I know you disagree Ira, but I think the US has been deliberately provoking Russia since Bill Clinton. The fruits are what we see in Ukraine. And... elsewhere.
I don't think they have been provoking Russia. But I do think they have been condescending towards Russia. But they are condescending towards all cultures that have other value systems. That is why the left is so good at multi-culturalism - they don't think there are any other cultures.
Ira every “wise man” from George Kenan to Jack Matlock (Reagan’s ambassador to Russia & a Democrat) to everyone in between has warned that Russia sees Ukraine as Russia and don’t go there. My grandparents were born there - they called it Russia. We’ve encircled Russia with 5 NATO expansions & Ukraine was the last straw.
If this is some kind of provocation, then it is the most unqualified and backward. It looks more like ignorance and inability to predict the situation. Provocation must have some meaning and purpose.
Volatility and Risk are Market terms. Escalation and DeEscalation are Therapy.
Neither apply to war or statecraft.
Russia is countering the US because the US is at proxy war attacking Russian soil. Israel is a US proxy.
Russia has no conventional ability to project sufficient force into the region without the sudden complete absence of the USA. Even then… look at a map. It’s very unlikely. The Turks for one would have something to say about that, loudly. Forcefully.
As it happens the USA is probably going to contract inward sharply over the next few months for internal reconciliation.
This doesn’t mean Russia will invade the Middle East.
Now seriously. The entire Russian-Ukrainian conflict is a purely Russian project that Putin has been developing since about 2004, starting with attempts to introduce his corrupt functionaries into Ukrainian state structures, economic expansion, interference in elections, and a puppet pro-Russian president.
If it were a purely American project, Putin would have eaten Ukraine long ago, but his only problem is that the Ukrainian people really don't want to return to the semblance of the Soviet Union that Putin is building.
Believe me, I have been observing Russian-Ukrainian relations since the early 2000s, and I understand them very well.
Yes, Russia considers America an enemy. It has always considered and will consider it, this is being imposed by Russian propaganda, at least since 1994, and before that it was done by Soviet propaganda, but this does not mean that the US is in any way trying to destroy Russia. Moreover, the US is afraid to destroy Russia because it does not sufficiently understand how hostile this state is and how capable it is of delivering serious blows.
They are market terms and are apt for warfare I think. As for Therapy terms for the latter ... no idea.
But I think Russia in the mideast is their historical quest for warm water ports and their expansionist history. I don't see Ukraine or Israel as necessarily proxies for the US - since neither actually conform to US policy, as seen by this administration. As for Israel, I think the natural state of the FP establishment in the US is to oppose it - and the people of the US support it anyway.
The so-called Jewish vote was never a reason to support Israel - certainly not since NY became default blue.
I don’t care if you see me or not, unless it’s downrange.
But you can send your kid if you like. That’s commitment.
Elsewise…. Ta. 👋🏻
It’s a waste of time, money and blood. We 🇺🇸 BTW are no particular benefit to Israel. They probably needed us 1969~ 1989 as counter to Soviet allies, although that may have expired when Egypt and Saudi Arabia became formal clients under Jimmy Carter. After 1989 it’s all been mutually toxic, as stale alliances always become.
In a year all of this will be in perspective; it’s all far away and none of our concern.
I do not fully agree with only one paragraph: that diplomacy is necessary for de-escalation. How many times could one fall into this trap over forty years (and even more) to understand that no diplomacy, neither good, nor bad, nor mediocre, works. We simply repeat from year to year the dogma "the solution can only be diplomatic" because it is beautiful and we like it, but it is not supported by experience at all, and no one has even tried to prove it. They simply take it as an axiom and dogma.
Otherwise, I agree, although I am not sure whether Netanyahu and Putin actually had good relations or whether it was a game.
I would be interested to know where you saw something else with which you do not agree.
In general I tend to agree - but in the case of a country with the size and power of Russia which has 10 times the population of Israel and more firepower, that might be a good solution - especially as it is not clear that the US would have Israel's back.
The point is that for Russia (with a population at least 15 times larger than Israel) and Iran, as well as their satellites, de-escalation is not needed, their goal is escalation. Therefore, any diplomatic solution, even one forced upon them by force or circumstances, will be a freeze of the conflict, preparation for the next round of escalation and then a stronger escalation. I need more compelling arguments to believe that diplomacy will work.
China is certainly a player. But it is not an exclusive player.
I think we all here have already realized (or are in the process of realizing) that the world is on the brink of another world war, so if we go back two world wars and look at the reasons that pushed countries into world wars, we will see that the main driver of world wars was the dissatisfaction of some countries with their position in world influence and the desire to remake the existing world order in their favor. Ideologies were created for this, the economy was adjusted to this.
The same picture is observed now. Russia, Iran and China are dissatisfied with their status, their influence in the world and sincerely believe that they deserve more (ideologies in all these countries demonize influential countries of the world, their way of life and politics, and praise their own moral values, instilling in people the idea of the legitimacy of changing the world order).
Which of them is less deprived, and who is more inclined to a world war is not so important. And even if China now seems uninterested in divisions, repartitions and wars, it has all the signs. And I think the question of whether China is player number one or player number two is irrelevant. I personally would not put it first. Yet.
Of all the words of mice and men
The saddest are "It might have been."
I know you disagree Ira, but I think the US has been deliberately provoking Russia since Bill Clinton. The fruits are what we see in Ukraine. And... elsewhere.
But it is what it is.
I don't think they have been provoking Russia. But I do think they have been condescending towards Russia. But they are condescending towards all cultures that have other value systems. That is why the left is so good at multi-culturalism - they don't think there are any other cultures.
Ira every “wise man” from George Kenan to Jack Matlock (Reagan’s ambassador to Russia & a Democrat) to everyone in between has warned that Russia sees Ukraine as Russia and don’t go there. My grandparents were born there - they called it Russia. We’ve encircled Russia with 5 NATO expansions & Ukraine was the last straw.
My grandmother was born there and called it…. Poland.
That was the other side. Big place!
My dad always called the place where his parents were from Poland but its Lithuania.
If this is some kind of provocation, then it is the most unqualified and backward. It looks more like ignorance and inability to predict the situation. Provocation must have some meaning and purpose.
Exactly what I was thinking. Russia plays chess, the West, checkers.
If you think that Russians are good grandmasters, it is only because they play against mediocre, and sometimes worse, players.
That’s what I said: the rest of the West is playing checkers.
Volatility and Risk are Market terms. Escalation and DeEscalation are Therapy.
Neither apply to war or statecraft.
Russia is countering the US because the US is at proxy war attacking Russian soil. Israel is a US proxy.
Russia has no conventional ability to project sufficient force into the region without the sudden complete absence of the USA. Even then… look at a map. It’s very unlikely. The Turks for one would have something to say about that, loudly. Forcefully.
As it happens the USA is probably going to contract inward sharply over the next few months for internal reconciliation.
This doesn’t mean Russia will invade the Middle East.
Sorry, but the US is not attacking Russian territory anywhere, has no such goal and even demonstrates reluctance to do so.
All of Russia's actions now are aimed at redistributing spheres of influence in the world. Two factors contribute to this:
The weakening of the US influence on global processes, which gives Russia the opportunity and hope for success.
Imperial consciousness, the idea that Russia is worthy of more in world governance and the myth of Russia's "purpose" in the world order.
Lol we’re attacking from Ukraine.
And it’s public knowledge.
Stop.
Thanks
Now it's my turn to laugh.
Have you reached Moscow yet?
Now seriously. The entire Russian-Ukrainian conflict is a purely Russian project that Putin has been developing since about 2004, starting with attempts to introduce his corrupt functionaries into Ukrainian state structures, economic expansion, interference in elections, and a puppet pro-Russian president.
If it were a purely American project, Putin would have eaten Ukraine long ago, but his only problem is that the Ukrainian people really don't want to return to the semblance of the Soviet Union that Putin is building.
Believe me, I have been observing Russian-Ukrainian relations since the early 2000s, and I understand them very well.
Yes, Russia considers America an enemy. It has always considered and will consider it, this is being imposed by Russian propaganda, at least since 1994, and before that it was done by Soviet propaganda, but this does not mean that the US is in any way trying to destroy Russia. Moreover, the US is afraid to destroy Russia because it does not sufficiently understand how hostile this state is and how capable it is of delivering serious blows.
They are market terms and are apt for warfare I think. As for Therapy terms for the latter ... no idea.
But I think Russia in the mideast is their historical quest for warm water ports and their expansionist history. I don't see Ukraine or Israel as necessarily proxies for the US - since neither actually conform to US policy, as seen by this administration. As for Israel, I think the natural state of the FP establishment in the US is to oppose it - and the people of the US support it anyway.
The so-called Jewish vote was never a reason to support Israel - certainly not since NY became default blue.
There is no way in the world the US will ever exit the Persian Gulf. Ever.
??? What? Of course we will
We are…
We don’t need their oil
Or their murderous, autistic dramas.
See you in a year.
Ok lol 😂 see me how?
I’ve been there 3 times on deployments.
You?
???
I don’t care if you see me or not, unless it’s downrange.
But you can send your kid if you like. That’s commitment.
Elsewise…. Ta. 👋🏻
It’s a waste of time, money and blood. We 🇺🇸 BTW are no particular benefit to Israel. They probably needed us 1969~ 1989 as counter to Soviet allies, although that may have expired when Egypt and Saudi Arabia became formal clients under Jimmy Carter. After 1989 it’s all been mutually toxic, as stale alliances always become.
In a year all of this will be in perspective; it’s all far away and none of our concern.
I’ve never been there and I think that’s a ridiculous argument. I don’t have to have visited Gettysburg (which I have) to know its significance.
The US replaced Britain as the reigning power in the Gulf and as long as it’s a great power it will stay there.
Muting. I don’t deal with irrational people anymore.
That’s nice. Actually your dealings with the irrational have yet to begin…
we are indeed a great power and this is our Suez
I agree with about half of what you say and disagree with about half. Meaning: The Angry Demagogue is worth reading. Yes, feel free to quote.
I do not fully agree with only one paragraph: that diplomacy is necessary for de-escalation. How many times could one fall into this trap over forty years (and even more) to understand that no diplomacy, neither good, nor bad, nor mediocre, works. We simply repeat from year to year the dogma "the solution can only be diplomatic" because it is beautiful and we like it, but it is not supported by experience at all, and no one has even tried to prove it. They simply take it as an axiom and dogma.
Otherwise, I agree, although I am not sure whether Netanyahu and Putin actually had good relations or whether it was a game.
I would be interested to know where you saw something else with which you do not agree.
In general I tend to agree - but in the case of a country with the size and power of Russia which has 10 times the population of Israel and more firepower, that might be a good solution - especially as it is not clear that the US would have Israel's back.
The point is that for Russia (with a population at least 15 times larger than Israel) and Iran, as well as their satellites, de-escalation is not needed, their goal is escalation. Therefore, any diplomatic solution, even one forced upon them by force or circumstances, will be a freeze of the conflict, preparation for the next round of escalation and then a stronger escalation. I need more compelling arguments to believe that diplomacy will work.
China as constructive player. I think Daniel is way off base on that.
Not constructive for the world - constructive for them.
China is certainly a player. But it is not an exclusive player.
I think we all here have already realized (or are in the process of realizing) that the world is on the brink of another world war, so if we go back two world wars and look at the reasons that pushed countries into world wars, we will see that the main driver of world wars was the dissatisfaction of some countries with their position in world influence and the desire to remake the existing world order in their favor. Ideologies were created for this, the economy was adjusted to this.
The same picture is observed now. Russia, Iran and China are dissatisfied with their status, their influence in the world and sincerely believe that they deserve more (ideologies in all these countries demonize influential countries of the world, their way of life and politics, and praise their own moral values, instilling in people the idea of the legitimacy of changing the world order).
Which of them is less deprived, and who is more inclined to a world war is not so important. And even if China now seems uninterested in divisions, repartitions and wars, it has all the signs. And I think the question of whether China is player number one or player number two is irrelevant. I personally would not put it first. Yet.
This is our Suez. This time it’s Israel ordering us out.
The civilian national guard didn't take off, Lefty's thought BG would have a private army so crushed the idea
get those guns back to civilians in Israel ASAP, I'd hate to hear something stupid like they were destroyed