Russia on brink of ... NOPE! Russia INVADES Ukraine!

Page 883 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ralfy

Senior member
Jul 22, 2013
484
53
91

That reminds me of one interview with Florence Gaub:


The gist is that Russians are not Europeans (read: they're barbarians) because they will never promote liberal postmodernity (read: diversity, multiple genders, relativism) and must be treated as such. That implies that there should be not only war crime tribunals but permanent regime change, or as Brandon would put it, occupation:


Of course, as long as everyone is quiet about the fact that the West armed and funded Saddam, and in this case, set up a puppet regime in Ukraine and are not profiting from arms sales, then we can conveniently accept the binary narrative of West (no longer just the U.S., right?) good and East (not just Russians but also Chinese, Iranians, Afghans, etc.) bad.
 

ralfy

Senior member
Jul 22, 2013
484
53
91
Sure. But. Counterpoint:


and


Thing is, with technology being what it is today, you may not have the torches and pitchforks option to overthrow the establishment anymore.
Soon you will have autonomous robots roaming the streets keeping the "peace".
Russians. Chinese. May not have the actual option to do anything about the regime.

It's incredible how the geniuses in this thread are catching up with points that Kennan said decades ago. That's the neocon view of the world: we need to contain this or that country, and if we can't encircle it. We can't afford to have it "permanently broken," so let's keep it temporarily and partially broken. That way, they are still useful to us. Also, we wouldn't like to "breed resentment," right? Nosiree, we certainly wouldn't like to to that. After all, we're the greatest country in the world, and then there is nothing better than the Western model of liberal democracy and free markets, right?

Of course, no one should know that we're part of "eyes" nations, and that we have a military spending level that would make the most tyrannical leaders in the world blush. But that's all not only necessary but justified because we're exceptional. I mean, isn't that what being American means?

In different circumstances, someone like Putin would see such points and nod his head.
 

ralfy

Senior member
Jul 22, 2013
484
53
91
I finished reading the thread. Most of the messages are same ole discussions about military gadgets and fluff pieces about the U.S. and NATO. All addressed in my previous posts.
 

rommelrommel

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2002
4,411
3,192
146
It was a coup:




What you need to do to avoid whataboutism is to connect the two: the fact that the U.S. does "bad things" and what happened in 2014. Then see that in context of U.S. aggression across several decades.

Why does the U.S. act in this way? The answer ironically lies with the last sentence of your post. It's a narrative that stems from Reagan's "evil empire" speech and is seen in arguments raised by subsequent Presidents, like Dubya who argued that you're either with us or you're with the terrorists. That is, a bipolar view of the world where the U.S. is good and everyone who disagrees with it is evil. Hence, regime change in Ukraine, Zelensky's belief that Ukraine should be a "Big Israel," and even past calls by Biden, and recent calls by Graham, for the same for Russia.
Probably not as much as the counter-stooges, especially given the context of the matter, e.g., trillions spent by Pentagon agencies that have now failed audits five times in a row.

But it's all money to burn, right? Makes Silly Putty look like a rank amateur.
Some say it started during the early 1980s, when debt and spending started to rise considerably thanks to Reagan. That, in turn, was needed to avert crises caused by chronic poor economic growth since the early '60s and trade deficits and real wages flattening out starting in the early 1970s.

But as long as the U.S. can continue the debt and spending binge, and convince the other countries that they can continue taking on more debt that's mathematically impossible to pay (something like $72 trillion in total debt plus over $170 trillion in unfunded liabilities), then the country should do fine.
That's a drop in the bucket compared to similar issues. For example, the GAO reported that it could not account for over $12 trillion in bailouts to the rich back in 2012, and just recently the Pentagon failed its audit for the fifth time involving something like $2 trillion.

But for criminals, it's all passed on to the gullible public, so no problem, right?
That's what neocon shills have been saying for decades, too. Remember what Florence Gaub said about Russians? They're barbarians.

Same thing with the Chinese, Iranians, Afghans, etc, right? Either regime change or bomb them back to the stone age.
That's the same Biden that called for regime change in Russia before taking it back. Then Graham said similar only recently, which shows that there's really no difference between the two political parties: they're both warmongers.
Russia wanted to join NATO in the past because that ensured that it would be treated fairly. Ironically, so did Ukraine.

What the U.S. did from the late 1990s onward was reject because it needed to use NATO as a sword to antagonize Russia, and then manipulate Ukraine so that it would become part of the U.S. orbit of dominance.

Kennan warned the U.S. about this, that Russia would attack if treated such, and that's what happened. But here's the interesting part: the U.S. has been at war for much of its existence, and recent reports show that the U.S. defense industry is profiting from the current crisis, and even to the point that it is using the event to test weapons:


Finally, Johnson reported that the original title of the article referred to using Ukraine and Russia as lab rats.

What's beguiling is that that's now admitted by U.S. mainstream media, which is the main source of neocon shilling that the public wants to hear, and yet even this piece of news is ignored. Except, ironicall, by their European allies:

That's what the necon shills are saying, but it looks like the defense industry intends to profit from this initiative. Two reports on this matter have been shared, with one involving Europeans now accusing the U.S. of doing so.

Finally, this should not be shocking because the U.S. has had a long history of offering aid with strings attached, and if it's military aid, with the defense industry profiting. That should be the case for this event:


Also, there are new armaments that should be tested. What better place to use them than in proxy wars?
That's part of neocon shrillery, based on Reagan, and followed through by Bush: all countries are bad if they don't follow U.S.-style liberal democracy and free markets. And they, and only they, are imperialists. The U.S. can never be that due to American exceptionalism, which argues that the U.S. is the greatest country in the world and thus can never be at fault.

Makes you wonder why liberal hawks hate their opponents so much when both are very much alike.

But I double that these points will even be acknowledged, as the magic word needed to avoid any views of Americanism is whataboutism.
Brilliant. The same NATO that kept dangling the carrot and the same EU that imposed neoliberal policies on Ukraine which ironically remain prominent today (when did one ever see a war economy that decides to privatize?) now promise to Ukraine what caused problems for Ukraine in the first place!

What will these geniuses think of next?
Logic fueled. With meth, I'd be posting personal attacks.
I finished reading the thread. Most of the messages are same ole discussions about military gadgets and fluff pieces about the U.S. and NATO. All addressed in my previous posts.

No one is buying this vatnik mycop, you're just wasting bandwidth.

Also for the love of god, multi-quote.
 

KMFJD

Lifer
Aug 11, 2005
30,031
45,273
136
New York Times lead article at the moment concerning Ukraine determination that Russia's already gone all out in its ability to attack Ukraine with conventional weapons (and that they won't use nuclear weapons) and that it makes total sense to attack deep into Russia. US position is that if they do so with weaponry they develop and not US supplied armaments, it's not a problem. This link should work for 2 weeks, i.e. until Jan. 9, 2023:


Here’s what we know:
A drone attack over Engels air base, the latest behind Russian lines, suggests that the allure of curtailing Moscow’s missile capabilities at home outweighs any concern of escalation, analysts say.

At the very least, attacking deep inside Russia would necessitate (you would think anyways) a diversion of some of their air defence systems to protect critical areas inside Russia instead of closer to the front.

I also saw this earlier, counter weights for armour?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
Some say it started during the early 1980s, when debt and spending started to rise considerably thanks to Reagan. That, in turn, was needed to avert crises caused by chronic poor economic growth since the early '60s and trade deficits and real wages flattening out starting in the early 1970s.

But as long as the U.S. can continue the debt and spending binge, and convince the other countries that they can continue taking on more debt that's mathematically impossible to pay (something like $72 trillion in total debt plus over $170 trillion in unfunded liabilities), then the country should do fine.
You not understanding how sovereign debt works aside, if you can’t pin your collapse to within a half century or so you may want to reconsider your model.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
24,030
13,539
136
One, am not American.
Two, how you level this shit in your head: Under which system does the average peasant have to most rights, the most freedom? Which system *tries* and succeeds the most to put everyone equal to the law. Do you recognize that power corrupts? Do you also recognize that is why separation of powers is essential? Why we cant have kings?
Is the US perfect fuck no. Its certainly orders of magnitude better than Putins Russia.
The only reason you’re manic about this is cause your preferred, inferior, architecture for a society is losing. As it should. For the common mans sake.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
It was Kennan who came up with the policy of using NATO as a shield against the Soviet Union, and then by the late 1990s warned the U.S. of using NATO as a sword against Russia. Dubya ignored him (some say it started with Clinton), and that only increased U.S. neocon resolve.

Sachs explains it briefly, but I won't be surprised if he's laughed at by the anons of this thread just like they did Mearsheimer:




But many can't laugh this off. Why? Because the fact that the U.S. is the most warlike in the world and has engaged in intervention, disruption, assassinations, coups, etc., in many countries is not questionable. So they make asides, referring to to some weird view that Russia wants to form a new empire (actually, they make the same claims about China), and that raising this points is merely part of whataboutism. Then they announce that defense spending isn't that big or that there can only be a binary view of the world: one side is good and the other is evil, and the U.S. is good, end of story.

Or they just point out that others are ignoramuses or children; anything to just avoid getting into the heart of the matter.
It is amazing how nuts politics makes people where they have convinced themselves that Russia invading Ukraine is the fault of the United States. It is in fact the fault of Russia as absolutely nothing required them to invade Ukraine.

Also, if you’re a Mearscheimer fan you should check out this interview. He says - and I am not kidding - that we can trust that Putin had no imperial ambitions in Ukraine because he said so and Putin wouldn’t lie to other world leaders about this.

Even better, when the interviewer expresses, uhm, incredulity at this idea by referencing Munich Mearscheimer admits that Hitler may have lied once or twice.


I’ve actually met him, and he is one of those dinosaurs who made his name on a specific theory and he tries to cram everything into that theory.
 

RnR_au

Platinum Member
Jun 6, 2021
2,063
5,008
106
More on the cash issue...


Could just be isolated incidents or even fake video, but @wartranslated tends to be cautious with their Russian material.

Maybe Putin will start up the printing machines if he hasn't already. But could be that the printing machines might need Western inks and paper...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea

KMFJD

Lifer
Aug 11, 2005
30,031
45,273
136
It is amazing how nuts politics makes people where they have convinced themselves that Russia invading Ukraine is the fault of the United States. It is in fact the fault of Russia as absolutely nothing required them to invade Ukraine.

Also, if you’re a Mearscheimer fan you should check out this interview. He says - and I am not kidding - that we can trust that Putin had no imperial ambitions in Ukraine because he said so and Putin wouldn’t lie to other world leaders about this.

Even better, when the interviewer expresses, uhm, incredulity at this idea by referencing Munich Mearscheimer admits that Hitler may have lied once or twice.


I’ve actually met him, and he is one of those dinosaurs who made his name on a specific theory and he tries to cram everything into that theory.
oh wow, he's an idiot of the first order
 
Nov 17, 2019
12,404
7,521
136
Is this goof trying for a career in standup comedy?

Russia's foreign minister issues ultimatum to Ukraine to give up territory or the 'army will deal with the issue'

www.businessinsider.com.ico
Business Insider|41 minutes ago
Sergey Lavrov said Ukraine should accept Russia's demands, including giving up territory, or "the Russian Army will deal with this issue."


Yo, Dude ... your 'army':

  1. can't effectively train, equip, feed, clothe, arm or treat the injuries of front line troops.
  2. has lost over 100,000 troops and tens of thousands of pieces of equipment in a few months.
  3. rapes women and kidnaps children and elderly.
  4. steals household appliances.
  5. has rear line troops who kill front line troops if they retreat.
  6. has simultaneously become both war criminals on a mass scale and an international laughingstock.
  7. employs mercenaries and terrorists as 'soldiers'.
  8. uses retail cell phones for command communications.
  9. cannot adequately ensure the safety of top commanders.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,070
8,085
136
While his defenders here on the forum and the US congress happily repeat his talking points.

Just how stupid do these guys think we are?

Are you dismissing the power of propaganda?
They repeat the lies, because a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.
Each lie they tell for Russia, is in some small part, one step closer to their desired outcome of Russian victory.

Without the strength or competence for outright victory, Russia's best chance is if they erode our alliances and diminish our support for Ukraine.
That is what gives power to their lies. Where they can make a real difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave_5k

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,070
8,085
136
That reminds me of one interview with Florence Gaub:
USA in the Vietnam War also claimed: "Asians just don't care about death, like us". Disgusting dehumanisation

Dehumanisation? Oh you poor babies, you poor victims, how dare you be held accountable for your actions?

Says the Russians who are committing ethnic cleansing across Ukraine.
Says the Russians who are expressly targeting killing and torturing civilians EVERYWHERE they can reach.
Says the Russians who did blockade global food shipments until we threatened to kill them.

Go to hell Orc.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
27,739
26,903
136
It's incredible how the geniuses in this thread are catching up with points that Kennan said decades ago. That's the neocon view of the world: we need to contain this or that country, and if we can't encircle it. We can't afford to have it "permanently broken," so let's keep it temporarily and partially broken. That way, they are still useful to us. Also, we wouldn't like to "breed resentment," right? Nosiree, we certainly wouldn't like to to that. After all, we're the greatest country in the world, and then there is nothing better than the Western model of liberal democracy and free markets, right?

Of course, no one should know that we're part of "eyes" nations, and that we have a military spending level that would make the most tyrannical leaders in the world blush. But that's all not only necessary but justified because we're exceptional. I mean, isn't that what being American means?

In different circumstances, someone like Putin would see such points and nod his head.

What is incredibly gross about your posts is you make the basic assumption that the only two countries who have any agency and sovereignty in this conflict are the US and Russia. No one "made" Russia invade it's neighbor starting in 2014. That was a choice by Russia. No one "made" Russia support a proxy civil war inside it's neighbor's borders starting in 2015. No one "made" Russia invade it's neighbor in 2022. Did Ukraine start looking for help after the events of 2014 and 2015? Hell yes because any idiot could see that Russia wasn't going to stop there.

then there is nothing better than the Western model of liberal democracy and free markets, right?

@ralfy While Western liberal democracy and free markets are absolutely not perfect. What model do you think has worked better to create high standards of living and the greatest amount of personal freedom?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,710
51,001
136
What is incredibly gross about your posts is you make the basic assumption that the only two countries who have any agency and sovereignty in this conflict are the US and Russia. No one "made" Russia invade it's neighbor starting in 2014. That was a choice by Russia. No one "made" Russia support a proxy civil war inside it's neighbor's borders starting in 2015. No one "made" Russia invade it's neighbor in 2022. Did Ukraine start looking for help after the events of 2014 and 2015? Hell yes because any idiot could see that Russia wasn't going to stop there.



@ralfy While Western liberal democracy and free markets are absolutely not perfect. What model do you think has worked better to create high standards of living and the greatest amount of personal freedom?
I think his basic assumption is that Russia doesn't have agency here either as Russia was 'forced' to invade its neighbor by US actions. As far as I can tell the only country on this planet with agency is the United States.

As far as I can tell the tankie logic goes:

1) If the United States invades someone it's the United States' fault. (true!)
2) If any other country invades someone it's the United States' fault. (false!)

I also love how NATO expansion is also somehow an act of aggression by the west against Russia and not Russia's neighbors acting on the extremely well historically founded idea that Russia will someday try to invade them again.
 

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,960
782
136
Me rolls up a hundo, snorts a line of logic, and responds, "You wrong, son."

This works every time. Source: I just rolled up a hundo, snorted a line of coke, and responded to a comment. I may be a little off on minor details, but overall I think I got it right.