UKRAINE the latest.

View this post on Instagram

How accurate do you think Sachs opinion is ?

Supafreak wrote:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DCaTvgICFlu/?igsh=MWZmMTdxNGcxMTN1OQ==

Putin sounds like a saint in that video. Give me a break. If anything, bombing of Serbia should've happened even earlier than 1999. And like quadzilla said, many countries eagrley joined NATO. And for the right reasons, you think Russia just sits idle and doesn't interfere into other countries? They are a constant threat, NATO is one line of security that some smaller, weak countries need.

So how accurate do you think Sachs opinion is ?

Supafreak wrote:

So how accurate do you think Sachs opinion is ?

Have been following Sachs on a couple of podcasts for the last year or so.
Pretty much most things he says tend to come to fruition, as he definitely knows what he is talking about.

Look, to be transparent I'm a dual citizen with family in one of these recently joined countries. So I might be biased.

He can say whatever he wants from the US perspective. He can rightfully request for the US to be less involved or even have no involvement. But his angle is wrong and biased. He is pushing this narrative as it gains him popularity and probably, income. His whole premise is based on US being the one and only driver of this whole picture. This is wrong, Russia always interfered into other countries. I would like him to talk more about Russia and which moves/interferences they did so we can compare apples to apples. His presentation is one sided and shouldn't be taken seriously.

flollo wrote:

Supafreak wrote:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DCaTvgICFlu/?igsh=MWZmMTdxNGcxMTN1OQ==

Putin sounds like a saint in that video. Give me a break. If anything, bombing of Serbia should've happened even earlier than 1999. And like quadzilla said, many countries eagrley joined NATO. And for the right reasons, you think Russia just sits idle and doesn't interfere into other countries? They are a constant threat, NATO is one line of security that some smaller, weak countries need.

Do you think the USA would be ok with say BRICS bases with missile capabilities being set up in Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela? Monroe Doctrine is ok for USA why not a similar scenario for Russia?
Russia's actions may not be 'right' or 'ethical' but totally understandable given the history and realpolitik situation. and it is total hypocrisy of the West not to take this into account.

USA/ NATO do not have an ethical leg to stand on with the latest being the open support for genocide in Gaza, never mind Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria amongst others.

Sorry, being critical of Putin and Russia somehow makes me an approvalist of all US actions?

It’s Sacks isn’t it?

You guys are looking at this from a wrong angle. The real threat to Russia is not NATO. It is European Union. EU is one of the greatest (if not the greatest) achievements in recent memory. 27 member countries, joined into one shared market. One of the highest standards of living in the world. Most share one of the strongest currencies in the world and have no border restrictions for people movement or trade of goods and services. EU lifted standards of living in all its members, especially the recently joined ones. There are not many countries outside the EU left in Europe. Ukraine is the biggest one.

I can totally see the future where most countries in Europe are members of the EU. Exception being the stupid UK, Switzerland and Norway. Russia will then be sandwiched between 2 great superpowers - EU and China. And standard of living between Russia and the EU shouldn't even be discussed. Sooner or later I can see the Russian citizens wanting the same rights and benefits that EU citizens take for granted. That is a massive problem for the existing oligarchy. Russia spent decades undermining the EU. They constantly get involved into elections in hopes of eurosceptics taking a stronger foothold. This is nothing new and it's still ongoing.

A lot of these videos are blatantly ignoring these facts. So sorry, I can't take them seriously.

flollo wrote:

Sorry, being critical of Putin and Russia somehow makes me an approvalist of all US actions?

Sorry flollo did not mean to infer that.
I'm no fan of Putin etc, but believe the whole thing could have been handled better from the early 90's.
Sach's may sound anti US, but with his views on China he is a lot more hawkish and USA first. Think he looks at the situation rationally.
Agree with your EU sentiments, but still reckon NATO fooked it, Russia may have been able to be a partner with the prosperity if it had been handled differently.

If someone presents a series of events and the outcomes of each event and evidence to support the material when does it transcend opinion to a historical account. It would appear he just outlined the context of the conflict. I don’t think it was an opinion to be honest.

Quad. Have you hitched your wagon to the Putin bogey man team? Do you absolve the responsibility of Western hegemony continually pushing the brinkmanship.

always has good scripting for thought-provokes
from jay/lynn from a 40-years-ago perspective

It's unbelivable how one sided some of this discussion is. Ukraine was in active talks with the EU to sign the Association Agreement in the early 2010s. An agreement which would serve as basis for potential membership in the EU. According to the polls, Ukraine's citizens supported joining the EU. But then Yanukovych, under an immense pressure and bribery from Russia, does 180 in 2013. He signs a deal with Russia and snubs the EU. What else would you expect from his corrupted system. EU comes with certain level of oversight while Russia doesn't give a shit.

People revolt but Yanukovych basically pushes legislation banning public protest. Over the next few months hundreds are dead and thousands left traumatised as protestation never stopped. And some in here are supportive of this? All these commentators conveniently point straight to 2014 and say - CIA initiated! Was it? I don't think so. Where they there in some capacity? I would say yes but so were the Russians.

Meanwhile, nearby Poland is pushing their GDP towards $1 trillion. Nearly x 5 per capita when compared to Ukraine. How different would Ukraine be if it joined the EU? But why would Russia allow that, better leave it poor and corrupted. And unfortunately, half of people in the West are supportive of this nonsense.

quadzilla wrote:

andy-mac wrote:

flollo wrote:

Supafreak wrote:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DCaTvgICFlu/?igsh=MWZmMTdxNGcxMTN1OQ==

Putin sounds like a saint in that video. Give me a break. If anything, bombing of Serbia should've happened even earlier than 1999. And like quadzilla said, many countries eagrley joined NATO. And for the right reasons, you think Russia just sits idle and doesn't interfere into other countries? They are a constant threat, NATO is one line of security that some smaller, weak countries need.

Do you think the USA would be ok with say BRICS bases with missile capabilities being set up in Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela? Monroe Doctrine is ok for USA why not a similar scenario for Russia?
Russia's actions may not be 'right' or 'ethical' but totally understandable given the history and realpolitik situation. and it is total hypocrisy of the West not to take this into account.

USA/ NATO do not have an ethical leg to stand on with the latest being the open support for genocide in Gaza, never mind Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria amongst others.

These terrorists you mention ARE very ethical aren't they?

Huh?

soggydog wrote:

If someone presents a series of events and the outcomes of each event and evidence to support the material when does it transcend opinion to a historical account. It would appear he just outlined the context of the conflict. I don’t think it was an opinion to be honest.

Quad. Have you hitched your wagon to the Putin bogey man team? Do you absolve the responsibility of Western hegemony continually pushing the brinkmanship.

I don’t know enough about the history to make an educated judgment on what sachs had to say but I also didn’t think it was an opinion. I was hoping if it wasn’t a correct statement then someone would point out the errors of his statement with some evidence to back it up . He doesn’t come across as pro Putin to me , more like what the fuck are we doing America?

flollo wrote:

It's unbelivable how one sided some of this discussion is. Ukraine was in active talks with the EU to sign the Association Agreement in the early 2010s. An agreement which would serve as basis for potential membership in the EU. According to the polls, Ukraine's citizens supported joining the EU. But then Yanukovych, under an immense pressure and bribery from Russia, does 180 in 2013. He signs a deal with Russia and snubs the EU. What else would you expect from his corrupted system. EU comes with certain level of oversight while Russia doesn't give a shit.

People revolt but Yanukovych basically pushes legislation banning public protest. Over the next few months hundreds are dead and thousands left traumatised as protestation never stopped. And some in here are supportive of this? All these commentators conveniently point straight to 2014 and say - CIA initiated! Was it? I don't think so. Where they there in some capacity? I would say yes but so were the Russians.

Meanwhile, nearby Poland is pushing their GDP towards $1 trillion. Nearly x 5 per capita when compared to Ukraine. How different would Ukraine be if it joined the EU? But why would Russia allow that, better leave it poor and corrupted. And unfortunately, half of people in the West are supportive of this nonsense.

Great post @flollo,
Not surprised an actual Eastern European such as yourself whose own homeland went through war recently has the right perspective on Ukraine.
There was also the dioxin poisoning of President Yushchenko back in 2004 by the Russians during the election, Putin has been actively undermining them for a long time.

All these "what are the West doing there" Putin stooges, like the coward Joe Rogan, seem to forget that the Ukrainians voted for Zelensky and for closer ties with the EU in a legitimate sovereign act of self determination, it was at relative peace after years of turmoil and Russia attacked it in an act of war.
Not for the first time either.
And the West, including most notably the US and UK, agreed to go to their aid in the event they were attacked as part of the arrangement to remove the nukes under the Budapest Memorandum, in which Russia also gave assurances to respect Ukrainian sovereignty. Russia lied.

Putin is the aggressor, Do you just roll over to aggressors now because they were stupid enough to fire a ballistic weapon? But not stupid enough to fire it without notifying the US because had they not done so Moscow would be a cinder city. The M.A.D. doctrine still deters Russia. That hasn't and won't change.

Ukraine signed the Treaty for Non Proliferation as part of the deal to remove the nukes.
Ukraine was not a containment territory, it did not have nuclear weapons pointed at Russia, the "what if Cuba" argument is inapplicable.
There are good reasons why the West has sought to contain Russia, that are now self evident, but it wasn't doing it with Ukrainian territory. There were no nukes pointed at Moscow from Ukrainian soil.

Trump will/has already appointed a "tsar" to "solve" the war, while he goes golfing.
If the US just fold to Putin's wishes, then it only weakens American "greatness". the other NATO members will persevere.
There were reasons why the Rules Based Order came into being, an isolationist American President may seek to undermine it, (and the US support of Israeli genocide and war crimes in Gaza certainly has), but there are enough other countries in the free world that will continue to try to enforce it, and enough legal and political machinery that it will not disintegrate.
And NATO will keep going with or without the Americans
.
And for those asking what would the US do if BRICS missiles were put in Cuba or Venezuela, take it a step further, what do you think the US would do if they were attacked without provocation by another state like Ukraine was, do you think they would just lie down and take it like you expect Ukraine to?
No.
Just like Ukraine they would fight, and keep fighting until victory or defeat, until the invaders left US soil. Do you think they would listen to EU nations, or European podcasters, telling them to give up and give in to a bully?
No fucking way.
Is the world now just going to let nuclear armed states do what they want because they threaten using nuclear weapons?
M.A.D. still applies. Still a deterrent. Putin isn't going to nuke anyone, just bully them, and sabre rattle.
Because the truth is he fucked it up, he's so isolated and has his generals living in such fear of him he's getting misinformation and making grave miscalculations, like "we can take Ukraine in a week".
Hitler did the same thing. Particularly in Russia coincidentally.
The minute he puts North Korean or Houthi or whatever other nations fighters on the ground in Ukraine and not defending Russian soil like they are currently, NATO has legal justification to deploy troops into Ukraine, and they are ready to do so with or without the Americans.

Trump can boast he can fix it all he likes, but unless the US backs Zelensky in, it's the US that will come out the loser, as well as Ukraine, American hegemony will be in the shitter, no good for them, no good for anyone. But one good thing Trump may have done, he woke up the other NATO states, and they won't be surrendering anything to Putin if they can help it.
No one wants war, but some are worth the fight.

Well then by the sounds of that , WW3 is inevitable. Everyone says they don’t want it but who’s going to back down ?

adam12 wrote:

flollo wrote:

It's unbelivable how one sided some of this discussion is. Ukraine was in active talks with the EU to sign the Association Agreement in the early 2010s. An agreement which would serve as basis for potential membership in the EU. According to the polls, Ukraine's citizens supported joining the EU. But then Yanukovych, under an immense pressure and bribery from Russia, does 180 in 2013. He signs a deal with Russia and snubs the EU. What else would you expect from his corrupted system. EU comes with certain level of oversight while Russia doesn't give a shit.

People revolt but Yanukovych basically pushes legislation banning public protest. Over the next few months hundreds are dead and thousands left traumatised as protestation never stopped. And some in here are supportive of this? All these commentators conveniently point straight to 2014 and say - CIA initiated! Was it? I don't think so. Where they there in some capacity? I would say yes but so were the Russians.

Meanwhile, nearby Poland is pushing their GDP towards $1 trillion. Nearly x 5 per capita when compared to Ukraine. How different would Ukraine be if it joined the EU? But why would Russia allow that, better leave it poor and corrupted. And unfortunately, half of people in the West are supportive of this nonsense.

Great post @flollo,
Not surprised an actual Eastern European such as yourself whose own homeland went through war recently has the right perspective on Ukraine.
There was also the dioxin poisoning of President Yushchenko back in 2004 by the Russians during the election, Putin has been actively undermining them for a long time.

All these "what are the West doing there" Putin stooges, like the coward Joe Rogan, seem to forget that the Ukrainians voted for Zelensky and for closer ties with the EU in a legitimate sovereign act of self determination, it was at relative peace after years of turmoil and Russia attacked it in an act of war.
Not for the first time either.
And the West, including most notably the US and UK, agreed to go to their aid in the event they were attacked as part of the arrangement to remove the nukes under the Budapest Memorandum, in which Russia also gave assurances to respect Ukrainian sovereignty. Russia lied.

Putin is the aggressor, Do you just roll over to aggressors now because they were stupid enough to fire a ballistic weapon? But not stupid enough to fire it without notifying the US because had they not done so Moscow would be a cinder city. The M.A.D. doctrine still deters Russia. That hasn't and won't change.

Ukraine signed the Treaty for Non Proliferation as part of the deal to remove the nukes.
Ukraine was not a containment territory, it did not have nuclear weapons pointed at Russia, the "what if Cuba" argument is inapplicable.
There are good reasons why the West has sought to contain Russia, that are now self evident, but it wasn't doing it with Ukrainian territory. There were no nukes pointed at Moscow from Ukrainian soil.

Trump will/has already appointed a "tsar" to "solve" the war, while he goes golfing.
If the US just fold to Putin's wishes, then it only weakens American "greatness". the other NATO members will persevere.
There were reasons why the Rules Based Order came into being, an isolationist American President may seek to undermine it, (and the US support of Israeli genocide and war crimes in Gaza certainly has), but there are enough other countries in the free world that will continue to try to enforce it, and enough legal and political machinery that it will not disintegrate.
And NATO will keep going with or without the Americans
.
And for those asking what would the US do if BRICS missiles were put in Cuba or Venezuela, take it a step further, what do you think the US would do if they were attacked without provocation by another state like Ukraine was, do you think they would just lie down and take it like you expect Ukraine to?
No.
Just like Ukraine they would fight, and keep fighting until victory or defeat, until the invaders left US soil. Do you think they would listen to EU nations, or European podcasters, telling them to give up and give in to a bully?
No fucking way.
Is the world now just going to let nuclear armed states do what they want because they threaten using nuclear weapons?
M.A.D. still applies. Still a deterrent. Putin isn't going to nuke anyone, just bully them, and sabre rattle.
Because the truth is he fucked it up, he's so isolated and has his generals living in such fear of him he's getting misinformation and making grave miscalculations, like "we can take Ukraine in a week".
Hitler did the same thing. Particularly in Russia coincidentally.
The minute he puts North Korean or Houthi or whatever other nations fighters on the ground in Ukraine and not defending Russian soil like they are currently, NATO has legal justification to deploy troops into Ukraine, and they are ready to do so with or without the Americans.

Trump can boast he can fix it all he likes, but unless the US backs Zelensky in, it's the US that will come out the loser, as well as Ukraine, American hegemony will be in the shitter, no good for them, no good for anyone. But one good thing Trump may have done, he woke up the other NATO states, and they won't be surrendering anything to Putin if they can help it.
No one wants war, but some are worth the fight.

Reckon reality is somewhere in the middle.

It does seem however Ukraine have lost this one...

Wasted lives that could have been avoided back in 2022 when there was agreement that was scuttled by Boris.
Or is that just conspiracy talk?
I don't know but reckon Professor Sachs does.

And this :/

Anyone with military knowledge?
True or hyperbole?
He is ex CIA but does he have agenda?

https://m.

adam12 wrote:

flollo wrote:

It's unbelivable how one sided some of this discussion is. Ukraine was in active talks with the EU to sign the Association Agreement in the early 2010s. An agreement which would serve as basis for potential membership in the EU. According to the polls, Ukraine's citizens supported joining the EU. But then Yanukovych, under an immense pressure and bribery from Russia, does 180 in 2013. He signs a deal with Russia and snubs the EU. What else would you expect from his corrupted system. EU comes with certain level of oversight while Russia doesn't give a shit.

People revolt but Yanukovych basically pushes legislation banning public protest. Over the next few months hundreds are dead and thousands left traumatised as protestation never stopped. And some in here are supportive of this? All these commentators conveniently point straight to 2014 and say - CIA initiated! Was it? I don't think so. Where they there in some capacity? I would say yes but so were the Russians.

Meanwhile, nearby Poland is pushing their GDP towards $1 trillion. Nearly x 5 per capita when compared to Ukraine. How different would Ukraine be if it joined the EU? But why would Russia allow that, better leave it poor and corrupted. And unfortunately, half of people in the West are supportive of this nonsense.

Great post @flollo,
Not surprised an actual Eastern European such as yourself whose own homeland went through war recently has the right perspective on Ukraine.
There was also the dioxin poisoning of President Yushchenko back in 2004 by the Russians during the election, Putin has been actively undermining them for a long time.

All these "what are the West doing there" Putin stooges, like the coward Joe Rogan, seem to forget that the Ukrainians voted for Zelensky and for closer ties with the EU in a legitimate sovereign act of self determination, it was at relative peace after years of turmoil and Russia attacked it in an act of war.
Not for the first time either.
And the West, including most notably the US and UK, agreed to go to their aid in the event they were attacked as part of the arrangement to remove the nukes under the Budapest Memorandum, in which Russia also gave assurances to respect Ukrainian sovereignty. Russia lied.

Putin is the aggressor, Do you just roll over to aggressors now because they were stupid enough to fire a ballistic weapon? But not stupid enough to fire it without notifying the US because had they not done so Moscow would be a cinder city. The M.A.D. doctrine still deters Russia. That hasn't and won't change.

Ukraine signed the Treaty for Non Proliferation as part of the deal to remove the nukes.
Ukraine was not a containment territory, it did not have nuclear weapons pointed at Russia, the "what if Cuba" argument is inapplicable.
There are good reasons why the West has sought to contain Russia, that are now self evident, but it wasn't doing it with Ukrainian territory. There were no nukes pointed at Moscow from Ukrainian soil.

Trump will/has already appointed a "tsar" to "solve" the war, while he goes golfing.
If the US just fold to Putin's wishes, then it only weakens American "greatness". the other NATO members will persevere.
There were reasons why the Rules Based Order came into being, an isolationist American President may seek to undermine it, (and the US support of Israeli genocide and war crimes in Gaza certainly has), but there are enough other countries in the free world that will continue to try to enforce it, and enough legal and political machinery that it will not disintegrate.
And NATO will keep going with or without the Americans
.
And for those asking what would the US do if BRICS missiles were put in Cuba or Venezuela, take it a step further, what do you think the US would do if they were attacked without provocation by another state like Ukraine was, do you think they would just lie down and take it like you expect Ukraine to?
No.
Just like Ukraine they would fight, and keep fighting until victory or defeat, until the invaders left US soil. Do you think they would listen to EU nations, or European podcasters, telling them to give up and give in to a bully?
No fucking way.
Is the world now just going to let nuclear armed states do what they want because they threaten using nuclear weapons?
M.A.D. still applies. Still a deterrent. Putin isn't going to nuke anyone, just bully them, and sabre rattle.
Because the truth is he fucked it up, he's so isolated and has his generals living in such fear of him he's getting misinformation and making grave miscalculations, like "we can take Ukraine in a week".
Hitler did the same thing. Particularly in Russia coincidentally.
The minute he puts North Korean or Houthi or whatever other nations fighters on the ground in Ukraine and not defending Russian soil like they are currently, NATO has legal justification to deploy troops into Ukraine, and they are ready to do so with or without the Americans.

Trump can boast he can fix it all he likes, but unless the US backs Zelensky in, it's the US that will come out the loser, as well as Ukraine, American hegemony will be in the shitter, no good for them, no good for anyone. But one good thing Trump may have done, he woke up the other NATO states, and they won't be surrendering anything to Putin if they can help it.
No one wants war, but some are worth the fight.

Flollo & Adam12. Brilliant stuff boys. I enjoyed what you both wrote.

Putin is a President of the ‘Crash Test Dummy’ type.

You’ve both articulated a very concise, simplistic,succinct and accurate understanding of what the situation is really like.
It’s not panic stations , it’s thought gathering for the next phase, for all the peace-wanting nations and hopefully a peaceful outcome is reached. Good stuff by our ‘in house’ foreign correspondents. AW

And @ flollo

Sorry if any of my comments have upset you as you are more involved than some Australian bloke tapping on keyboard.

Maybe coming a bit from biased view as do have a little knowledge from my studies of USA/CIA meddling in other countries, primarily Indonesia in the lead up to the communist purge in 65.

You bastards do realise this thread has now got @indodreamin committed to hundreds of hours of podcasts to get up to speed on this issue!??
btw good read. Good posts @a12 and @flollo..

@Adam12 & @flollo , am I right in assuming that you believe Sachs statements and take on history are false ? I wouldn’t know so I’m genuinely asking . He comes across as a rational guy .

@Supa,
to be honest, haven't watched the Sachs vid., I'll try to later and tell you what I think, but I did read Quadz reply above and do agree with that.
This war probably has a number of "causes", historic and other, but I agree with Quadz, it is all about Putin's warped view of history and desire to restore the former USSR territories.

@Southern,
How you going bud? that post got a laugh out of me. Hope you are well.

@andy mac,
I read the reflexive control stuff you, or was it @etarip posted, and some of the references in the wiki page, I've read about it before, and read "The Art of War", and I agree both the US and the Russians have played some nasty games in other sovereign nations over many years and quite a few wars. neither are innocent.
Not just SE Asia, your area of expertise, all over.
The Pentagon and the CIA are masters of it, not just the Ruskies.
And the Russians seem to be playing some Sun Tsu games pretty well with the Americans, particularly Trump and the GOP. Never seen more Russian interference in US politics and public opinion since Trump Jnr. met with the Russians during the first Trump transition.
The number of podcasters, broadcasters and politicians that appear compromised, or evidence has proven them to be so, is quite alarming.
But I also think Russia is not as strong as they think or try to project. As Quad was pointing out.
Ukraine hasn't lost yet IMO. And the war and sanctions are sending the Russians broke, and I doubt Xi is happy, about the ballistic missile or Putin using North Korean troops.

And Ukraine have torn to shreds the myth of the invincible Red Army, made fools of them and Putin.
I wouldn't underestimate Ukraine or the fighting spirit of the Ukrainian people. Toughest MF's in Europe.
They are retreating, perhaps.
Perhaps Zelensky has a good understanding of Sun Tsu and reflexive control as well.
I've read talk about another offensive incursion into Russia on another part of the border, that they are planning to take more Russian soil elsewhere.

And although I think he is an absolute lunatic, I recently saw a video of Seb Gorka, Trump's new counter terrorism chief (FMD !), who said Trump is going to give Putin the option of an honorable withdrawl, perhaps some territory, or else he will flood Ukraine with weapons and defensive capability in such a volume it will overwhelm them.
Whether the Ukrainians have enough bodies on the ground left to carry it out is another matter.
And I haven't heard anything like that from Trump.

My read of Trump is that he will instead tell Zelensky to give in, and give up EU membership, or he will withdraw US support. I think Trump is a Russian asset. I think the reflexive control is aimed at and through him. I hope I'm wrong.
But if the US do go all in behind Zelensky and are prepared to take the gloves off, something Biden wasn't prepared to do until recently, (which I also think marks a reassessment of Putin and his capabilities by the Americans), I still think the Ukrainians can "win", whatever that looks like.
And I don't believe the other states in NATO are prepared to let an aggressive Russia occupy a state on it's borders. Like I said in my post above, if the Americans pull support, the other NATO countries will step in and step up, bitter experience with invading dictators and proximity will see to that.

Going to be an interesting few months coming up.

@quadzilla , Ok so the blame for this war lays solely with Putin, is that what you’re saying ? Reading about Sachs history it seems kinda strange that he’s taking this position .

Supafreak wrote:

@Adam12 & @flollo , am I right in assuming that you believe Sachs statements and take on history are false ? I wouldn’t know so I’m genuinely asking . He comes across as a rational guy .

Not the only professor stating the same reasons....

https://m.

adam12 wrote:

@andy mac,
I read the reflexive control stuff you, or was it @etarip posted, and some of the references in the wiki page, I've read about it before, and read "The Art of War", and I agree both the US and the Russians have played some nasty games in other sovereign nations over many years and quite a few wars. neither are innocent.
Not just SE Asia, your area of expertise, all over.
The Pentagon and the CIA are masters of it, not just the Ruskies.
And the Russians seem to be playing some Sun Tsu games pretty well with the Americans, particularly Trump and the GOP. Never seen more Russian interference in US politics and public opinion since Trump Jnr. met with the Russians during the first Trump transition.
The number of podcasters, broadcasters and politicians that appear compromised, or evidence has proven them to be so, is quite alarming.
But I also think Russia is not as strong as they think or try to project. As Quad was pointing out.
Ukraine hasn't lost yet IMO. And the war and sanctions are sending the Russians broke, and I doubt Xi is happy, about the ballistic missile or Putin using North Korean troops.

And Ukraine have torn to shreds the myth of the invincible Red Army, made fools of them and Putin.
I wouldn't underestimate Ukraine or the fighting spirit of the Ukrainian people. Toughest MF's in Europe.
They are retreating, perhaps.
Perhaps Zelensky has a good understanding of Sun Tsu and reflexive control as well.
I've read talk about another offensive incursion into Russia on another part of the border, that they are planning to take more Russian soil elsewhere.

And although I think he is an absolute lunatic, I recently saw a video of Seb Gorka, Trump's new counter terrorism chief (FMD !), who said Trump is going to give Putin the option of an honorable withdrawl, perhaps some territory, or else he will flood Ukraine with weapons and defensive capability in such a volume it will overwhelm them.
Whether the Ukrainians have enough bodies on the ground left to carry it out is another matter.
And I haven't heard anything like that from Trump.

My read of Trump is that he will instead tell Zelensky to give in, and give up EU membership, or he will withdraw US support. I think Trump is a Russian asset. I think the reflexive control is aimed at and through him. I hope I'm wrong.
But if the US do go all in behind Zelensky and are prepared to take the gloves off, something Biden wasn't prepared to do until recently, (which I also think marks a reassessment of Putin and his capabilities by the Americans), I still think the Ukrainians can "win", whatever that looks like.
And I don't believe the other states in NATO are prepared to let an aggressive Russia occupy a state on it's borders. Like I said in my post above, if the Americans pull support, the other NATO countries will step in and step up, bitter experience with invading dictators and proximity will see to that.

Going to be an interesting few months coming up.

The most important thing here in my view is ending the conflict. This means NATO/USA backing off and negotiating, not upping the escalation as they have after Trump won the presidency.

If they keep it up I believe there is a very real risk of the spiralling out of control with full scale war, likely nuclear.
Latest weapon Russia used looks like game changer , but who know if it's propaganda, if not wonder which NATO base will be taken out first?
Beside the point really as Putin has stated he is prepared to use nuclear weapons if pushed.

Do u think he is bluffing?
If not is the war in Ukraine worth risking life on this planet as we know it?
Realpolitik says no it's not worth it.

Do not agree with your assessment of Russian agents in USA, more that people are aware of neo con agenda and can see the hypocrisy....

My 2 cents.

Edit: but very much appreciate and will take your views into consideration.
You're robably the most skilful and convincing scribe on this platform.

It’s David ‘Sacks’ btw. Not ‘Sachs’

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/musk-sacks-ignorant-isolationism-ukraine

adam12 wrote:

@andy mac,
I read the reflexive control stuff you, or was it @etarip posted, and some of the references in the wiki page, I've read about it before, and read "The Art of War", and I agree both the US and the Russians have played some nasty games in other sovereign nations over many years and quite a few wars. neither are innocent.
Not just SE Asia, your area of expertise, all over.
The Pentagon and the CIA are masters of it, not just the Ruskies.
And the Russians seem to be playing some Sun Tsu games pretty well with the Americans, particularly Trump and the GOP. Never seen more Russian interference in US politics and public opinion since Trump Jnr. met with the Russians during the first Trump transition.
The number of podcasters, broadcasters and politicians that appear compromised, or evidence has proven them to be so, is quite alarming.
But I also think Russia is not as strong as they think or try to project. As Quad was pointing out.
Ukraine hasn't lost yet IMO. And the war and sanctions are sending the Russians broke, and I doubt Xi is happy, about the ballistic missile or Putin using North Korean troops.

And Ukraine have torn to shreds the myth of the invincible Red Army, made fools of them and Putin.
I wouldn't underestimate Ukraine or the fighting spirit of the Ukrainian people. Toughest MF's in Europe.
They are retreating, perhaps.
Perhaps Zelensky has a good understanding of Sun Tsu and reflexive control as well.
I've read talk about another offensive incursion into Russia on another part of the border, that they are planning to take more Russian soil elsewhere.

And although I think he is an absolute lunatic, I recently saw a video of Seb Gorka, Trump's new counter terrorism chief (FMD !), who said Trump is going to give Putin the option of an honorable withdrawl, perhaps some territory, or else he will flood Ukraine with weapons and defensive capability in such a volume it will overwhelm them.
Whether the Ukrainians have enough bodies on the ground left to carry it out is another matter.
And I haven't heard anything like that from Trump.

My read of Trump is that he will instead tell Zelensky to give in, and give up EU membership, or he will withdraw US support. I think Trump is a Russian asset. I think the reflexive control is aimed at and through him. I hope I'm wrong.
But if the US do go all in behind Zelensky and are prepared to take the gloves off, something Biden wasn't prepared to do until recently, (which I also think marks a reassessment of Putin and his capabilities by the Americans), I still think the Ukrainians can "win", whatever that looks like.
And I don't believe the other states in NATO are prepared to let an aggressive Russia occupy a state on it's borders. Like I said in my post above, if the Americans pull support, the other NATO countries will step in and step up, bitter experience with invading dictators and proximity will see to that.

Going to be an interesting few months coming up.

Was @etarip reflexive control...

Perspectives and opinions like Sacks’ are valid. Worth listening to. But I think they’re fatally flawed as they largely misrepresent a number of issues, such as NATO accession processes, and this misrepresentation is followed by significant mischaracterisation of key concepts - deterrence policies, escalation theory, and the like. They also limit agency of Ukraine, apportion monolithic powers to the US and ‘NATO’, and largely ignore Russia’s own history, public statements and actions.

I think that Russia fears two things; and neither of them are NATO military deployments or ‘western missiles’. It’s Ukrainian integration into the EU, and a successful Ukrainian democracy. Both of those are intertwined and a successful, legitimately Western-facing Ukraine on Russia’s doorstep represent a challenge to Putin. And I think, by extension to Xi.

Why do some American billionaires not want a successful Ukraine in the EU? I think the dots connect themselves.

etarip wrote:

It’s David ‘Sacks’ btw. Not ‘Sachs’

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/musk-sacks-ignorant-isolationism-ukraine

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs

etarip wrote:

It’s David ‘Sacks’ btw. Not ‘Sachs’

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/musk-sacks-ignorant-isolationism-ukraine

Jeffery Sachs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs

If you’ve got time, this guy is worth a listen. UK academic and writer and former Foreign Office staffer in Moscow. Mark Galleoti

Russian strategic culture:
https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/in-moscows-shadows/id1510124746?i=...

Assessment of ‘changes to Russian nuclear doctrine’
https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/in-moscows-shadows/id1510124746?i=...

Why do people believe Putin:
https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/in-moscows-shadows/id1510124746?i=...

etarip wrote:

If you’ve got time, this guy is worth a listen. UK academic and writer and former Foreign Office staffer in Moscow. Mark Galleoti

Russian strategic culture:
https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/in-moscows-shadows/id1510124746?i=...

Assessment of ‘changes to Russian nuclear doctrine’
https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/in-moscows-shadows/id1510124746?i=...

Why do people believe Putin:
https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/in-moscows-shadows/id1510124746?i=...

Cheers,

I'm done for tonight, but will check out tomorrow.

Supafreak wrote:

etarip wrote:

It’s David ‘Sacks’ btw. Not ‘Sachs’

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/musk-sacks-ignorant-isolationism-ukraine

Jeffery Sachs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs

Ah, my bad. Thanks for the prompt.
Different Ukraine war critic… this one:

“In 2022, Sachs appeared several times on one of the top-rated shows funded by the Russian government, hosted by Vladimir Solovyov, to call for Ukraine to negotiate and step away from its "maximalist demands" of removing Russia from Ukrainian territory.”

Seems like a funny place to go to convince Ukrainians to do something, no?

@andy-mac,
I do think Putin is bluffing on the nukes.
But I wouldn't want to risk the planet's future on my uneducated guesswork.
I think he must be taken at his word and taken seriously. Very seriously.
And would I sacrifice Ukraine to save the world from Armageddon?, fkn oath, no question.
But I'm not a Ukrainian.
And I don't think it will come to that.
Maybe the question is would Putin risk it to control Ukraine, or to realise his ambitions?
I don't think he would, which is why I think it's a bluff.
He has a history of grandiose bluffs.
But it's a fkn deadly game and some stone cold questions being asked.
I also think that if Putin himself were taken out, there would be no more war in Ukraine or any risk to NATO.
America is a flawed power, has been as much a blight on humanity as it has been a help. It does not come to this party with clean hands that's for sure.
But Vladimir is the real problem here.
Not just for the world, but his own people. I think given the chance it would be his own that would prefer to see him gone more than even the West. That's why he's the most isolated and protected leader in the world. That's why those desks he meets his generals at are so long.

And thanks for that compliment but I'd defer to @etarip, I think he has a much more detailed grasp on these things than me, as I think you do.
I'm just pontificating based on pretty general knowledge.
I'm usually wrong more than right.
And thanks for those references @etarip, I'll check them out.
(Probably shouldn't have clicked on this thread, so much homework!)

And this is the man surnamed Sachs I'd prefer to watch...

Aww, shucks a12. Thanks for the compliment. But, like you said - there’s always plenty to learn on these forums, and I’m learning from almost everyone’s posts.

I’ve posted this before in a different thread:
https://warontherocks.com/2022/09/escalation-management-and-nuclear-empl...

Also, I’d like to clarify something: the ATACMS missiles that the US has authorised Ukraine to use to strike military targets in Russia are not ‘long-range’ in any military context. About 300km. Tactical weapons. They’re able to hit command, logistics and airbase facilities that Russia has positioned near the front. Nor do they have payloads that are any different to what Ukraine already has. They’re harder to intercept than Ukraine’s current drones (which have been hitting targets like oil refineries much deeper inside Russia for months…) It just makes Russia’s task of defending against them much much harder. One of the objectives for Ukraine is likely to force Russia to disperse its more advanced air defence systems away from the front, or centralise their logistics into fewer locations.
There’s no game-changing wonder weapons on either side though.
While the policy restraint has been eased, the US will continue to limit Ukrainian actions through a different lever - probably supply in this case. I think you’ll see Ukraine only use them against military targets - and continue to use their own domestically produced drones and missiles for infrastructure (oil and electricity) target in Russia.
It’s not worth hyper-ventilating about a 300km missile. Just like HIMARS, Abrahms tanks, F16s, Storm Shadow cruise missiles. None of them caused WW3, despite the threats. The Ukrainian offensive into Kursk didn’t either. And they’re still there.

Sorry for the nerdiness…

This is a few months old . If you have a spare hour it’s worth watching . Ukraine , Russia, India, China and the ME are discussed and the meaning of the deep state is explained . Sachs doesn’t have anything nice to say about American foreign policy . A good discussion in that they respectfully disagree and give their reasons .

@etarip,
not nerdy at all, very informative.
Just read the warontherocks research you posted, great stuff, it appears the Russians have been putting a lot more work in than the Americans on escalation management, and they do seem to have lowered their threshold for nuclear weapon use, which is very concerning.
I don't believe in the 'escalate to de escalate' approach they developed, how to control that may sound great in theory but in reality they are taking huge risks, but maybe we are getting some of that thinking tested in real time with the ballistic strike on Ukraine, there haven't been any storm shadows or US missiles fired since, but I found this paragraph telling,

"However, Russia’s strategy of deterrence by fear-inducement when under military threat makes heavy use of nuclear signaling, which serves to create the impression that the country is far looser with its thinking on nuclear use than is actually the case."

Like my gut feeling tells me, there's a lot of bluff in their posturing.
But also a lot of danger.
I would have liked the authors to delve more into the current theories at the Pentagon on managing escalation, they seemed to gloss over or under rate it. I wonder where they are actually at.
I also wonder at what Trump would do if the Russians took the next step and launched an actual nuke as part of a "escalate/de escalate" or deterrent strategy.
Neither these men, Putin or Trump fill me with any confidence, the world is in the hands of unstable madmen, each mad in their own way.
Dr. Strangelove was always my all time favorite movie, and the mad general scenario also chills me.
Or just a fkn innocent mistake. I read a while ago that the closest Earth has come to nuclear war was actually when a bolt fell into one of the silos, don't know how true that was.
Escalate to de escalate?
Managing nuclear escalation?
Fuck we live in dangerous times.

We do indeed a12.

This is a reasonable take on US escalation management under Biden.
https://tnsr.org/2023/06/escalation-management-in-ukraine-learning-by-do...

I’m with you - Part of the reason I was / am very cautious about Trump (apart from his manifold human failings) is his well-documented impulsiveness, lack of respect for advice and unwillingness to read into issues. This has serious risks.
I also think that the US is more likely to undertake direct military action against Iran under Trump. There’s plenty of hawks in his team - they’re just more anti-China and Iran than anti-Russia.

If I had to guess why, in a long arc, why there would be a developing camp stumping for a significant re-alignment of US interests with Russia (long-term), it would be as a counter to China. To split the axis. Give up Ukraine and reduce Russia’s dependency on China.
Because Russia and China aren’t friends. Really. They cooperate. But they’re both distrustful.
I think US bets on India being a strategic counterweight to China have been overstated.
China and Russia cooperating (actually, Russia becoming a vassal of China is a better description) is a terrible outcome for the US / West.

Anyway, that’s something that’s been bubbling away in my mind as to why there is vocal, but small, group in US foreign policy circles who are pro-Russia. I don’t think Trump has that much of a nuanced view on it.