Whose side are you on? — Olivier5

No one's. I'm not a part of this conflict.

Russia modeled it's attack from the most successful military operation that the Soviet Union did post-WW2: Operation Danube. — ssu

First it was Crimea, now it is Czechoslovakia.

Invading a diplomatically isolated, unprepared Soviet republic and invading a western-backed, militarily prepared Ukraine? The two couldn't be further apart.

You're now claiming the Russians modelled their invasion of Ukraine after their invasion of Czechoslovakia - a conflict that took place over 50 years ago? Lets see some proof then. Or anything that resembles a reasoned argument.

Similarly Putin's earlier victories and the West's mute response made him confident the Ukrainians wouldn't be much of a match and he could pull off the invasion that he started on the 24th of February this year. That since 2014 when the war started, the Ukrainians basically wouldn't have done anything. — ssu

Mhm. Except that there was an eight year period between the invasion of Crimea in 2014 and the invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

The conditions surrounding the invasion of Crimea were completely different from the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Furthermore, the element of surprise the Russians had in 2014 was not present in 2022. The United States has been preparing Ukraine since at least January 2021, and probably earlier.

Everybody and their dog knew it wasn't going to be a repeat of 2014, and that the Ukrainians would be prepared.

So getting back to your earlier response, what your claim boils down to is that Russia's troop deployments aren't a product of meticulous planning as is standard in modern militaries (argued also by experts such as Mearsheimer), but it's because they're a bunch of dummies who underestimated their opponent.


So, let's take stock:

1. The invasion of Ukraine was modelled after the invasion of Crimea? Czechoslovakia? Conflicts that couldn't be more different in nature. Wild claim. Zero substantiation. Lets see some proof then if you want to argue wild!

2. Putin is Hitler in 1941, except everything is completely different. Supposedly the invasion of Crimea eight years prior gave him all the confidence he needed to wing an invasion of a western-backed Ukraine.


You expect me to take your "they're a bunch of dummies" argument seriously, when everything from common sense to military doctrine and expert opinion points towards the Russians having made a carefully weighed decision?

That the Russians did not have enough troops deployed in and around Ukraine for a full invasion was already known in the West before the start of the invasion, with Ukrainian officials going on record stating they were not expecting a full-scale invasion, but were fearing for a more localized conflict.


All I'm seeing from you and is knee-jerk reactions whenever your flimsy ideas of how this war is going are challenged. Accusations of partisanship and "subconscious biases" - have either of you ever looked in a mirror?

How much troops did they need to annex Crimea? And the way Russia could interfere in Ukrainian politics before makes it easy to underestimate Ukrainian resolve. — ssu

Putin made quite easily same kind of mistakes like Hitler after the victories against Poland and France. — ssu

Seems like there's two wild, unsubstantiated claims in here:

1. Russia modelled their invasion of Ukraine on the previous conflict in Crimea.
2. Russia's invasion of Ukraine can from a military-strategic viewpoint be compared to Hitler's invasion of Poland and France.

The podium is all yours friend. Show the world you've got more than clowning, 'pro-Russian' accusations (which are beyond sad, by the way) and parroting western propaganda.

The reason you are "struggling to see where this idea comes from that Russia is losing" is simply that you subconsciously assume that whatever happens is a desirable outcome for the Russians. — Olivier5

I don't think this characterizes my position very well. But already said about this what needed to be said (and thank you for that ).

A wise lad once said, "Why do you see the speck in your brother's eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own?"

What you're implying is that all territory Russia at one point or another controlled they also meant to hold.

I think that's a highly questionable assumption.

As far as I know, Russian advances around Kiev began from the onset of the war, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I would say they gave the Ukrainians (but more specifically the West) a chance to back down when they threatened Kiev. — Tzeentch

My view is that this initial drive was a last attempt by the Russians to end the conflict quickly, not necessarily by taking Kiev, but by showing they weren't bluffing and their threats of war were real.

This failed, but it also drew a lot of Ukrainian manpower to the north, reducing resistance in the south, which is where the areas are located that are strategically relevant to the Russians.

If they really wanted to take Kiev, I believe they could have. But it would have taken them a lot of time and manpower, and occupying capital cities isn't all that relevant in a conflict where foreign support is the centre of gravity, so there wasn't much of a point.

Not to mention, if Russia manages to destroy Ukraine's C&C (which is generally the goal of occupying a capital city), who is going to take over that role? The West - likely the United States. The centre of gravity would shift even further towards the foreign backers, drawing them in. Russia will likely try to avoid this.

Putin is a human being, not a god. He makes mistakes, and rest assured that there are things he cannot understand. You should not assume that what seems obvious to you necessarily seems obvious to him. — Olivier5

Of course. But there are dozens if not hundreds of people working in the Kremlin. Analists, advisors, a general staff etc.

They tried and failed to capture Kiev and to kill Zelensky. Explain these facts, ... — Olivier5

I already explained my view on Russia's initial drive on Kiev.

As for Zelensky - I don't see how an assassination post-invasion would have facilitated the installation of a puppet regime. The goal behind such a move is probably aimed at sowing general chaos in the command structure.

We are long past the stage where regime change would be an option.

In the final analysis, this is not our war but we're sacrificing entire families by pushing them into poverty - that includes all the missed opportunities as a result of a lower socio-economic position in society. We're destroying the future of thousands of children in the Netherlands and I doubt it is much different in other European countries. — Benkei

I've gotten the impression the EU has taken the opportunity to use the war in Ukraine to both excuse its desastrous economic policies and to push its energy ideology.

"Never waste a good crisis," seems to be the motto they go by.

If the Ukrainians would not have defended at all, ... — ssu

That's a rather big if.

... just why would you think Putin would have stopped? — ssu

The short answer is, occupying large countries with too few troops is asking for trouble. The Russians know this first hand.

If they wanted to invade and occupy all of Ukraine, the troops they'd need to deploy to keep it under control would have to be several times what they've deployed now.

So the why is: they don't want a repeat of another Afghanistan or Vietnam.

A dictator for instance may find it difficult to fathom that killing Zelensky would not stop the resistance. — Olivier5

I would turn that around, actually. Putin and his cronies aren't fools, nor is Zelensky, nor is the Pentagon or the EU leadership - they likely know a lot more than us.

It's up to us to make sense of their actions - not to dismiss these people as dummies for acting in ways we can't make sense of at first.

But take whatever approach you will. I will stick with the one I just expressed.

The plan B was evidently to take Kiev and install a puppet regime. Didn't happen either. — Olivier5

I don't think that's evident at all.

For one, with western backing it was obvious from the outset that taking Kiev would not end the conflict. Leadership of the war is not and never has been conducted from Kiev.

Secondly, taking Kiev (or any kind of full-scale invasion of Ukraine) would have made direct western military intervention a lot more likely - Russia is obviously trying to avoid this. Keeping the conflict small(-ish) makes the bar for western powers to intervene military high. It also would have discredited the Russian narrative.

I think plan B was to accept war with the West, occupy the strategic areas in the south, and take it from there. The south is crucial, because it is both the key to Russian strategic interests pertaining to Crimea and Transnistria, and cutting off Ukraine from the sea would greatly hamstring it in the long run.

That is only your interpretation of it. — Olivier5

Sure. All we have are interpretations. But it's supported by figures like Mearsheimer. Mearsheimer makes the same point - the number of deployed troops are far below what would be feasible for a full-scale invasion and occupation of Ukraine.

My interpretation is that they expected a rapid Ukrainian surrender. — Olivier5

I would change that slightly - I would say they gave the Ukrainians (but more specifically the West) a chance to back down when they threatened Kiev.

In my opinion, this was the last point where a neutral Ukraine was still an option. They showed their hand and made it clear they weren't bluffing.

That doesn't mean they expected it to lead to a surrender or a re-negotiation of Ukraine's position, but they must've thought it was a possibility. And they must've also had a plan B, that's no more than standard military practice.

Larger still are the Ukrainian regions the Russians failed to invade. — Olivier5

The number of troops the Russians have deployed indicate they never intended to invade all of Ukraine.

And that's sensible - modern armies have the experience of many failed wars in the Middle-East to know the risks of that.

Because the Russians blown up the bridges over the Oskil river while leaving, duh... — Olivier5

Blowing up bridges doesn't stop a modern army. Ukrainian vehicles have amphibious capability, and their engineer corps possesses over bridging equipment like AVLBs.

If your position is they had the Russians in a full on rout, why didn't they take advantage of their breakthrough?

I simply said that if Russia can be beaten in this oblast, it can be beaten in other oblast. — Olivier5

But not in Kherson, apparently.

Allow me to be a bit more cynical and posit a theory of my own:

The failed Kherson offensive signaled that Ukraine was, as many had feared, no longer capable of conducting offensive operations - which would mean they had all but lost the war.

This risked to undermine support, especially abroad, at a crucial time. Likely a months-long operational pause is coming during winter, and Ukraine will need this time to rebuild and repair. To do that it needs foreign aid and a lot of it.

Meanwhile, European countries' Ukraine policies are under pressure due to growing energy insecurity. Their support for a war which many fear will be lost cannot be maintained indefinitely.

They needed something they could write off as a victory, and to convince their populations that they would not be sitting in the cold for nothing.

So after the failed Kherson offensive they chose to stage an offensive over dead ground - the Russians would not be defending it so victory was essentially guaranteed.

Then they just needed to let the propaganda machine inflate this to a victory of epic proportions - that notion probably won't be challenged before the onset of winter. Hopefully for the Ukrainians that will safeguard foreign support and buy them time to recover.

Admittedly a bit cynical. I could be totally wrong. But this is my genuine impression.

Why look at a map? — Olivier5

Because it puts things into perspective.

The Ukrainian forces took back some territory, but large parts of Ukraine remain in Russian hands. Further, it shows the offensive halted at the first natural line of defense it encountered - the Oskil river. Why would that be?

It is significant because it means that the Russians can be beaten. — Olivier5

The aforementioned implies the Russians weren't beaten, but their forward troops retreated to the first line of defense.


Anyway, back to your point.

You're implying that because Ukraine has shown the Russians can be beaten (lets put it in military terms - "is capable of offensive operations") Russia is losing the war. Seems like a jump to conclusions to me.

From them losing ground on the battlefield. — Olivier5

Looking at a map of Ukraine now, why is this significant?

I'm struggling to see where this idea comes from that Russia is losing, and I'm starting to get the impression this forum's ability for reason is buckling under a constant barrage of media propaganda.

I can't blame anyone for that, because the propaganda has been relentless.

Still, I'd like to know what factual circumstances give rise to this idea.

It seems to me people are attributing a little too much to this offensive. The fact that the captured territory was defended by tripwire troops implies it was not of any importance to Russia.

The only goal, in my opinion, that Ukraine has achieved is that it has signalled to the West to still be capable of offensives, in the hopes to garner more aid. An army that cannot conduct offensives is broken and has in essence already lost - an impression that certainly must have crept in with Western leaders after the failed Kherson offensive.

Put differently, the further we get from Jesus, the less apparent the Jewish roots of his teaching and the more it comes to resemble the pagan beliefs of Greece and Rome. — Fooloso4

Interesting, since I came to the opposite conclusion. The closer we get to the teachings of Jesus, Q, the more it seems to resemble classical Greek philosophy; Stoic, Cynic, Platonic - something completely different from Judaism.

If a moral teaching is doing what is already found in the tradition should the "great moral teaching" be attributed to the one who repeats it? — Fooloso4

The greatness of a moral teaching lies solely in the goodness of its contents. The person who repeats it, or even the person who invents it, are in my opinion not relevant at all to the worth of a teaching.

The moral teachings themselves, in distinction from the teachings about him, have much more in common with the teachings of the Jewish sects of his time than any differences we may find. — Fooloso4

They do not have that much in common with Judaism in general and at certain points can be even be considered polar opposites. (though maybe you are talking about specific branches of Judaism I do not know about).

Christianity has much more in common with classical Greek philosophy, especially (neo-)Platonism.

... even the Chairman of the Fed thought the economy was going to settle itself out of the COVID response without needing any unusual intervention. — Tate

If they believed no intervention was necessary then why did they print an unprecedented amount of money?

Perhaps they thought they could "kickstart" the economy, but oh boy were they wrong. If there was any hope of a quick recovery after covid they thoroughly killed it.

But I find it hard to imagine that was their reasoning, because if stimulation was their goal I believe they would have treaded more cautiously.

The thing is, they knew beforehand that raising interest rates to combat inflation was going to be exceedingly difficult. In Europe (different place in the world, but not completely unrelated) interest rates have been 0.0% and even negative for a while, and they're now going up by 0.5% here, 1.0% there - it's not enough. It's not enough by far, yet raising it further will push struggling companies over the edge and flip the economy on its back another time around.

This unhealthy situation (0.0% or negative interest is pure economic fantasy) was on the cards long before covid and Ukraine. Everyone knew if inflation were to skyrocket we'd be in trouble.

Against this backdrop, I struggle to find explanations for the Fed's actions.

Maybe so, but I'm not talking about what caused the financial crisis. I'm talking about the Fed's response, and why it cannot be compared with what the Fed is doing today.

A bunch of stuff. But I don't see how one cancels out the other. There was a financial crisis to solve, and a recession that followed. Maybe you can state your point clearly.

I think I know quite a bit. :chin:

Not exactly. It was responding to catastrophe in the financial sector. Since that sector has become central to the US economy, the government had no choice but to respond. — Tate

It responded to a major recession. Recession is a general slow down of the economy. A reduced demands can lead to deflation and it's been one of the key tasks of the Fed to ensure deflation is kept from worsening a recession further, or worse: ending up in a deflationary spiral. One way it can do so is by increasing the money supply.

In my view, this seems to fit the 2009 Fed response quite well. Today, is clearly quite different. Today the threat is not deflation, but inflation, and printing money will only worsen the situation.

The Fed was printing plenty of money in 2009 too. No inflation. — Xtrix

The difference is the Fed was then responding (correctly) to an economic recession. Now it's creating one!

The fact that he was not prosecuted does not mean there was no evidence of significant wrongdoing. — Fooloso4

How did that come about then?

Trump is a buffoon, but with each passing day this ordeal is looking more and more politically motivated. What'll be the reaction of those on this forum if no evidence of significant wrongdoing is produced? I fear it will be a simple "We'll get him next time", and that's very telling.

Ceaseless money printing is the elephant in the room. It isn't being addressed for political reasons.

For one, central governments and banks have no reason to admit being at fault. Economies are complex enough that it's always possible to find another patsy - financial markets, covid, the Ukraine war, etc. and let the next administration deal with it.

Second, money printing is instrumental to the survival of modern states because tax revenues do not cover state expenses, yet these states have gotten into the habit of spending a lot more than they bring in. Money printing is one of the ways this sand castle is kept standing. It's voter deception plain and simple, because the taxpayer pays for it, but it's never mentioned in any campaign plans. I wonder why?

Third, there are swathes of individuals who sense their preferred politicial systems hinge on this situation of overspending (and they'd even like to see more), so much like my first point, they find a patsy to deflect the blame.


Money printing can be fine, even desirable, to stimulate a growing economy. Economies cannot grow forever, though, and money printing is not a way to support irresponsible fiscal policy and towering government expenditure. It's like a person who has been living well beyond their means and does not wish to cut back. In a sense, states cannot cut back, because they've built a house of cards ontop of this situation. So in reality what's left is to wait for the reaper to come and collect his due.

I think intuition and/or instinct can provide some starting points for morality, but I find the idea that it can provide a basis for morality unconvincing. Plainly following instinct frequently leads to actions that are irreconcilable with any moral code or system.

Instinct may provide us with the basic goal of man - all individuals are instinctually driven towards being happy and content. (Plato's "All men desire the Good")

It is then reason, rationality and wisdom that guide our actions to be in accordance with that goal. I believe that is what morality is.

We tend to see morality as altruistic. I disagree with this. I believe morality is inherently 'selfish', but by acting in ways that are in one's true self-interest, one inevitably becomes a positive force to all around them. Selfishness and selflessness become the same.

As economic growth relies on cheap energy, it will halt and this will eventually also crash our economy because it is essentially set up around the idea of perpetual growth. — ChatteringMonkey

This is a pretty common idea, but what is exactly the logic behind it?

What is the exact mechanism that requires modern economies to grow in order to be considered healthy?

Perpetual growth seems more like a demand of governments that need to compete with their peers (think for example the US-China rivalry; to stand still is to lag behind), compensation for extremely irresponsible fiscal policy and monetary policy and to keep afloat a system of social security that is not economically feasible in the long run.

Just some questions / thoughts your comment raised in me.

I believe global warming is the greatest threat to mankind. — SackofPotatoeJam

I think mankind will be just fine, with or without global warming. It's perhaps the current status quo that will have to go - something for which I won't shed a single tear.

Personally, I am much more worried about pollution.

Further, it seems to me the climate debate has become increasingly politicized and securitized; two things that generally achieve the opposite of solving a problem. In a discussion so rife with ulterior motives I find it hard to trust anything that's being said.

For example, where I live the government has started to disown farmers on a large-scale, supposedly to reduce emmissions. However, it's a poorly-kept secret that the ruling political elite have long wanted to cut down the agriculture sector. So 'climate' has simply become a stick to beat farmers with.

This type of corruption fuels my skepticism.

As the summer hits, and especially for the last few years, I feel more and more uncomfortable going outside. I think most people would agree, i think it's undeniable. — SackofPotatoeJam

I'm not sure where you live. I live in a temperate climate and people complain about the same thing. At the same time, we've had heat waves to upwards of 38 degrees Celcius as long as I can remember. Personally I think it has more to do with the fact that we're so pampered with luxuries like airconditioning and temperate-regulated homes, that we're diminishing our bodies' natural ability to regulate temperature. That also happens as a natural result of getting older, and people are on average getting older.


All of this isn't to say the climate isn't changing. The climate has always been changing. I'm skeptical about the alarmism.

At this point US politics seems so utterly corrupt and devoid of reason, I find it hard to imagine why anyone with a brain would willingly defend either side.

I think that the future effects of global social media and its resultant global organisation of the masses will drown out such small minority self-serving individuals. — universeness

Won't those just be bought and paid for by those same self-serving individuals, like most media is today?

Though, I think today we're seeing a challenge by more independent and critical news outlets. Lots of independent podcasters and people making their voice heard and gathering a following. It's a good trend. If it can withstand the powers that be remains to be soon, though.

It's worrying to me how quickly things like freedom of speech end up on the chopping block when it suits the powerful, and what worries me even more is how easily people accept it.

There is a great deal of historical evidence to back-up what you type here but I don't think it will be ever thus. Social justice and an acceptable level of economic parity has been fought for since we left the wilds. Progress has been slow, but there has been clear, undeniable progress and 2022 years or even 10,000 years of tears is only a few seconds in the cosmic calendar. — universeness

There has been some progress. That's fair enough.

I actually support getting rid of all concepts of nationhood and I support world government. Perhaps the biggest hierarchy possible on the planet is the best way to go. Who will we compete with when we are united as one planet and one species? — universeness

Playing the advocate of the devil here; wouldn't world domination be the wet dream of any uncivilized savage?

Do you really think that the human race is powerless to change this? — universeness

If you mean the fact that the disagreeable, competitive, competent types get to rule, yes, I think mankind is unable to change that except if it somehow this personality type would cease to exist.

They excel by nature at accruing wealth and/or power, and it seems impossible to prevent this from happening because to do so would mean one has to employ coercive measures, and that power then has to be wielded by someone - who is going to do that? The exact same type of person.

Would this system not offer a better way to do politics in the UK? — universeness

I'm not that familiar with the UK system, but reading your idea I like the idea of not allowing political parties. At the same time I'm not sure if the formation of political parties is another natural tendency within human politics, which will just find another outlet in an unforeseen way.

And while this isn't a criticism of your idea, I would note the following:
- No system is immune to corruption. It seems even systems that disemminate power, feature short terms and plenty of checks & balances, etc. eventually fall to corruption.

- Decentralized systems are, in my eyes, more legitimate. However, they also tend to be less efficient. When a system comes under pressure of crises, often the drive towards greater efficiency trumps all else, and power is allowed to centralize. That centralization concentrates power in the hands of fewer people, and will speed up the process of corruption. Additionally, taking this power away again rarely happens, not in the least because those in power will try to consolidate.


It seems to me that mankind is a slave to power dynamics, and that the best we can hope for is to delay the inevitable.

The rich are indeed a product of the 'law of the jungle rules' and this is one of the main reasons why the majority of the worlds population continue to suffer under that exact uncivilised, savage law. — universeness

Perhaps that is true, but it is also unavoidable. At the top of the pyramid, anarchy reigns, and people who excel at accumulating wealth and/or power almost always exhibit disagreeable, competitive traits. Hence the law of the jungle.

The question is whether we want these uncivilized savages to compete over wealth or over actual coercive power.

The more we transfer power to government, the more the emphasis will be on uncivilized savages (politicians) competing over the coercive power of government.

The more we transfer power away from government, the more the emphasis will be on the uncivilized savages ('the rich') competing over wealth.

When it comes down to it, there aren't many more flavors and it's a shit sandwich either way.

Among many critics of capitalism there seems to be the idea that somehow the uncivilized savages will behave in a more agreeable fashion when they're given power over government, but I fear the opposite is true. I think pretty much without exception, powerful governments have plunged into depravity.

Inflation as caused by the increase in the quantity of a currency ('money printing') is a form of devaluation or debasement of currency. It's quite literally a hidden tax.

So there's not much difference, really. That may have been your point.

Have you watched any of Desmet's interviews or read his work? This is one of the exact phenomena he talks about and he terms it "free-floating aggression and anxiety", basically aggression and anxiety for which there does not seem to be a clear cause. The individual simply feels it and does not know why it is there.

It's this aggression and anxiety that can find an outlet through political narratives, for example.

One of the reasons for the increase in free-floating aggression and anxiety that Desmet observes, is the increase in people who feel lonely and socially isolated or 'atomized'.

It's very interesting stuff.