If you want to talk about that letter, do address what is actually said in the letter, rather than other stuff that has nothing to see with it. — Olivier5

I've made it pretty clear that I don't like authoritatianism ... but, precisely due to the nature of authoritarianism that I don't like, we have very little influence over the Kremlin and Putin.

Not only do we have far more influence in more democratic countries, but, on top of that practical fact, I, personally, feel morally responsible to contribute to the policies of my own country and my country's own political organisations like the EU, than personally morally responsible for what Russians and Putin does.

If I thought life in Russia was great, I'd move there.

The West could let Ukraine into the EU tonight.

NATO could let Ukraine into NATO tonight.

These options have been ruled out, and so the choice is between diplomacy and ... maybe just letting Russia win through force if nothing short of boots on the ground and planes in the sky actually makes a difference to the outcome.

If diplomacy is the better choice, then diplomacy starts with understanding the counter-parties point of view and not just ignoring their grievances and calling them names and exaggerating their power and threat to us, while simultaneously exaggerating their mistakes and short comings.

As I've mentioned repeatedly in my exchange with @ssu, maybe the Russian lines and state will collapse tomorrow, and, if the Western media and everyone on the forum was just predicting Russia's inevitable victory, then I'd be here arguing that (even though I can't see it based on my own military experience) that "maybe" Ukraine has some military surprise and maybe things just fall apart militarily and domestically for the Russians.

We don't know. Therefore, different points of view are more useful, from my point of view, than the point of view that other points of view should be excluded because they maybe correct and pointing that out makes that view point even more likely than it already is.

We do not know the facts on the grounds, but if we want some diplomatic process then we need a sober analysis of what information we do have and what it may represent and how other people may see the same information, in particular the people we wish to negotiate with.

A month ago we were essentially promised the collapse of the Russian military, due to morale problems, and revolution in the streets of Moscow. So why negotiate with a state that will be gone tomorrow? Unless, you know, that was bullshit to egg Ukraine on into total war.

Negotiation requires risk evaluation. The Western media simply bad mouthing Russia for a month and continuously lambasting Russia for failure as they take territory ... is not, in my view, a good risk-analysis framework, and likewise essentially excluding all other points of views but just parading yes-men retired generals (who have no more facts than us!) is not a basis for critical scrutiny to assess the likelihood of what they predict.

Additionally, negotiation requires some rational model of the counter-parties decision making, otherwise it's impossible to make offers and counter offers that are likely to arrive at an agreement.

Modest reasons for optimism. Russian minister of offence has promised to decrease military activity as a gesture of good faith resulting from the discussions in Istanbul today. Let's hope they keep their word and peace talks are indeed constructive. — Benkei

Agreed.

This may also be a sign of calling out the West and Zelenskyy on the referendum idea.

If there is a referendum on Russia's demands ... and wins ... that does indeed settle the issue for basically ever.

Likewise, how does that jive with the "Russia is anti-democratic" narrative if they call for and "respect" a referendum result?

If they pull back from Kiev, and fronts stabilise, then they are now in the position of making their offer and just publicly demanding Zelenskyy hold a referendum as he said he would. Cue fireworks.

The destruction of Azov in Mariupol may also embolden anti-Azov sections of Ukrainian society.

It should also be noted that although Zelenskyy down plays Azov, it's not the case that they're best friends. There's a bunch of stories / rumours of Zelenskyy trying to reason with the Azov guys to stop the 8 year war in the East. So, not actually liking Azov is maybe some common ground between Zelenskyy's personal beliefs and the Russians, and if a lot of the Azov guys are dead, that may bring some stability to the situation as well.

But, I hope for any resolution of the destruction, however it is achieved.

Conditions do seem being put in place for a resolution, but of course it's never possible to know who is being genuine or if events (accidental or not) set escalation off again.

The letter is not mine. — Olivier5

I literally mention the author by name in my response.

However, if it's not views you agree with, then you should make that clear, that, for example, you disagree on Putin's ability to subjugate Russians all that much, as the Kremlin, military and intelligence organs of the Russian state are incompetent.

He is predicting much sufferings for Russians if they don't get rid of Mr Putin now. — Olivier5

Ok, so let's go along with this new assumption that your main concern, or at least a big concern, is the welfare of the Russian people.

Well, what can we do about it?

Won't filling Ukraine with hand held missiles just anger Putin more, and he'll then takeout that anger on Russian's contribute to more Russian suffering, not to mention the Russians blown up by said missiles?

In particular, if those hand held missiles can't beat Russia ... what reason would there be to send those weapons systems into Ukraine if it only causes Russian suffering with zero benefits to Ukrainians?

Since we've started making predictions, let us hear what Jonathan Littell predicts... It's harsh. — Olivier5

... Two years ago I wouldn't say is "starting" to do something now.

But I don't see what Jonathan Littell is actually predicting ... and you can't have it both ways, arguing that Russia has made an incompetent fool of themselves militarily and Ukraine is winning, and then the next moment argue Russia is an unstoppable juggernaught that's going to roll through all of NATO and Putin will rule us all and so we must act out of self preservation.

With a little 'if NATO made a no-fly zone, like Zalenskyy asks!, could easily dispatch with these low-moral, badly trained, terrible logistics, rubbish tank, Russians; no match for NATO!' sprinkled in here and there.

If Russian military is totally incompetent and the campaign is a disaster, I certainly have nothing to fear, personally, that Putin will "come looking for me", whether Putin eventually prevails against the Ukrainians or not.

You're a bit late to predicting this future. My wife has been warning us all of the same things for three decades. — Olivier5

Then why are you talking instead of your wife?

Someone who is able to say:

14. Service economies will collapse as credit dries up. Manufacturing will radically simplify, but countries with modest manufacturing capacity will be forced to protect their manufacturing due to over-capacity of larger manufacturing centers trying to shift production to "anything and everything that is still being bought somewhere"; the interdependence of manufacturing economies will make such policy shifts acrimonious and volatile.

15. Bottom line: isolationism as we saw in the great depression is now unavoidable, with all tools in the policy shed hemmed in and blunted by inflation.

16. World War would be great to just nationalize whole manufacturing bases and get people jobs in the business of killing people and use the nationalist furor to crush socialist agitation that's trying to help the poor, but nuclear weapons render this no longer "the go to" easy solution for capitalism's woes. It will still be tried, of course, using conflicts to get people focused on something else, but with unknown efficacy / survival of the human species. — boethius

Connected to a wider body of analysis.

Two years ago—before massive bailouts, bone throwing, and the predicted inflation when bailout money "returns"—before any of that even happened.

Does not have "opinions".

Such a person literally sees into the future.

I'm not trying to prove anything. You are. You are peddling the message that they know what they are doing. I just think they don't. — Olivier5

Sure, unsupported opinion noted

"How about becoming a neutral henhouse?" — Olivier5

The problem in your picture there, is that the bear can do and say what it wants in that scenario.

Nothing looks reasonable here, on the Russian side. It's all about war crimes, power trips, incompetence, and keeping a zombified political system alive. You are looking way too hard for rationality where it may not exist. — Olivier5

If you bother to go and understand anything about geopolitics before weighing in on a geo-political issue, then you may start to see there could be reasons for the actions of powerful institutions. Doesn't mean there aren't risks, but proving someone, much less an entire institution, is "irrational" is a large hurdle and can only be proven by disproving all rational models that could resolve apparent contradictions, not only in what someone or some institution says, but more importantly in their genuine belief (which they may not report accurately for our analytical convenience).

Only the West (basically US, EU, Australia and Canada) have imposed sanctions on Russia. Obviously China hasn't, but neither India.

The geopolitical outcome of this war is cleaving off the developing world from the western dominated system.

Only Westerners view this war as "the small, brave and intrepid Ukraine under their own steam, fighting off the haughty Russian Army".

Everyone else views this war as Russia against the West, against NATO.

A large part of the rest of the world perceives the West as the bully, and Russia is now making a stand against that bully.

It's a risk, but if Russia survives politically and economically, Putin remains in power and Russia reorients its economy and just sells its resources to China and India and other developing nations. What's going to happen?

Total collapse of the US as a super power.

US is not a military empire, it is a financial empire. US military roll in the American Empire is that it's strong enough to topple nearly any medium sized government at will. Libya talks of an African bank and gold backed African monetary policy: Libya is now a failed state.

However, this is a wack-a-mole endeavour. If Africans did just come together to shirk off neo-colonialism, then the US cannot actually go and conquer all of Africa.

So, what is Russia doing really?

It's demonstrating the US financial, covert and military threats can be beaten. It's proving to the non-Western world that there's a economic and political system that now exists that the US can't just topple over into a failed state at will.

For all governments of the world that do not perceive themselves as benefiting from the Western system, but paying tribute instead, Russia is currently demonstrating an alternative.

For example, what does China actually get with its trade with the US? It gets US treasury bills.

There is simply a logical limit to how many US treasury bills China could possibly want.

Maybe China has simply had its fill of T-bills and now wants something else, real wealth, in exchange for what it offers. Russia is making that world come true.

What people fail to take into consideration is that the ex-Soviet intelligence types may have learned something from the collapse of the Soviet Union, and see the US as having the same weaknesses: too much internal dissatisfaction, too much debt, too much propaganda, and old decrepit elites that can't adapt.

Can we really say Russia is more corrupt when it used it's wealth to build up hundreds of billions of Euro and USD and tons of gold in reserve (public wealth) ... while the West transfers trillions of USD and Euros to the investor class as no-strings-attached "payment" for crashing the financial system due to "regulatory capture". Reward for destroying the credibility and stability of financial system upon which the West's power rested ... and crony capitalism writ large, banking and mega-corporation bailouts, is the direct cause of the current inflation and Wests' weakness?

The US imposed "collectivist" lockdowns for the "common good" ... and then evicted people from their homes on an industrial scale. That's really less corrupt?

More importantly, Mr Putin himself followed your advice. Ain't you proud? — Olivier5

Is it more important?

It takes two to tango my friend.

They are in damage control mode right now, saying they didn't really cared for Kiev now that they have been repelled from there, and after having sacrificed thousands of lives to try and get there... :smirk: — Olivier5

Again, every single Western analyst, generals and academics alike, told us the Russians have not amassed a force large enough to occupy and passify all of Ukraine and that Urban combat will be a massive cost to the Russian military.

At the time, both I and @Isaac, pointed out that maybe Russia knows that and their strategy is therefore not to occupy all of Ukraine, but just blowup a significant part of their military and take a land bridge to Crimea.

Also, Russia knows about the fanatical neo-Nazis and that the CIA has been training and equipping fanatical forces just as in Syria, why would the playbook change (which, however many they are, for sure will fight an insurrection) ... so, again, maybe they therefore never intended to occupy the entire country.

If Russia simply never intended to engage in intense Urban combat to take Kiev, then just going right up to Kiev and stopping there is a good strategy: keeps focus and resources on the capital and also has immense psychological affect on leadership.

Now, would they have rather Ukraine just capitulate? Obviously. But considering they only committed less than half their forces in the initial invasion ... it's reasonable to conclude that they had a plan B of "warfare" if the less-than-half force didn't provoke complete capitulation after starting a full scale invasion.

That was already a failure to start with: no clear goals, so you have soldiers asked to sacrifice their lives for... well... everything and nothing. — Olivier5

We don't know what they think.

They may know what they think and have very clear goals.

To achieve their goals, using warfare, may include deception to keep us guessing about what they are trying to do (so that our actions are counter productive).

If the Kremlin actually wants a Schism in the West, and all Western actions have so far simply consolidated the Kremlin's power within Russia as well as the international system, then ... our policies are helping the Kremlin achieve its goals, not dissuading them nor punishing them.

Already there is inflation (thanks to the insane monetary policies), and this will make it worse. — ssu

... I seem to remember discussing inflation and it's impact on the global system a couple of years ago.

Literally 2 years ago, 17, 03, 2020:

Now that the important philosophical subject of how trades are executed on stock exchanges has been investigated, I propose we move onto the general topic of corona virus and the stock market.

My understanding of the situation is as follows:

1. Corona is causing massive disruptions to most sectors of the economy: collapse of air travel and tourism for an unknown time, closing of local restaurant and entertainment and every other "in person" businesses for an extended period, many old people dying which will put more homes on the market, disruptions to supply chains due to manufacturing shutdowns in China, and long term psychological based changes in behaviour, damage to health systems (mainly skills dying or being so traumatized that they quit during or afterwards), and all related supply industries.

2. The positions taken by central banks to paper-over the 2009 "great recession" have not been unwound.

3. There are no more tools available (nor the prospect of until now "unthought of" tools) that can encourage traders to believe the free market will be stabilized by collectivists schemes of one form or another.

4. Therefore, any market actions by regulators of central banks will simply encourage people in the know to use those actions to get out even faster (not anticipate those actions will actually work and therefore stay in).

5. Large businesses will be bailed out anyways, even if long term structural changes to the economy mean there are no viable paths back to profitability.

6. Large sectors of the US economy, such as the fracking industry, have essentially never turned a profit and are faced with an economic down turn and a Russia and Saudi price reduction to force them into bankruptcy. Bailing the fracking industry out cannot even be imagined to make sense; they may actually be left hanging due to problems elsewhere being simply too great for friends to look after each other. (but this is an analytic side-quest to maximize one's schadenfreude at the expense of fracking executives and investors, and yes, a little bit at the expense of fracking workers too; but of course, doesn't help the financial system to have a giant rotten lemon on their desks as no one drinks rotten lemonade, except the fed of course)

7. Therefore, the central banks and regulators, by monetizing one way or another, trillions in losses will cash-up the investor class and be left holding what is technically referred to as "a big bag of dog shit".

8. This cash reentering the market when things are stabilized will cause massive inflation of whatever good assets remain.

9. There are no policy tools left (I am of aware of anyways) that could counter-act this inflation (US is already in trillion dollar deficit, 1.5 trillion "plausible deniability bailout" is already started in first week of this crisis and there will be much more, interest rates are zero or negative, the deficit will go even higher, and the fed will stop reporting on their financial alchemy projects).

10. We can reasonably conclude that inflation therefore will not be controlled (i.e. controlled less than the current policy mechanisms as well as just changing the definition of "what people need" on the fly).

11. International trade will start to collapse back to "real assets" (do you have something tangible I want, do I have something tangible that you want), rather than the previous regime of debt based trade (well, debts haven't been a problem before, therefore I will continue to pretend they will never be a problem in the future).

12. Referring back to tangible assets will be a radical simplification of the current trade system (not clear if there will be markets for most of the crap currently produced).

13. Regulators will realize at this point that there is no way to reboot the system without even more inflation since they just gave most of the money to the wealthy ... and have been doing so for the last decade already (and trickle down theories obviously make no sense, so the money will sit there but ready to pounce on any assets that do start to go up in price if the governments do try to bailout the poor through small "throw them a bone" inadequate measures, as horrifying as that sounds they will be forced to face their deepest fears of needing to throw those bones).

14. Service economies will collapse as credit dries up. Manufacturing will radically simplify, but countries with modest manufacturing capacity will be forced to protect their manufacturing due to over-capacity of larger manufacturing centers trying to shift production to "anything and everything that is still being bought somewhere"; the interdependence of manufacturing economies will make such policy shifts acrimonious and volatile.

15. Bottom line: isolationism as we saw in the great depression is now unavoidable, with all tools in the policy shed hemmed in and blunted by inflation.

16. World War would be great to just nationalize whole manufacturing bases and get people jobs in the business of killing people and use the nationalist furor to crush socialist agitation that's trying to help the poor, but nuclear weapons render this no longer "the go to" easy solution for capitalism's woes. It will still be tried, of course, using conflicts to get people focused on something else, but with unknown efficacy / survival of the human species. — boethius

Policy makers in the West have gone off script a tad bit here and there, but more or less just followed my advice these past 2 years, and definitely had the end point clearly in focus (strategy is very much an eye on the prize kind of undertaking, as I've previously mentioned).

And they didn't even pay me for it!

That's just how generous of a person I am.

They did largely prop-up the fracking industry, but frackers downsized rig counts and imposed austerity on themselves. And we're all now happy they did prop up the frackers, to be able to sell far more expensive gas to Europe now that there's the predictable "brink of WWIII" and new cold war, to depress Europe's economy over the long term and remove them as a significant player on the world stage.

Already EU leaders are so weak with nearly all their previous influence removed, that Biden can just speak on their behalf; CIA doesn't even need to tell them what to say anymore.

What should be noted that the dismal performance in the start of this invasion is mainly due to the poor assumptions that Ukrainians wouldn't fight, which was an intelligence failure. — ssu

Although this could be accurate, again I feel the need to debate it.

Agreed, total capitulation is what Putin, Kremlin and the Russia military would prefer (who wouldn't).

However, if you look at events on the ground, they go uncontested from Crimea, basically the first day to take Kherson and first couple days to link up with their forces in the East. These were insanely quick manoeuvres, and achieved 2 critical strategic objectives of taking a position South-West of the Dnieper, thus requiring Ukrainians to commit a large amount of troops to guarding a long defensive line to avoid Ukraine being cut North-South ... instead of a small amount of troops if they just blew-up all the bridges or defended Kherson with urban combat resulting in a prolonged siege.

From a military perspective, these are super critical strategic objectives and achieved incredibly quickly.

You have to compare this to the "risk" situation where Ukraine blows up the bridges out of Crimea and pin down Russian forces there and then Ukrainians Eastern front is far easier to hold, Mariupol (symbol of Azov battalion, of which the destruction is a stated justification for the war, and capturing Azov guys with swastika tattoo may not play get attention in the West, but maybe a different story in Russia).

Certainly, the "best case scenario" didn't happen for the Russians, and losses have been heavy (maybe far heavier than they anticipated), but they have largely achieved what they said they set out to achieve.

It is reasonable to assume that they focused on what was most critical in planning, and likely had setup before hand capitulation of border guards, cities and so on.

Not only military objectives, but the immediate cutoff and siege of Mariupol is a critical political objective, as traps Azov brigade which simply has plenty of members with Nazi tattoos ... so capturing a bunch and prosecuting them (non-regular forces, so not not really POW's and have zero POW rights) is an immense political win. Already, there's an American journalist that has reported a woman found with a Swastika painted in blood on her stomach ... and these guys are fucking nuts, it's completely in their MO and parading captured Nazi's (from the Russian perspective) makes people's blood boil.

Now, if the Russians know they can't occupy all of Ukraine ... maybe they planned to take first day what they actually do want and can hold long term (land bridge to Crimea) ... and so maybe the other front were just to tie up Ukrainian troops in the event of large scale resistance as Russia now claims.

As for reports of "house arrest" of the intelligence chief in Russia and disappearance of department of defence ... this could easily be to play for the home audience. Obviously there have been mistakes and high costs (I'm definitely no minimising the costs, just pointing out military objectives have been achieved with those costs).

Even if they they though heavy Ukrainian resistance likely - indeed, even if they actually wanted a soft invasion, a few "failures", and bait Ukraine into total war, so reasonable offers are rejected and they can completely decimate the Ukrainian military infrastructure and economy ("help" from the West will stop the moment news cycle switches ... and it's mostly debt anyways) - Putin maybe simply upset about embarrassing losses and equipment failures and corruption coming to light (all of which is very real), and also needing to send a "signal" to the population that people "answer for mistakes".

We don't know what's actually true in the fog of war and what are viewed by the Russian military as acceptable losses to achieve objectives, what is a tactical retreat or then a rout, or what are in fact ATGM decoys or even purposefully staging losses to bait enemy counter offensives to keep them far in the East or whatever (i.e. what), and what is just straight up embarrassing failure (which is going to happen in a large scale conventional war; plenty of allied commanders had embarrassing failures in WWII).

To take one example, there's a photo of a Russian tank with egg cartons spilling from the most recent reactive tank armor. Now, such a photo could be staged for propaganda footage ... or maybe just one of the failure modes of the armor and exactly what an engineer who worked on the system would expect to see, as there's a layer of cardboard like wrapping. We don't know. However, Russian military and Putin would know, and let's assume it is just straight-up corruption of filling reactive armor with egg cartons to pocket the cash or hit quotas. Even if the war is going well: soldiers, commanders and Putin are going to be pissed about that and want people to answer for it.

Point being, we don't even really know what the facts even are -- FSB director being under house arrest could be FSB directors idea as just a good propaganda technique to signal the Russian population that "something is being done" to hold people to account for "accidentally" starting a total war with Ukraine which was the FSB directors idea to do in the first place -- and, even if we did know the facts, we don't know what narrative they fit. "Discipline" for mistakes, even if everything is going to plan overall, is still completely normal in a huge institution (only the US promotes people for disastrously starting a war on made-up pretences), and mistakes of all kinds are to be expected in a massively chaotic total war situation.

To evaluate "if things are going well or badly" or costs have been "too high", we need to know what the statistics on the ground are, actually be able to compare Russian losses to Ukrainian losses, and we'd actually need to know what Russian leadership is trying to achieve exactly (which we don't).

Drink up, the sun's going to explode one day. — frank

We are in total agreement on this one.

Good to know there's more common ground than differences. I'll be toasting to that.

A picture's worth a thousand words.

... obviously I'll be also writing many thousands anyways, but for now I need to go do a little partying; forget about people actively trying to bring about World War III, if only a little while.

I wouldn't say that would be reason to assume they are collapsing. — ssu

My original phrasing is simply that this is the last remaining objective on Russia's list of objectives, and it's certainly seems achievable.

Yet Finland existed, wasn't occupied. What else is there for Ukraine? Likely there won't be Ukrainian tanks on the Red Square either, so they can't "win" in the traditional sense. — ssu

Exactly why Finland accepted defeat and negotiated a peace with significant territorial concessions, including Finland losing its biggest fresh water body (Lake Ladoga, even if only counting by half!), and Finland's access to the Arctic Ocean ... and also a agricultural and cultural heartland from which comes a large part of Finland's nation defining epic book:

The Kalevala (Finnish: Kalevala, IPA: [ˈkɑleʋɑlɑ]) is a 19th-century work of epic poetry compiled by Elias Lönnrot from Karelian and Finnish oral folklore and mythology — Kalevala, Wikipedia

Finnish Karelia was a historical province of Finland — Karelia, Wikipedia

Key word "was".

I would not say the wars with the Soviet Union was winning anything, but a great loss.

These were major concessions for the sake of peace because:

A. The cost of war is very real.
B. There was no way to "win" against the Soviet Union.

Something was done, even if what the West did was to produce an extremely corrupt system which was totally unsustainable. — ssu

... Yes, indeed, I see what you're saying, and I do indeed think it's wise to predict the same process in Ukraine.

Kim Dotcom ...

Now there's a name I've not heard in a long, long time.

A long time.

That is illogical. — ssu

Why would it be "illogical" to assume someone's states objectives aren't their real objectives?

Now, of course everyone always rather things go even better than achieving their goals, the rosy outcome as you say, but there is a difference between objectives and what one would prefer to happen.

OK, on what do you base this assumption on? — ssu

There's a lot fog of war and certainly anything is "possible", but while everything else has being going on in Ukraine, Russia has been bombarding and bombing the Dombas front for a month now.

There's a material and man-power degradation of these lines that is reasonable to assume is pretty severe.

There's also a psychological affect on these front line Ukrainian soldiers.

And then there is the fact that the Dombas line is 17 hour continuous drive from resupply in Poland but only 1 and half hour drive from Russia.

Of the news that comes from this area, it seems Russia has broken through in key places already.

Well, just like it worked with Finland both in the Winter War and the Continuation War. War of attrition does work. — ssu

The Winter war ended because of the Nazi's invading the Soviet Union.

Finland accepted defeat to end the continuation war. Finland did not "win" against Russia.

War of attrition for the purposes of a negotiated resolution on better terms, accepting defeat and giving up 20% of territory, "works".

But Ukraine keeps taking off the table even the possibility of any negotiated settlement because of "the views" as far as I can tell.

What better outcome can Ukraine fight for, compared to accepting Crimea is now Russian (something everyone agrees won't change), that Ukraine will not join NATO (something NATO told Zelensky would never happen before the war ... yet Zelensky chose to fight to join NATO anyways), and accepting the Dombas as independent states (again, no one argues these regions aren't massively pro-Russian nor that there's any way to militarily take them back)?

I don't think anybody considers it a win. Not even the future contractors that will build (again) Ukrainian cities after this war. — ssu

Then we agree it's not a win, and also yet to be seen the Wests generosity when it comes to rebuilding rather than destroying things. I didn't see all that much actual building anything in Afghanistan these last 20 years ... definitely felt more like a destructive process than an act of love, as was advertised until literally a few months ago.

Of course, Afghani's aren't white, so that's certainly a big factor in comparing their current state and Ukraine's future state after the West "is done playing with their toys".

Jingoistic imperialism usually fades away after wars that have been failures. Don't forget that Putin views independent Ukraine as an "artificial construct". If those kind of delusional attitudes can be changed, that would be a good start. — ssu

One can disagree, but it's not delusional. The West's own scholars call borders imposed by the great powers "artificial" and just cause internal division and civil wars, without benefiting any of the internal ethnicities, all the time ... just as we've seen play out in Ukraine.

I understand that one has to be sceptical about Western media, however one shouldn't forget that:
a) Ukraine is a huge country, b) It has large armed forces, c) it has shown the will to fight and d) it is supported by a huge alliance and finally e) Russia isn't Soviet Union and hasn't the former's resources. — ssu

Again, the effectiveness of asymmetric handheld systems against Russian armor (without which NATO pouring into Urkaine, would have been totally routed already) ... does not mean Ukraine can somehow rout the Russians without armor.

That Russia has plentiful armor and fuel and logistics isn't somehow a disadvantage, even if Ukrainians can inflict losses on Russian advances.

The core utility of tracked armor is mobility and just being able to get to the front in the first place.

All the above facts make it totally possible that the outcome is a standstill with neither side reaching it's rosiest objectives. To assume that Russia will inevitably win and reach it's objectives is a long shot. — ssu

Sure, Urkainian total capitulation would have been the most rosiest outcome, but there is no evidence Russia's core objectives aren't exactly what it's stated, and will be accomplished with the collapse of the Dombas front (which seems to me in the process of collapsing).

Neither side is yet, after a month, is really willing to cease operations and declare that their objectives have been met. Of course both sides will declare victory...but when and at what cost. Thinking that either side will abruptly now collapse isn't realistic. — ssu

How does Ukraine just declare victory if its territory is being occupied and it's set for itself the objective of zero territorial concessions?

True, Russia can just declare victory at each step, as the only goals its ever stated have already been achieved and so all further objectives are just bonus.

If Ukrainians cannot, regardless of the amount of ATGM's and Manpads poured into Ukraine, actually push the Russians back to their borders ... how does a war of attrition (in a "stalemate") work in Ukraines favour?

I think that NATO and US are far more timid than they were in the proxy wars during the Cold War. The Polish MiG-29 debacle clearly shows that. In truth if the fighters would have been painted to Ukrainian colours and flown by Ukrainian pilots to Ukraine wouldn't have resulted in WW3. — ssu

Proxy wars during the cold war were not on Russia's border, only Afghanistan was even on the USSR's border ... and, only hand held missiles were supplied, same as we see now.

Vietnam saw US pilots up against Russian pilots, but this was far from either of their borders.

And note that Zelensky would be all too happy about a "no-fly-zone" made up with Ukrainian manned Soviet legacy system (that would have been imported from NATO countries). — ssu

This is simply impossible to achieve from any practical perspective.

I think this war will go on far longer than anybody anticipated and be more bloody and ruinous for both sides than anybody thought. — ssu

There's really no reason to assume the Kremlin did not think of the current possibility more-or-less.

The initial "failed" invasion (that occupied some 15-20% of the country in a day) was achieved with less than half the amassed force (some estimate a third) ... of which the only logical interpretation was that the rest of the force was in reserve for plan B.

Even Western media just end their "Russia is bogged down" narrative with "grumble-grumble Russia has made gains in the South" ... well, maybe it was the South that had the strategic objectives and sophisticated planning went into that operation, other fronts the objective of just advancing until resistance and then tying up Ukrainian forces (as there is no long-term plan of occupying territory in the North, just pressure the capital).

At least Ukraine has the nice prospect of refurbishing all that old infrastructure after the "urban renovation" from the Russian Army and Air Force with Western aid. — ssu

I do not think any Ukrainian views this as a "win" ... and I fear Western generosity may run into all those "realists" after all, when it comes to pouring in tangible love rather than arms.

For Russia this might be an ordeal like the Russo-Japanese war, which didn't go so well afterwards in the domestic scene for the Czar. — ssu

It's possible ... but, again, if this is the likely "cost" to the Russians, how does that help any Ukrainian?

If this is the basic logic, NATO is just cutting off Ukrainian's nose to spite Ukrainians face.

Sure, fun times for NATO, they're definitely excited about it.

addresses the USSR:

No, no, no, Whitehouse is just taking a page out of the Kremlins playbook, and gonna beat Putin at his own game:

The firehose of falsehood, or firehosing, is a propaganda technique in which a large number of messages are broadcast rapidly, repetitively, and continuously over multiple channels (such as news and social media) without regard for truth or consistency. An outgrowth of Soviet propaganda techniques, the firehose of falsehood is a contemporary model for Russian propaganda under Russian President Vladimir Putin. — Firehose of falsehood

That's why you hear the Whitehouse contradicting itself, and Western media declaring victory everyday, they're just winning the information war, just as literally the director of the CIA unironically explained to us on live television that Ukraine is winning the information war ... and also everything Russia says is false.

And people have good reason to take what the director of the CIA says at face value, for the unofficial motto (i.e. something not admitted to but a covert action) of the CIA is "And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free," and people just want to be free after all, so obviously CIA only tells them the God honest truth in all circumstances.

23 days ago:

As Putin himself said "all outcomes are acceptable"?

Western media takes it as a foregone conclusion that this was a "miscalculation" by Putin ... because it's played so poorly in the Western press and Western nations have flocked to offer moral support and a bit of hardware and economic sanctions.

However, the Kremlin has been preparing itself for this exact threat by the West since 2014, building redundancies for all critical systems and scaling up economic ties with China.

Of course, Oligarchs are punished via their Western assets ... but the Kremlin may not actually care about that, — boethius

Also 23 days ago:

Oh, and the most ludicrous, that "declaring" renewables are now a priority is sticking it to the Russians somehow. "In 50 to 100 years will be independent on Russian natural resources. Haha! take that Russia!". I work in the renewable energy sector ... and this idea is so insanely idiotic, it severely discredits every politician that repeats it. — boethius

22 days ago:

The large size of Ukraine makes total occupation difficult / impossible, but, the large size of Ukraine makes a lot of land grabbing easy. For the same reason Russia can't easily occupy all of Ukraine, Ukraine cannot easily defend all of Ukraine. — boethius

20 days ago:

The problem with the "boohoo commodity price increase global economic disaster; the war is such a terrible disaster" is that if you provide no incentive for Russia to participate in the global economy ... but are going to buy their commodities anyways, and China isn't going to leave a fellow tyrant hanging, then this isn't a "bad result" for the Kremlin. Certainly immoral to cause such a disaster, but if the world plays hardball with Putin ... what's the argument that Putin should play softball back.

And indeed, once the war is over and Western leaders are dealing with even worse inflation, people may not accept the argument "their suffering is necessary for Ukrainians to have prolonged a war for a true apex of virtue signaling on social media; literal victory through defeat" for long. — boethius

Literally yesterday:

That’s why — (applause) — that’s why I came to Europe again this week with a clear and determined message for NATO, for the G7, for the European Union, for all freedom-loving nations: We must commit now to be in this fight for the long haul. We must remain unified today and tomorrow and the day after and for the years and decades to come. (Applause.)

It will not be easy. There will be costs. But it’s a price we have to pay. Because the darkness that drives autocracy is ultimately no match for the flame of liberty that lights the souls of free people everywhere. — Remarks by President Biden on the United Efforts of the Free World to Support the People of Ukraine

We will fight to the last Ukrainian!! — (applause) — There will be costs — (applause) — mostly to Ukrainians and all poor people around the world affected by food and fuel price increases!!! — (applause) — But it's a price I'm willing to let Ukrainians and poor people pay!!! — (applause) — For the long haul!!! — (applause) —

Every Ukrainian soul literally lit on fire — (applause) — by Russian artillery and air strikes and hyperbaric munitions I literally masterbate over when the US drops them on brown people — (applause) — lights the way to freedom!!!!! — (applause) —

— (applause) — Just like those torch lit marches by neo-Nazi's — (applause) — lit the way to freedom!!! in 2014!!! — (applause) — (applause) — (applause)

19 days ago:

For the overall outcome on the war of all these measures, I personally don't see Russia losing.

Their strategy is pretty simple:

1. Keep pressure on all fronts.
2. Advance each day on weakest fronts
3. Avoid urban combat unless necessary
4. Cutoff all supply lines and wait things out
5. Build out their logistics methodically — boethius

The situation now is they've occupied key highways, and can degrade Ukrainian logistics on the remaining roots by air and missile strikes. As mentioned previously, the Dombas front is 1000 km away from the Polish border and may be effectively cutoff from supplies already.

In the meantime, Russia has consolidated its fronts (why they have transformed into straight lines on maps) and worked out its logistics in Ukraine (something that simply takes time, linking / building rail and even tactical pipelines), and absolutely recking Azov battalion in Mariupole ("de-nazification").

And Chechnya is literally part of Russia. Saying using your own citizens who are literally soldiers as soldiers is some form of weakness ... is just stupid. Russia is a culturally diverse place, so it's as unusual as seeing Latin-Americans and African-American's in the US army. OMG they're using their own citizens with arguably the most experience in urban combat to fight Azov in urban combat!

Luckily Ukrainians under siege know how to win on social media instead, and so dipped their bullets in lard and posted that to twitter, so I'm sure the Chechnians now have servere moral problems, as we've been hearing about in Russian forces for a month, and will lose any day now.

20 days ago:

"""
LONDON, March 7 (Reuters) - Russia has told Ukraine it is ready to halt military operations "in a moment" if Kyiv meets a list of conditions, the Kremlin spokesman said on Monday.

Dmitry Peskov said Moscow was demanding that Ukraine cease military action, change its constitution to enshrine neutrality, acknowledge Crimea as Russian territory, and recognise the separatist republics of Donetsk and Lugansk as independent states.
— Reuters
"""

There's zero reason to assume this offer isn't genuine.

Unless Ukraine has some way to "win", then Russia will simply implement these conditions by force. — boethius

I don't disagree if you're talking about non-military things. For sure, war and sanctions isn't good for normal Russians.

But the competition is between states. Normal Americans and normal Chinese people don't benefit from the war either, but, certainly, neither normal Ukrainians.

Agreed, that China and US states (i.e the elites that run them) win in this war and EU loses. The insanity of committing to buy LNG gas from the US and build all that infrastructure ... even though the war will be long over, and normalising trade relations would be an immense diplomatic tool to actually end the war and bring peace (... never hear the EU saying that ... that peace would have benefits to everyone), and it's just using the war as an excuse to do the US's bidding.

However, even so, China's benefit is in anyways Russias benefit, as they are besties now.

US pivots towards China (this isn't viewed as a big warm hug by the Chinese), Russia comes to China and says the logical thing: "the US views you as their enemy, they talk about it all the time, they have no shame saying so, now they bring their ships and their planes and their submarines and their missiles to your shores, which are moves of war and not of peace--even though we Russians know you Chinese are a peaceful people and have never invaded us nor taken anything that wasn't rightfully yours--but war has come to you, even if neither of us want it we must accept that as a fact, and what I suggest, is that we are in fact in this together, and that this 'pivot' to threaten you, the US talks about, that it is simply the reasonable move in response, if we look on a map, to open a second front with the US, and force them to commit troops to defend in the West too: I can do this, bring American soldiers back to Europe, now that they leave the Middle East in fiery ruins, and, if you feel the same way, that we are in this together, then I will do this for you. For we Russians know the treachery of the Americans and have learned to deal with it, and we will take this heat in the West so you may have peace in the East."

Now, the US, indeed does benefit with harming their real competition (the EU) ... but can they say the same thing as the Russian state can: that they are also helping their allies in so doing?

And for those accusing me of being a Russian propagandist, simply seeing someone's point of view and what persuasive arguments they can make and reasonable strategic decisions they can make to advance their stated goals or defend themselves against a party that has no hesitation nor qualification in calling them the enemy, doesn't mean I agree with such arguments. If I was Putin, I'd go to Xi and say: "Have you heard of decentralised grass roots anarchism, pretty rich tradition, don't want to brag but Nordic style participatory creative education was actually an anarchist idea and first developed in anarchist schools, it's pretty cool actually, kids a lot happier and even more productive economically! who knew ... and, umm, and I have here a few brochures here I'm going to leave with you, ok just putting them under this gold paper weight, just take a look when you have a moment and think about it, my number's on the bottom there if you have any questions, and ... we're actually having a little anarcho-get-together in a few weeks at the Kremlin / new local community soup kitchen, feel welcome to come check it out, have a few drinks, maybe bring North Korea along--honestly, I feel they could actually really use a hot soup right now, and, you know, we're there for them."

Stakes are much higher here but it seems fine to us to risk escalation because of the underdog narrative or whatever. — Baden

To be fair, Rocky's epic duel with Ivan Drago is both a cinematic master piece and "feels" how reality actually works by divine scriptwriter intervention.

Ivan Draggo had overwhelming advantage. Russia has overwhelming advantage.

Rocky had heart. Ukraine has heart.

Ivan Draggo lost anyways. Russia will therefore lose anyways.

It's honestly difficult to argue with.

Same reason everyone was rooting for the Taliban all these years, and now super happy they "defended their country" and defeated the more powerful military and have returned to power to defend their nation and culture, such as barring girls over 11 from going to school.

No. It's not their only option. How about starting with a) oil & gas embargo, b) migration crisis, c) naval blockade, d) whatever else. Having a panic attack like some about nukes in truth is the last option. — ssu

I mean only military option ... of which less Russian soldiers on the border would be relevant.

Though I agree chance of conventional war is low in Finland, Poland, Baltics ... it's unclear to me that increasing the chance of nuclear war in exchange, even slightly, is a positive outcome.

Literally first hit searching MOAB and Afghanistan:

Weekend Explosions - 5 months ago
Some of the best quality footage out there. RIP to PFC Kirkpatrick and to all the Afghan allies who lost their lives in these battles

Evander Colasimone - 5 months ago
amazing footage dude, and rest in peace to your teammate. i hope his family is doing well and i hope he's in a better place.

Sturmmann - 4 months ago
One of the best combat footage I've seen. Much respect for US troops

Miniard - 3 months ago
@Vegan Zombie lmao wow

someonebroken - 2 months ago
@Vegan Zombie it's also because of them that you can comment on YouTube...sooo

mori remembers - 2 months ago (edited)
@Vegan Zombie They are human same as you and I, they (soldiers) had a choice to fight for a cause. We humans strive to become more than what we are, we try to have a good society, and blood is a price, sadly. War is something almost nobody wants but through history it(war) is needed.

POVHFR Videos - 3 weeks ago
100th like. Yes, absolutely agree. — youtube wisdom about hyperbaric bombs pre-Russia-might-get-advantage-fromt-them

And my favourite:

JewFricans - 3 months ago
Stopped everything I was doing when I found this vid to watch. This is the most RAW and some of the most intense war footage I’ve ever seen. Nothings not shown. from intense ass firefights to just smacking that basketball around and managing to still find some fun things to do. This is probably the most underrated youtube video i’ve come across in a very long time. Thank you and everyone else for your service, even with the film can’t imagine what you all went through. not even sure how y’all sit down with balls that fkn big

Peter K - 3 months ago
Just goes to show how ridiculous it is in video games when nothing jams or malfunctions, you don’t need to worry about timing and headspace on the 50, you can flick the Gustav open with two fingers, the AT4 slides apart like it just came off the production line… thank you and everyone else in these clips for your service. Many feel obligated to share their opinions these days but few could ever do what y’all do — youtube badass

But can't forget the classics, shoutout to:

Nicholas -1 month ago
These men literally have trucks full of freedom. They have everything. Mortars, Sniping rifles, different shoulder fired missiles, heavy machine guns, grenade launcher pistols literally everything. — A true freedom fighter

And lot's more super valuable military analysis, like "Mike Sierra: looks like Abdul got some that day." (The actual MOAB explosion, Abdul "getting some", to thunderous applause, is at the end of the video.)

And yes, I'm ashamed to admit it, but Peter K is right, I have been sharing my opinions these days ... instead of bringing freedom to Afghanistan. I haven't even started ordering from Amazon any freedom supplies, much less started packing my truck with it (and I don't have a truck! That's how unpatriotic of an American I've allowed myself to become).

What was the chain of command and military justification on this one?

Jack- 5 months ago
I can just imagine the phone call to Donald Trump asking if they have clearance to use the Moab. I bet you it was Trump's idea he was probably like okay these a-holds are dug in can we drop a nuke no can't do that okay what's the next best thing oh the Moab that's right and then in his Trump famous voice he says do it just do it, do it.

Jack (replying to himself)- 5 months ago
That's funny the guy took some shrapnel in the butt lol. — Jack

And since everyone seems to have forgotten, the whole foundation of the world's previous nuclear diplomatic structure (... involving all the treaties that the US pulled out of) ... was the fact that there's nothing logically stopping a nuclear power from extorting non-nuclear powers, except other Nuclear powers.

Of course, if North Korea launched a nuclear weapon into South Korea or at Japan, its entire military capacity would be immediately obliterated by nuclear weapons ... so that would the end of that.

However, that problem is solved by simply having enough nuclear weapons.

So, previously, immense diplomatic effort was put into creating workable international relations where a nuclear power, aka. Russia, has no incentive to use nuclear weapons to easily win a war, knowing, when nuclear push comes to nuclear shove, that NATO will not use strategic nuclear weapons simply to punish Russia for using tactical nuclear weapons to win a war ... that is only happening because NATO pumps in billions of dollars worth of weapons and many, many, many billions more worth of intelligence.

However, since hyperbaric weapons exist, and are cheaper and more tactically useful as a "giant bomb", Russians ... I guess fortunately in a a sense, will just use those, as we're seeing.

The reason the West complains about them is simply that they are a game changing weapon against a bunch of dug in infantry / Taliban, that the US also uses in the exact same situation of dug in infantry actually causing an conventional military problem.

So it's waiinnn, unfair. Which is the Western media standard of assessment: Russia using it's overwhelming fire power--which if it doesn't use we call them idiots for not using--is unfair and thus Russia has "lost" by using the exact same tactics as the US in similar situation.

For, US has also dropped hyperbaric weapons for the exact same reason (and when there's video of it, social media is alight with glee and celebration, and explaining how clever and effective and painful it is for the enemies of the US and there's nothing they can do about it etc.); it's not the case that the US even adheres to the standard it's judging Russia by now, as "fair" and fighting "unfair" according to this standard is losing by winning.

I will welcome Russian tanks in my street if it avoids a nuclear war. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is worth a strategic nuclear escalation. — Benkei

It's incredible that this is the irresponsible, reckless and immoral attitude in today's "media-scape".

As long as the Russian army is fighting in Ukraine, there are few Russian soldiers on our border and near my summerplace (which is on the border). :smile: — ssu

... yeah ... true, but that just means Russia's only option to deal make their point of Finland not joining NATO is with nuclear weapons.

I don't feel all that safer about the fact Russian soldiers are tied up in Ukraine and NATO is escalating tensions ... with the explicit goal to bleed the Russians and collapse the Russian state, which Russia has said it would use Nuclear weapons in that exact scenario NATO desires.

None of the retired generals or NATO officials or NATO heads of state explain to us how giving Ukrainians weapons will lead to their deliverance from the war, Russia's aggression, or any positive outcome for the Ukrainians at at all.

They just praise their bravery and are literally giddy about bleeding the Russians and "giving Russia their Afghanistan".

It makes "social media sense" only because Zelenskyy makes speeches that tap into Western victory nostalgia, and asks for weapons ... so of course we'll give him weapons, he's just so cute.

However, the only plan I can tell Zelenskyy ever had was to cause so much suffering of Ukrainian civilians that NATO would be forced, while creating that "fighting against impossible odds" every Western war and super movie presents (and also associated with victory) -- that, seeing such suffering and "Englishman" bravery, that NATO, being such morally upstanding altruistic people without any self interest whatsoever, to intervene with a no-fly-zone (which, after Libya, doesn't mean "you can't fly here", but that every single military asset can be bombed as any asset could in theory support an air asset ... of course, a logic only just so happens to apply only to one side in the conflict that NATO happens to want to destroy).

Now, maybe there's some secret plan, and all this was just "cover", but it's difficult to believe.

Competent military strategy would have been to mobilise before Russia invaded and took lot's of territory uncontested. However, that would not have played well in social media, as there would be no reasons for stunts like handing out small arms to civilians.

As to propaganda: the idea that anyone will win is propaganda. Everyone will lose on both sides, because that's what a war of attrition is, the last man standing takes possession of the smoking ruins. — unenlightened

The problem is this is simply not true.

There is zero fighting happening on Russian soil and, except for NATO using nuclear weapons (we we shouldn't "want"), zero way for Ukrainians to win militarily.

Military campaigns should have an achievable military objective.

Now, had Ukraine "put up a fight" and then accepted the peace terms offered, that was clearly the minimum Russia would accept (and far away from just taking over the whole country, which obviously they would have done if Ukraine just surrendered immediately), then that's a reasonable military action.

However, there's simply no way to fight Russia to lower peace terms, and, after rejecting the lowest they would be willing to accept, then Russia will be demanding more and more to compensate the cost of continued fighting ... and, unfortunately, the logic quickly becomes that, due to all the bad press from the West spinning Russia is losing by winning somehow, a decisive military victory is needed.

When Western generals lambast the Russians on TV for not using their overwhelming fire power, rather than pointing out the obvious the low-intensity of the first phases of the war were for laudable moral / political reasons ... what does Russia say? Russian generals answer "well, I'll show you high intensity warfare if that's what you want".

Western media goes on and on about how Russia hasn't achieved total air superiority, but then fails to mention Russia is doing 300 bombing sorties a day.

Not achieving immediate total air superiority is also a completely ludicrous criticism. US achieves this fighting irregular forces with ... zero air power and defence whatsoever.

However, US lost a F-117 in Yugoslavia, because any military more sophisticated than the Taliban and ISIS can keep SAM sites hidden and moving around and turn them on for very short engagements to fire a missile. SAM systems are not all on, all the time and you can just go and blow them up.

In addition, Ukraine has CIA intelligence and NATO weapons and training, so the idea of measuring military progress compared with fighting the Taliban, which is basically the Western media uses as a metric, is just crazy.

Of course, if you're saying Russians will also lose "morally" and also lose troops and equipment as well as economically, I agree. Russian people won't be better off due to this war. However, they definitely can win militarily whereas Ukraine has no pathway to victory, and continued fighting, since passing up the minimum offer, simply causes more harm and will result in worse conditions for peace.

And the logic is now completely contradictory: we're told that Russians are losing and getting a spanking and are so incompetent, but also if Ukraine doesn't fight to the last man, fight the Russians in Ukraine rather than in NATO ... the Russia is going to just steam roll into Poland?

How does that even make sense?

Here's finally some good analysis of claims made and repeated on Western media.



Really concise analysis a historian, well, or so he calls himself ... history will be the judge of that.

At the end of the video, he mentions -- as @Benkei has already -- that more evidence of context is required to assert war crimes especially if the only evidence we have access so far is provided by one side, and, even more intellectually honest, that we can also argue war crimes by the Ukrainians ... with their own material.

That's exactly why, personally, I prefer to analyze it in terms of a conflict between geopolitical spheres of interests. The "conspiracy" may or may not exist but the conflict is generally acknowledged and beyond dispute. — Apollodorus

We definitely agree on this point. Different political structures will manage their interests in their own idiosyncratic way.

Indeed, the only reason we have the concept of "conspiracy" in the sense of some large scale political thing going on, is because we have the concept of democracy, and they are incompatible.

No one's claiming Xi is some paragon of transparency and openness and just an "noraml guy" you'd just want to have a beer with.

Unfortunately, the facts are disputed and denied by the ignorant (or disingenuous) who scream "conspiracy theory" the minute you suggest that at least some of the causes of the conflict may lie not with Russia but with the West. — Apollodorus

No argument with you there. Which is exactly why I don't join in the "conspiracy theorist" smearing as it's a double edged sword ... even if I didn't find even the most outlandish conspiracies theories entertaining and at least interesting exercise to work out exactly why I disagree, and did want such discourse "banned", what goes around comes around.

This, of course, is facilitated by the media and its political masters or collaborators. Take Zelensky's claim that the end of the world has arrived or that Russia is trying to exterminate the Ukrainian people in a "final solution", for example:

"They are saying these words again — ‘the final solution’ — in relation to us, the Ukrainian nation ... it was said at a meeting in Moscow ..." — Apollodorus

Super weird to use the wording "again" ... as if we can actually exorcize all our Western demons and cast them into Putin.

I think it's paywalled for non-academic access so briefly... Dr Caplan is suggesting

All research, both ongoing and new, must cease immediately. Whatever can be done to minimize harm to existing subjects in a short period of time ought to be done, but that is it. — Isaac

I don't get this part. Cease all research generally speaking? Or just in Russia?

Was he just about to say "We're going to impose a New World Order", but slightly changed the phrasing? — Apollodorus

Why I mention that the elites literally say this ... even after it has the reputation for being their conspiracy.

But does it represent some coherent plan ... or is it just a flex to use the expression?

However, I don't view "conspiracy research" as irrelevant, just that (from my point of view at least) it's more a journalism activity than philosophical or political project. As Noam Chomsky says about it, that they already got caught red handed starting a massive war that killed hundreds of thousands of people and destabilised the whole region, and faced no consequences, what more do you need?

Of course, where I disagree with Chomsky is simply that the truth of whatever machinations the elite are up to is valuable for it's own sake, so I wouldn't say it's as irrelevant as Chomsky argues. However, plenty insane scandals have been revealed already by many credible journalists over the decades (Iran Contra, obviously Iraq, French shit we've been discussing) ... and it doesn't change anything in itself these scandals coming about.

The whole cathartic "and then the politicians went to jail / reported to the president" trope at the end of nearly every political thriller for decades ... until it was simply so unbelievable that they had to start changing that genre to way more mirky, if there's any moral point at all.

And indeed, the whole "conspiracy theorist" trope is literally documented as a FBI fabrication for propaganda purposes ... so, should beg the question: why?

However, be that as it may, there are forums dedicated to the topic. On a philosophy forum you may simply find it more efficient to either use facts that are supported by some journalist or institution that most here would likely accept, or then just use the word if rather than assertions to make your argument (people can then look into the premises on their own time).

Exactly, difficult to say Villepin was somehow squeaky clean, certainly at least knew how things worked ... or then not that smart after all.

Even people who liked Villepin that I would talk to would always finish with ... well then there was all this fucked up shit.

Un argument massue = a sledgehammer argument ? — Olivier5

This makes a lot more sense, thanks!

I had heard it originally as Massoud ... so, like, maybe Massoud has some referencable anti-Imperialist argument? that Villepin would reference Putin as making ... but then I discarded that possibility.

The book sounds really good, thanks for the tip.

Definitely so. He is convincing. He believes in what he says. His aura in France is that of a looser magnifique, a flibustering poet-diplomat. A bit passé now of course. — Olivier5

He's still a politician though, and associated the whole

In 2004, French judges were given a list by an anonymous source containing the names of politicians and others who, it was alleged, had deposited kickbacks from a 1991 arms sale to Taiwan into secret accounts at Clearstream, a private bank in Luxembourg. The most prominent name on the list was that of Nicolas Sarkozy, Villepin's rival for power in the UMP. The list was later shown to be fraudulent, a discovery Villepin kept from the public for 15 months at a time when the two men were vying for party supremacy.[17] Meanwhile, the source of the list was later revealed to be a longtime associate of Villepin's, one Jean-Louis Gergorin, an executive at EADS. Critics claimed that Villepin, perhaps with the support of then-president Jacques Chirac, had tried to defame his rival. Sarkozy, in turn, filed a suit against whoever was behind the creation of the Clearstream list. Villepin was eventually acquitted in 2010[18] (see #Clearstream trial below). — Villepin, Wikipedia

... A passage that paints Sarkozy as the victim--and maybe he was--but who later went on to get embroiled even larger corruption scandals involving kickbacks for submarines and just brief cases of cash from the Oreal fortune.

On 1 July 2014 Sarkozy was detained for questioning by police over claims he had promised a prestigious role in Monaco to a high-ranking judge, Gilbert Azibert, in exchange for information about the investigation into alleged illegal campaign funding. Mr Azibert, one of the most senior judges at the Court of Appeal, was called in for questioning on 30 June 2014.[153] It is believed to be the first time a former French president has been held in police custody, although his predecessor, Jacques Chirac, was found guilty of embezzlement and breach of trust while he was mayor of Paris and given a suspended prison sentence in 2011.[154] After 15 hours in police custody, Sarkozy was put under official investigation for "active corruption", "misuse of influence" and "obtained through a breach of professional secrecy" on 2 July 2014.[155] Mr Azibert and Sarkozy's lawyer, Thierry Herzog, are also now under official investigation. The two accusations carry sentences of up to 10 years in prison.[156] The developments were seen as a blow to Sarkozy's attempts to challenge for the presidency in 2017.[157][158] Nevertheless, he later stood as a candidate for the Republican party nomination,[159] but was eliminated from the contest in November 2016.[160] A trial on this case, Sarkozy's first, started on 23 November 2020.[161]

In April 2016, Arnaud Claude, former law partner of Sarkozy, was named in the Panama Papers.[166]

On 23 November 2020, the trial of Nicolas Sarkozy started who is accused of corruption and influence peddling, for an attempted bribery of a judge. The trial was postponed until November 26, following a request from one of his co-defendants for health reasons.[167]

On 1 March 2021, a court in Paris found former French President Nicolas Sarkozy guilty of corruption, trading in influence in a wiretapping and illegal data exchange case involving a number of individuals like magistrate Gilbert Azibert and Sarkozy's former lawyer Thierry Herzog. Both men were tried with him and convicted as well. Sarkozy and his two co-defendants were sentenced to three years, two of them suspended, and one in prison.[168][169] Sarkozy appealed the ruling, which suspends its application. — Sarkozy, Wikipedia

... So maybe Villepin was just the best of a rotten lot, or too dumb or too arrogant (I think typical French attitude about him today).

Of course, it's not like Villepin is running the red cross or anything since leaving public office:

Soon after his exit from daily political life, on 9 January 2008 de Villepin returned to legal practice.[24] Since then, he has travelled on business to Iran, Argentina, Venezuela and Colombia.[24] Over its first two years, the bureau had revenues of 4,65 million euros and earned profit of 2,6 million.[24] Alstom, Total and Veolia and the Bugshan family conglomerate have all been clients.[24] His main client for a time was Qatar,[25] and he has a close relationship with Al-Mayassa bint Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani and her mother Moza bint Nasser.[24] He advocated forcefully the Palestinian cause during the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict,[26] at the request of the Qataris, and protested the French legal ban on Islamic facial veils for women in 2014.[27] De Villepin counsels the Qatar Investment Authority.[28] He is president of the advisory board of Universal Credit Rating Group, a Sino-Russo-American bond credit rating agency, and international advisor to China Minsheng Bank.[24] — Wikipedia

So ... maybe just a realist idealist, that was too naive or too clever with too much ambition for his own good (notably: he did get acquitted).

However, the above scandals were so massive and messy (leading to far more "all politicians are corrupt" kind of attitude in France -- and super charging the far right, who are generally at least not "corrupt", as they have no power), that the French generally just want to forget about them all: hence Macron could just waltz in and won the presidency with an entirely new party he invented literally the year before.

Is my feeling from when I lived in France, people just didn't want to talk about it anymore (even though I was still super enthusiastic).

Written by the guy to whom it happened. He was hired to write Villepin's speeches but cannot follow the guy's thoughts, Villepin goes way too fast and changes constantly and switches from the highest concepts to the most trivial details all the time -- as transcribed in a post upthread, his elocution is that of a scatterbrain. Not stupid by far, but a poet more than a mathematician. — Olivier5

Of for sure, I definitely don't have any totally precise idea of Villepin's general political philosophy.

However, this could easily be by design (or then a sort of survivor bias in that only his kind of personality can persists in politics, doesn't get immediately taken down by the press).

For his way of packing everything together, highest principles and trivial details, sort of overwhelms interviewers and news anchors and he can make his point.

If you try to really get into the mechanics of the argument, there's all sorts of missing pieces, but the point and structure of the argument is clear; you can easily fill in the blanks ... and certainly "sounds" smart. But this might be just his personality.

The next part, for sure by design, is that he waits his moment. He certainly has had these idea of Western hypocrisy and and the affect on the world since a while--conversations with his Russian counterparts are literally decades in the past. But he waits the right political moment to speak his mind.

Lot's to debate and disagree with, but certainly not a coward in any case.