Europe at War

[Florestan]

A man of impeccable manners, that former President of yours. A true gentleman! 

He was a direct, rude and  straightforward former naval officer --- in my not so humble opinion, the best President of Romania after 1989. 

Good evening to you, Andrei. Gioia e pace per mill'anni. 

Buenas noches, Rafael! Pace e gioia per mill'anni 

[Karl Henning]

Even from prison I can see opposition to Putin's war growing

By Vladimir Kara-Murza

[drogulus]

     Did you hear the one about Lil' Kim sending his troops to Ukraine to (heh!) help the Russians? One imagines thousands of N' Koreans running towards the Uke positions stripping off their uniforms while being chased by Chechens. I'd almost like to see that. Sadly, I don't think I will.

[Todd]

Can Russia Divide Europe?

Why a False Peace Could Be Worse Than a Long War

It is precisely when violence [hypothetically] subsides that the West should show its true resilience and redouble support for Kyiv, to ensure not just that Russia loses this war but that Ukraine actually wins it, by securing a territorially and therefore economically viable state, with security guarantees, and, ultimately, a course toward reconstruction and democratic consolidation in the EU. However, the temptation to seek accommodation with Russia would be strong, especially given that it would likely happen at a time of growing social, economic, political, and geopolitical pressures on the continent. If a reduction in violence in Ukraine coincides with a surging energy crisis in Europe, it could lead European leaders not just to argue and dither but to divide apart altogether.

Or, to paraphrase a famous song:

Fight fiercely, Europe
Fight, fight, fight!
Demonstrate to them your skill
Albeit they possess the might
Nonetheless you have the will


Turning Ukraine into an economically viable state will prove to be something of a challenge, no matter what happens with the war.  Zelensky's (sp?) last ask was for $750 billion in aid, for an economy with GDP of ~$160 billion and a government budget of ~$40 billion before the war.  Some of Russia's longer-term war aims in Ukraine have already been achieved.  The 2020s are a lost decade for Ukraine.

[drogulus]

     When the Russians moved the Black Sea fleet (remnants thereof) from Sevastopol to Novorossiysk it looked like Russia decided Crimea would soon be unsafe. Perhaps the looming loss of Kherson portends something of greater significance may be approaching. The entire southern front may collapse. Crimea will soon be in range of superior Ukrainian weapons.

     A little birb tells me the Ukes may decide the Kerch bridge is too wonderful to be attacked. They want it as a big part of the economic recovery of the region.

[Spotted Horses]

Apparently three primenant Russian scientists involved in military projects, including the hypersonic missile project, have been arrested and charged with treason.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/05/europe/russian-hypersonic-missile-scientist-arrest-treason-hnk-intl/index.html

[Que]

Apparently three primenant Russian scientists involved in military projects, including the hypersonic missile project, have been arrested and charged with treason.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/05/europe/russian-hypersonic-missile-scientist-arrest-treason-hnk-intl/index.html

I guess Putin wasn't quite happy with the progress on his "Wunderwaffen".....

[Que]

     When the Russians moved the Black Sea fleet (remnants thereof) from Sevastopol to Novorossiysk it looked like Russia decided Crimea would soon be unsafe. Perhaps the looming loss of Kherson portends something of greater significance may be approaching. The entire southern front may collapse. Crimea will soon be in range of superior Ukrainian weapons.

     A little birb tells me the Ukes may decide the Kerch bridge is too wonderful to be attacked. They want it as a big part of the economic recovery of the region.

Agreed. Wishful thinking or not, Russia is clearly concerned judging from the build up of troops in the southwest and in the Crimea. Read that the troops that are sent there are the best of what is still available. Which indicates that in a worst case scenario, Putin wants to hold in to the Crimea.

Analists see the Russian reinforcements preparing for an offensive, in order to retake the initiative.
Now, I'm not a military strategist, but couldn't that backfire with an advantage for defending Ukrain troops?

Iran has provided over 50 drones to the Russian army. Clearly, Iran isn't interested in a better relationship with the West. Noted, I'd say.

[milk]

Can Russia Divide Europe?

Why a False Peace Could Be Worse Than a Long War


Or, to paraphrase a famous song:

Fight fiercely, Europe
Fight, fight, fight!
Demonstrate to them your skill
Albeit they possess the might
Nonetheless you have the will


Turning Ukraine into an economically viable state will prove to be something of a challenge, no matter what happens with the war.  Zelensky's (sp?) last ask was for $750 billion in aid, for an economy with GDP of ~$160 billion and a government budget of ~$40 billion before the war.  Some of Russia's longer-term war aims in Ukraine have already been achieved.  The 2020s are a lost decade for Ukraine.

I started this whole discussion seeing only one "bad guy" in this but I'm beginning to be skeptical that there is any real "winner" or however one wants to put it. At least it might be better still to find a way for all parties to walk away and look/feel like they've gained something. Is that off the table? Why? Why is there an inevitability that this has to go on and on? Is it only Putin's intractability? I don't see any winners in this continuing. Not Russia and not the U.S. and the Ukraine is only going to make it by holding out its hand for enormous sums of money. Instead of trading criminals for semi-famous basketball stars why don't they start really talking behind the scenes about compromising, good-will gestures, opportunities for peace measures. Am I delusional? Has anyone even suggested this anywhere? Russia wants something. Is it really the glory of some former tsar? Really? Or is it something more modest? Maybe I'm naive but if so, then bombs away I guess.

[Que]

If you look at the reasoning behind the invasion, Putin's aspirations are not modest at all...

Sure, at some point negotiations will be inevitable.
But IMO Putin will only engage in negotiations if and when he has run out of other options. Which is not now or anytime soon.

[Madiel]

Is it really the glory of some former tsar? Really?

Pretty much.

[71 dB]

As people here have seen I have only posted about NATO ratifications. I have forced myself to "close my eyes" about everything else.

Why?

Because Russia attacking Ukraine after a few months of confusion and shock made me realize that I am living on a planet where civilization, progress and culture doesn't mean much. We humans have made this planet a shitty place and we don't have a clue how to live. Yeah, yeah, I know a lot of people know and are good and whatever, but NOT ENOUGH people are!! At this point in history:

- ALL countries should be totally democratic, free, peaceful and working together to deal with issues such as climate change
- ALL people in power should be competent, educated, humane and eager to serve common good rather than themselves only.

This planet is far from that. Democratic countries are rare exceptions. Good politicians and leaders are exceptions. Masses are politically extremely ignorant voting against their own good in almost all elections. Even many democratic countries do not function properly. That's why we are in this mess.

So, this damn planet is what it is and we are forced to live here. Some people are smart enough to become astronauts and live 400 km from the surfice of this hellhole inside ISS, but most of us are stuck here.

I have this ONE life and I have to make the best out of it. That's why I have been concentrating on my OWN life as much as possible. NATO ratifications affect MY piece of mind. That's why I follow those, but that's it. Other news are just depressing. I life in denial of the problems, because that's the only way to be somewhat happy. You can call that selfish if you want. I don't care. This is a planet of INSANELY greedy monsters. I am NOTHING compared to the likes of Alex Jones. NOTHING!! Me not caring about what happens in the World outside my own life does not ruin the lives of other people, does it?

That's why I don't care about if poor people in the UK are screwed. The brits have allowed their country to become a half-oligarchy. That's why I don't care about the US sliding toward theoracy. Maybe Americans wake up now, but that's their business. That's why I don't care about the war in Ukraine or the conflict between China and Taiwan. I "lost" 5 years of my life caring about the healthcare of americans. So stupid! Never again will I care about problems in other countries. I only care about problems in my OWN life from now on. I wish all people in the World had good lives, but I am not a God-like creature who can fix everything.

I listen to music. I make music. I study music theory. I write Nyquist plug-ins. I watch Blu-rays and Youtube videos. I go out in the nature. I try to think about the problems in the World as little as possible. Worrying about rising electric bills and energy crisis won't make those problems smaller so why ruin life over them? Just pay the bigger bills and move on! Only when my savings are all gone am I screwed. I am fine for now.

I feel BETTER. I feel I have found myself again. I have much less dark clouds in my head. My mistake was to care about things "outside" my own life and things I can influence on such as Finnish elections. On this planet people who care are not rewarded. Greedy assholes are. I don't want to be a greedy asshole (my personality type is against such a thing) so I just don't care, because caring too much seems to take the joy out of life.

[Florestan]

You have finally seen the light, Poju. Excellent news.

[Todd]

I started this whole discussion seeing only one "bad guy" in this but I'm beginning to be skeptical that there is any real "winner" or however one wants to put it. At least it might be better still to find a way for all parties to walk away and look/feel like they've gained something. Is that off the table? Why? Why is there an inevitability that this has to go on and on? Is it only Putin's intractability? I don't see any winners in this continuing. Not Russia and not the U.S. and the Ukraine is only going to make it by holding out its hand for enormous sums of money. Instead of trading criminals for semi-famous basketball stars why don't they start really talking behind the scenes about compromising, good-will gestures, opportunities for peace measures. Am I delusional? Has anyone even suggested this anywhere? Russia wants something. Is it really the glory of some former tsar? Really? Or is it something more modest? Maybe I'm naive but if so, then bombs away I guess.

The United States benefits economically from war and has, on and off, since the 1890s.  War is how the US became the dominant global power.  WWI saw it take over the role of central financial power from the UK, and WWII saw it become the central political and military power of the allies and the powers they conquered.  The subsequent wars the US fought cost American lives, but helped build the American economy, which disproportionately relies on military spending for economic growth and technological advances.  Provided there is no nuclear exchange in this war, the US can gain by selling elaborately expensive weapons systems all over Europe and by taking over portions of Russian energy exports to Europe, which it has already done with no little alacrity.  The US has economic interests in prolonging this war, but no interests in Ukraine itself.  Additionally, the US will expand its empire yet further, which all empires do.  The risks are that the US overextends itself financially and provokes another war, and a more expansive one.  Worst case scenario for the US would be to be to fight two wars against two powers at the same time.  There will be those who insist the US can mobilize and do so again.  That is untrue.  If the US fights both Russia and China, it will lose.  And wars against these powers do not necessarily need to be of the expeditionary, military sort, at least for the US.  The US will not lose in the sense of Germany and Japan in that it will not be conquered, but it will lose primacy.  Were US policymakers actually concerned with American Exceptionalism, then they would choose policies to manage decline over decades in a manner that will not bring with it widespread economic dislocation and an unnecessary relative economic decline.  (The word relative is critical since the US will not be reduced to penury.)  America is not exceptional.

Russia does want something.  It has been clear for decades what that is: strategic security.  NATO expansion threatens Russia.  NATO expansion is intrinsically aggressive and provocative.  This has been warned about since the 90s, and indeed, the more restrained approach initially taken by Bush I accounted for that.  The Clinton years saw the end of that, and the US has acted aggressively since.  Many people in the west are blind to that, either willfully or foolishly.  Triumphalism and the crusader mentality - manifested in the drive to spread democracy and capitalism, and the assorted accoutrements that come with them - informs policy, and not just in Europe.  The West put itself in a position where large scale war has returned to Europe, which of course is very common historically.  Reducing the current situation to one man, hence relying on a variant of the great man theory, must at this point be viewed as an active, conscious choice of self-deception.  When Putin dies, Russia will not, and the same concerns and conditions will exist.

Very few people actually want peace.  Very few people will explicitly state they want war, of course, so instead they will offer other reasons why a political settlement should not be pursued.  Rationales vary, including nebulous and flexible concepts like justice, but they all rely on continued war.  Since my streets are safe from foreign bombs, I lose no sleep from the latest European war or any other war raging in other uncivilized parts of the world.  But life sucks for Ukrainians. 

[Todd]

Utter nonsense, even the 'expansion' part which is not about expansion, but rather the self destination of independent countries and their right to choose their own allies. In no way did NATO ever "threaten" Russia, nor will it, in the foreseeable future.

This is a perfect, brief encapsulation of the crusader mentality as it pertains to rationalizing military expansion of the American Empire.

[Christo]

NATO expansion threatens Russia.  NATO expansion is intrinsically aggressive and provocative. 

Utter nonsense, even the 'expansion' part which is not about expansion, but rather the self destination of independent countries and their right to choose their own allies. In no way did NATO ever "threaten" Russia, nor will it, in the foreseeable future.

Which country is the most expansive world-wide?

[Todd]

Which country is the most expansive world-wide?

The United States. 

The continued defense of the American Empire on this forum, very often relying on denial, does make me want to investigate what types of literature exist on the psychology of imperial subjects in vassal states.

[Christo]

The United States. 

The continued defense of the American Empire on this forum, very often relying on denial, does make me want to investigate what types of literature exist on the psychology of imperial subjects in vassal states.

There is simply no American equivalent - and certainly not in Europe, where there's never been any "vassal state" - of this expansion:

[Todd]

There is simply no American equivalent - and certainly not in Europe, where there's never been any "vassal state"

Incorrect.  I posted a map and additional information previously.  You can read those posts, or not, whichever suits.  And you can deny the existence of the American Empire.

[Todd]

Ray Dalio, the manager of the largest hedge fund in the world, put together a study and some videos based on his and his researchers' work on the rise and fall of empires.  He and his team looked at a span of five hundred years and came up with a basic framework and timeline for the rise and fall of great powers.  If this seems reminiscent of Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, that's because it is, but it comes at it from a financier's position, so some of the focus is different.  (And on the subject of financiers, Dalio is not so much fun as Jim Rogers, who upped and moved his family to Singapore in light of shifting geopolitics, putting not only his money but his family where his mouth is, as it were.)  I disagree with some of Dalio's details and timelines, but the rise and fall of empires has been going on since the Neolithic Revolution.  For some reason, some people today appear to actually believe that we, collectively, have fully learned lessons of the past and that the institutional and legalistic superstructures created in the post-war era are somehow different enough from past institutional structures to prevent a similar fate.  That seems rather dubious, but who knows, maybe.