User avatar
By noemon
#15312046
JohnRawls wrote:The amount of assistance from Iran, Korea and China is miniscule and is from 100 to 50 fold less compared to what EU gives to Ukraine.


Clearly, that is why Ukraine is overpowering Russia and its artillery 100 and 50 fold.

It's bloody obvious.

:knife:

Reality:

Europe(plus) + US together cannot reach Russian alone production of artillery shells.

US+Europe = smaller artillery production than Russia on its own, let alone Russia + China + N.Korea + Iran.

They out produce us 100 fold maybe 1000 indeed.
#15312049
noemon wrote:Clearly, that is why Ukraine is overpowering Russia and its artillery 100 and 50 fold.

It's bloody obvious.

:knife:

Reality:

Europe(plus) + US together cannot reach Russian alone production of artillery shells.

US+Europe = smaller artillery production than Russia on its own, let alone Russia + China + N.Korea + Iran.

They out produce us 100 fold maybe 1000 indeed.


We know its a problem but one year help with drones from Iran and another stockpile of 1.5 million shells from North Korea are not going to change anything and are miniscule compared to a full spectrum that we provide in tanks, apcs, missiles and everything else.

European production will get there alone if needed. US production is also increasing although with caveats since that Ukraine aid bill is basically funding for US production and research about 70-75% of it.

Ukraine switched priority with what resources they have in to drones which is a more cost effective way to do it and hence they should be able to manufacture about 1.5-2 million drones per year but that led to them not increasing ammo manufacturing much. Drones can cover a lot of jobs that artillery does more effectively but not all of them.
#15312057
HOw long is this war going to continue and where is the end of it?

Will Russia allow the loss of Crimea as a port? Will Russia allow NATO and the USA to encircle it and will Ukraine be able to recover all that destruction without being able to rely on the USA for constant funds for the next five years or so?

Because the truth is that the longer this war remains in play the harder it will be for Europe financially.
#15312068
Why would western politicians even care ? This is literally taxpayer money that will end up in the pockets of rich people.

Again, finances are not the problem. The west has plenty of money. Lack of ability is the problem.

Even if the USA would actually give Ukraine the 60 billion dollars, that would only finance Ukrianes economy. It wouldnt help with the lack of weapon systems and ammunition. They simply dont exist. No amount of money can fix this problem, because its a lack of ability problem.

The two problem in the west in regards to military production are:

- Our MIC is privately owned and thus works exclusively profit oriented. So it doesnt build reserves for wartimes. It doesnt build reserve capacities. It doesnt build cheap weapons in high quantities. It doesnt try to find cheap solutions. It doesnt recyle ammunition that was stored for 30 years and has become unreliable. It often doesnt even build weapon systems that are durable. It creates super expensive horribly overeingineered systems like the F-35 fighter jet which can do anything but will probably never actually be finished. Or the western artillery which is optimized for low weight instead of for durability, and thus needs far sooner repair than russian equivalents. Etc etc etc.

- The west does not give its children proper education. We rely on China and India to get sufficient engineers. And such sources will dry out. Even now the USA cannot fill its green cards anymore; there are not enough people who actually want to move to the USA in this way.

So the only people who could sell us the required weapon systems and ammunition would be ... Russia and China. And they wont do that, obviously.

And by the way, the worst part of this war is all the lifes it has cost. For a war that was pointless from the start. For a war the west was never in the position to win. As Obama told us in 2016 already, Russia has escalatory dominance in Ukraine. And, since Russia sees the Ukraine issue as a question of Russias existence, they wouldnt back down, even if the situation was much, much worse for them.

We should never forget that this is war. This is hell. This gets people killed. A lot of people.
#15312072
► Show Spoiler


The problem Negotiator is that the US is run by total sellout people with zero ethics or courage. Total horrors of politicians.

So until the people of the US play out their lack of political intelligence? The world is not safe from incessant wars
  • 1
  • 843
  • 844
  • 845
  • 846
  • 847
  • 863

@Agent Steel Are you happy being a homemaker?[…]

Well my distant ancestors first arrived basically[…]

% measures are zero sum. For one group to gain, a[…]

Yes, they're arbitrarily not counted as violence.[…]