Russia-Ukraine War 2022 - Page 517 - 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

#15263444
XogGyux wrote:Well. It is not as if the threats have been only private. The russians are threatening the west, and has been doing so since the beginning of the war, out loud, for months. So independently of whether Boris is a liar in general, the russians are indeed threatening the west.

However, public stunts can be taken more lightly than private ones. Szabo may be right that it can be partially behind Johnson's hawkishness on the Ukraine War if Putin threatened him privately.
#15263450
Beren wrote:However, public stunts can be taken more lightly than private ones. Szabo may be right that it can be partially behind Johnson's hawkishness on the Ukraine War if Putin threatened him privately.

Well, maybe, but not necesarily. The only thing that matters is what is going inside Putin's head. When you say stuff in public, the people, your generals might want to hold you to you word, you might put yourself into a situation you cannot escape.
#15263453
I'm guessing the Russian strategy to get morale up is one of "the beatings will continue until morale improves."
User avatar
By Wels
#15263454
Szabo wrote:https://youtu.be/XQc6mJ7u8gQ

And let's not forget the Nazis of the "Rusich" group




From the "Wagner" group deriving their name from the german composer that Hitler liked so much, to all those others, russian Nazis wherever you look.
User avatar
By Beren
#15263455
XogGyux wrote:Well, maybe, but not necesarily. The only thing that matters is what is going inside Putin's head. When you say stuff in public, the people, your generals might want to hold you to you word, you might put yourself into a situation you cannot escape.

Putin was bluffing in both cases, but public bluffs are more common and everyone in the game is used to them and tolerates them because they know they're for the public, while private threats are considered mere rudeness. As a former KGB officer Putin meant to intimidate Johnson into submission most likely, but he was fatally wrong to do so, it seems.
#15263459
:lol: Its funny but till recently Liberals didn't believe a word that Boris Johnson says. And lets be honest Johnson wasn't exactly known as a truth teller, being sacked from his first job for making up lies about the EU. But Boris says something that puts Putin in a bad light and every Liberal believes he's telling God's honest truth.
#15263465
Rich wrote::lol: Its funny but till recently Liberals didn't believe a word that Boris Johnson says. And lets be honest Johnson wasn't exactly known as a truth teller, being sacked from his first job for making up lies about the EU. But Boris says something that puts Putin in a bad light and every Liberal believes he's telling God's honest truth.

No. It has nothing to do with wether he is liberal or conservative or truthful or a liar. I for one, don't follow UK's politics so I don't have a negative or positive view of the guy.
It has to do with the fact that the russians THEMSELVES have publicly threatened the use of nuclear wars.

Beren wrote:Putin was bluffing in both cases, but public bluffs are more common and everyone in the game is used to them and tolerates them because they know they're for the public, while private threats are considered mere rudeness. As a former KGB officer Putin meant to intimidate Johnson into submission most likely, but he was fatally wrong to do so, it seems.

Maybe he was bluffing, maybe he wasn't. The problem with conflict scalation is that at the begining you completely dismiss that you will have to do X Y or Z, but after you run out of the alphabet, if you wish to continue, you will eventually have to do X Y or Z. The assumption being that a dictator such as Putin can survive and remain in power after such a massive defeat is like a 1 way valve that pushes to escalation. So even if it was intended as a bluff, that does not mean it was actually a bluff.
#15263473
Rich wrote:But Boris says something that puts Putin in a bad light and every Liberal believes he's telling God's honest truth.

Afaik Putin said Russian missiles could reach the UK in a minute, isn't it Putinesque for you enough to be possibly true?
User avatar
By Wels
#15263478
^ oh it is.
There are other missiles that can reach Russia/Moscow in about the same time.

Putin has a problem in that even playing such games there are rules, and he broke them. All.
The world will not let Russia win in Ukraine. Putin may have more tanks, maybe mobilize even more criminals and more poor mobiks and cannon fodder than Ukraine could ever muster, and he will try by sheer mass. But it is now him against the world.
Ukraine, Russia and then others will suffer just because of Putin and the russian system.
User avatar
By Beren
#15263480
It doesn't seem a big deal in BoJo's presentation.



The Guardian wrote:He [Johnson] told the makers of Putin vs the West that he did not regard Putin’s comments as a threat.

However, whenever Peskov speaks for Putin, he's lying, because that's exactly he's there for.
User avatar
By litwin
#15263501
XogGyux wrote:No. It has nothing to do with wether he is liberal or conservative or truthful or a liar. I for one, don't follow UK's politics so I don't have a negative or positive view of the guy.
It has to do with the fact that the russians THEMSELVES have publicly threatened the use of nuclear wars.


Maybe he was bluffing, maybe he wasn't. The problem with conflict scalation is that at the begining you completely dismiss that you will have to do X Y or Z, but after you run out of the alphabet, if you wish to continue, you will eventually have to do X Y or Z. The assumption being that a dictator such as Putin can survive and remain in power after such a massive defeat is like a 1 way valve that pushes to escalation. So even if it was intended as a bluff, that does not mean it was actually a bluff.


sounds like 1917 all over Muscovy again ! do you agree?





Peter Zeihan - Most People Don't Realize How Things Are Getting Uglier For Moscow empire
User avatar
By litwin
#15263503
Beren wrote:It's rather going to be 1987 instead.



why do you think so ?

#15263512
litwin wrote:why do you think so ?

Because it's another Afghanistan basically, and we still have a cold war rather than a world war.

About the Soviet–Afghan War, Wikipedia wrote:January 1987 – February 1989: Withdrawal

The promotion of Mikhail Gorbachev to General Secretary in 1985 and his 'new thinking' on foreign and domestic policy was likely an important factor in the Soviets' decision to withdraw. Gorbachev had been attempting to remove the Soviet Union from the economic stagnation that had set in under the leadership of Brezhnev, and to reform the Soviet Union's economy and image with the Glasnost and Perestroika policies. Gorbachev had also been attempting to ease cold war tensions by signing the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with the U.S. in 1987 and withdrawing the troops from Afghanistan, whose presence had garnered so much international condemnation. Gorbachev regarded confrontation with China and resulting military build ups on that border as one of Brezhnev's biggest mistakes. Beijing had stipulated that a normalization of relations would have to wait until Moscow withdrew its army from Afghanistan (among other things), and in 1989 the first Sino-Soviet summit in 30 years took place. At the same time, Gorbachev pressured his Cuban allies in Angola to scale down activities and withdraw even though Soviet allies were faring somewhat better there. The Soviets also pulled many of their troops out of Mongolia in 1987, where they were also having a far easier time than in Afghanistan, and restrained the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea to the point of an all-out withdrawal in 1988. This massive withdrawal of Soviet forces from such highly contested areas shows that the Soviet government's decision to leave Afghanistan was based upon a general change in Soviet foreign policy – from one of confrontation to avoidance of conflict wherever possible.

In the last phase, Soviet troops prepared and executed their withdrawal from Afghanistan, whilst limiting the launching of offensive operations by those who had not withdrawn yet.

By mid-1987 the Soviet Union announced that it would start withdrawing its forces.

This war is going to end more-or-less the same way. Putin will be replaced by someone sooner or later and Russia's going to withdraw from Ukraine, then the regime collapses (and the issue will be perhaps if Russia stays together as it is).
By Rich
#15263516
Beren wrote:Because it's another Afghanistan basically, and we still have a cold war rather than a world war.

This war is going to end more-or-less the same way. Putin will be replaced by someone sooner or later and Russia's going to withdraw from Ukraine, then the regime collapses (and the issue will be perhaps if Russia stays together as it is).

That sounds like wishful thinking to me. The Soviet Union collapsed because of an ideological crisis of international Communism. In the West we have replaced nationalism with Cultural Marxism. What is Cultural Marxism? At its simplest just think of it as like Nazism, where "Der ewige Jude" has been replaced with "Der ewige Europäer" or "Der ewige Weiße Mann". I don't think Russia, or Ukraine for that matter is going to go Cultural Marxist any time soon. The only other serious ideological alternatives are Sharia Islam or some form of nationalism.

When I brought up the use of nuclear weapons, even some of the Liberals started to get a bit fuzzy on Putin's identity with Adolph Hitler. Putin has certainly been no Hitler and that's actually been part of his problem. One of the advantages Hitler had at least until defeat looked imminent (I hope I've spelt that right or @Potemkin will be on my case) was that when he captured a territory people expected Nazi rule to last, so they made their choices on that basis, whether they hated Nazis rule or hoped to gain from it. With Putin people could never be sure he wouldn't give back territory in some sort of deal.

Note I'm not saying that Putin was fair, reasonable, trustworthy or even realistic, but he really did seem to believe in the Minsk process. To many people the referendums and "annexations" of the eastern regions seemed like pointless theatre, but actually they were quite important in indicating that Putin was finally taking the war seriously. No I think from now on the Russians like the Ukrainians, will fight to defend every inch of the territory they control. If you're very lucky you might get some minor territory swaps to rationalise the border, but I suspect the armistice line will pretty much be the peace line.

In the minds of a western liberal, a moderate reasonable Russian patriot is someone who has no problem with an American naval base in Sevastopol. I think you might find that these "moderate" Russian patriots are in pretty short supply.
#15263517
Rich wrote:
That sounds like wishful thinking to me.

The Soviet Union collapsed because of an ideological crisis of international Communism.

In the West we have replaced nationalism with Cultural Marxism.


When I brought up the use of nuclear weapons, even some of the Liberals started to get a bit fuzzy on Putin's identity with Adolph Hitler.






Yes, because the guys likely to replace Putin are as gung ho as he is, or more.

The Soviet Union's economy failed. It's that simple.

"Cultural Marxism" is meaningless BS.

You need to learn how to write. Identity is the wrong word, for one thing. Of course, arguing that similarity is determinitive is nuts. It's doubly nuts because Hitler didn't have nukes, and nukes change everything...
User avatar
By Beren
#15263523
Rich wrote:That sounds like wishful thinking to me. The Soviet Union collapsed because of an ideological crisis of international Communism.

To me it sounds like history repeating itself, which necessarily happens to Russia under comrades Putin, Patrushev, Shoigu, and Gerasimov, who all grew up, socialised, and worked or served in the USSR. The SU collapsed due to an economic crisis, which Russia is going to face as well.
#15263527
Rancid wrote:I'm guessing the Russian strategy to get morale up is one of "the beatings will continue until morale improves."

The suicide charges will continue until Russia runs out of equipment is the slogan which is what is happening right now. If the reserves deconservation worked last year then there are clear signs that it has major issues now.
#15263532
Rich wrote::lol: Its funny but till recently Liberals didn't believe a word that Boris Johnson says. And lets be honest Johnson wasn't exactly known as a truth teller, being sacked from his first job for making up lies about the EU. But Boris says something that puts Putin in a bad light and every Liberal believes he's telling God's honest truth.

Maybe Ye should say something negative about Putin in order to reclaim his fame.
  • 1
  • 515
  • 516
  • 517
  • 518
  • 519
  • 570

The French judiciary is independent as far as I'm[…]

Hitler decided he could not invade the island nati[…]

I observe that the replies to my article are not v[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I do wonder what is going to happen once China st[…]