dajo9 said:
Yes, America should form a global coalition of free countries for mutual defense and trade. Then have Olympics and World Cups, etc. with only these countries. The autocrats need to be left completely behind.
Glad we agree. We've got a long way to go before we get there, though.Sebastabear said:Personally I do include them. Yemen is a total abomination and that's without getting into women's rights, the beheadings, the assassinations of journalists, etc. Part of the reason I think we need to do everything possible to get off of foreign oil (including through investing in nuclear power) as soon as possible. In addition to destroying the planet we are shoving money into the pockets of some of the worst people in the world. It needs to stop.OneKeg said:Hey Sebastabear. Hope you're doing well.Sebastabear said:That was 100% the theory. Seemed at least plausible. The fact that thesis was being proffered most loudly by those who would personally benefit from multilateral trade (and by the politicians beholden to them) should have made us all a bit more cynical.golden sloth said:Sebastabear said:
If people ever wonder how Germany could have possible gotten themselves so beholden for energy to an unstable kleptocracy, there was an interesting piece in The NY Times today on former German Chancellor Schroder.
As with all questions, the answer to that one is "money". Schroder was (and continues to be) bought and paid for by Putin. But the Germans ran into Putin's arms willingly.
I think it's also fair to say that the invasion of Ukraine proves once and for all that the policy of economic engagement with totalitarian states is an abject failure. Contrary to that Ill-conceived approach, it doesn't "civilize" these states to engage them with the world's economy through multilateral trade. It just enriches them. And you know what crazy mofo's do with mad money? The answer is they do crazy mofo things. China gets rich and uses the money to entrench a totalitarian government, build the Great firewall of China and wipe out the Uighurs. And Putin sells billions of dollars of oil and gas to the West and then uses the money to try to recreate Czarist Russia. And 10's of thousands of innocents die.
Why? Money. Always money.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/world/europe/schroder-germany-russia-gas-ukraine-war-energy.html?referringSource=articleShare
My counterpoint is that there was a theory that if free countries traded with authoritarian countries, the authoritarian countries would see the virtues of the free and push for reform. That worked rather well until the mid-naughties, when the democratic backsliding throughout the world started.
In any event, it clearly didn't work. And all we did was enrich the two states who (together with North Korea) are the closest reflection of Orwell's dystopian nightmare the world has ever seen.
Moral of the story is you should do business with good people and not do business with bad people. It may seem at times like you are sacrificing opportunities but in the long run you will always come out ahead.
I agree with you. But with that thesis in the last paragraph, you have to include countries like Saudi Arabia in with Russia as having 'bad' governments, right? Yemen is of course not exactly the same as Ukraine, but still...
In Russia the state has ordered publishers to eliminate the word "Ukraine" from textbooks. An attempt to erase a nation and a people, and to leave no trace, has begun.https://t.co/F9Dg2tjVrg
— Anne Applebaum (@anneapplebaum) April 23, 2022
Russia descends even deeper into medieval barbarism, as a pundit argues on state TV that the exits at Azovstal should be sealed off with concrete. Host prefers the idea of capturing Ukrainians and showing them at public markets, allowing anyone to do "whatever they want" to them. pic.twitter.com/lAGjJWwiMW
— Julia Davis (@JuliaDavisNews) April 23, 2022
Sebastabear said:That was 100% the theory. Seemed at least plausible. The fact that thesis was being proffered most loudly by those who would personally benefit from multilateral trade (and by the politicians beholden to them) should have made us all a bit more cynical.golden sloth said:Sebastabear said:
If people ever wonder how Germany could have possible gotten themselves so beholden for energy to an unstable kleptocracy, there was an interesting piece in The NY Times today on former German Chancellor Schroder.
As with all questions, the answer to that one is "money". Schroder was (and continues to be) bought and paid for by Putin. But the Germans ran into Putin's arms willingly.
I think it's also fair to say that the invasion of Ukraine proves once and for all that the policy of economic engagement with totalitarian states is an abject failure. Contrary to that Ill-conceived approach, it doesn't "civilize" these states to engage them with the world's economy through multilateral trade. It just enriches them. And you know what crazy mofo's do with mad money? The answer is they do crazy mofo things. China gets rich and uses the money to entrench a totalitarian government, build the Great firewall of China and wipe out the Uighurs. And Putin sells billions of dollars of oil and gas to the West and then uses the money to try to recreate Czarist Russia. And 10's of thousands of innocents die.
Why? Money. Always money.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/world/europe/schroder-germany-russia-gas-ukraine-war-energy.html?referringSource=articleShare
My counterpoint is that there was a theory that if free countries traded with authoritarian countries, the authoritarian countries would see the virtues of the free and push for reform. That worked rather well until the mid-naughties, when the democratic backsliding throughout the world started.
In any event, it clearly didn't work. And all we did was enrich the two states who (together with North Korea) are the closest reflection of Orwell's dystopian nightmare the world has ever seen.
Moral of the story is you should do business with good people and not do business with bad people. It may seem at times like you are sacrificing opportunities but in the long run you will always come out ahead.
Wait, what?Big C said:Sebastabear said:That was 100% the theory. Seemed at least plausible. The fact that thesis was being proffered most loudly by those who would personally benefit from multilateral trade (and by the politicians beholden to them) should have made us all a bit more cynical.golden sloth said:Sebastabear said:
If people ever wonder how Germany could have possible gotten themselves so beholden for energy to an unstable kleptocracy, there was an interesting piece in The NY Times today on former German Chancellor Schroder.
As with all questions, the answer to that one is "money". Schroder was (and continues to be) bought and paid for by Putin. But the Germans ran into Putin's arms willingly.
I think it's also fair to say that the invasion of Ukraine proves once and for all that the policy of economic engagement with totalitarian states is an abject failure. Contrary to that Ill-conceived approach, it doesn't "civilize" these states to engage them with the world's economy through multilateral trade. It just enriches them. And you know what crazy mofo's do with mad money? The answer is they do crazy mofo things. China gets rich and uses the money to entrench a totalitarian government, build the Great firewall of China and wipe out the Uighurs. And Putin sells billions of dollars of oil and gas to the West and then uses the money to try to recreate Czarist Russia. And 10's of thousands of innocents die.
Why? Money. Always money.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/world/europe/schroder-germany-russia-gas-ukraine-war-energy.html?referringSource=articleShare
My counterpoint is that there was a theory that if free countries traded with authoritarian countries, the authoritarian countries would see the virtues of the free and push for reform. That worked rather well until the mid-naughties, when the democratic backsliding throughout the world started.
In any event, it clearly didn't work. And all we did was enrich the two states who (together with North Korea) are the closest reflection of Orwell's dystopian nightmare the world has ever seen.
Moral of the story is you should do business with good people and not do business with bad people. It may seem at times like you are sacrificing opportunities but in the long run you will always come out ahead.
You're comparing today's reality with what you imagine things might be under other circumstances, but what if it were different than you imagine?
Sebastabear said:Wait, what?Big C said:Sebastabear said:That was 100% the theory. Seemed at least plausible. The fact that thesis was being proffered most loudly by those who would personally benefit from multilateral trade (and by the politicians beholden to them) should have made us all a bit more cynical.golden sloth said:Sebastabear said:
If people ever wonder how Germany could have possible gotten themselves so beholden for energy to an unstable kleptocracy, there was an interesting piece in The NY Times today on former German Chancellor Schroder.
As with all questions, the answer to that one is "money". Schroder was (and continues to be) bought and paid for by Putin. But the Germans ran into Putin's arms willingly.
I think it's also fair to say that the invasion of Ukraine proves once and for all that the policy of economic engagement with totalitarian states is an abject failure. Contrary to that Ill-conceived approach, it doesn't "civilize" these states to engage them with the world's economy through multilateral trade. It just enriches them. And you know what crazy mofo's do with mad money? The answer is they do crazy mofo things. China gets rich and uses the money to entrench a totalitarian government, build the Great firewall of China and wipe out the Uighurs. And Putin sells billions of dollars of oil and gas to the West and then uses the money to try to recreate Czarist Russia. And 10's of thousands of innocents die.
Why? Money. Always money.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/world/europe/schroder-germany-russia-gas-ukraine-war-energy.html?referringSource=articleShare
My counterpoint is that there was a theory that if free countries traded with authoritarian countries, the authoritarian countries would see the virtues of the free and push for reform. That worked rather well until the mid-naughties, when the democratic backsliding throughout the world started.
In any event, it clearly didn't work. And all we did was enrich the two states who (together with North Korea) are the closest reflection of Orwell's dystopian nightmare the world has ever seen.
Moral of the story is you should do business with good people and not do business with bad people. It may seem at times like you are sacrificing opportunities but in the long run you will always come out ahead.
You're comparing today's reality with what you imagine things might be under other circumstances, but what if it were different than you imagine?
Ah. I see now. Yes, it's fair to speculate that we'd be looking at a worse outcome had we never economically engaged with these states in the first place. Would we be a pile of radioactive rubble for example if we'd never engaged? Yeah, that's certainly possible and certainly a worse outcome. But what I was trying to say was that the stated objective of bringing them into the world's economy (and enriching these authoritarian states in the process) is an abject failure at least in terms of making them more democratic. That definitely didn't happen and it definitely didn't work.Big C said:Sebastabear said:Wait, what?Big C said:Sebastabear said:That was 100% the theory. Seemed at least plausible. The fact that thesis was being proffered most loudly by those who would personally benefit from multilateral trade (and by the politicians beholden to them) should have made us all a bit more cynical.golden sloth said:Sebastabear said:
If people ever wonder how Germany could have possible gotten themselves so beholden for energy to an unstable kleptocracy, there was an interesting piece in The NY Times today on former German Chancellor Schroder.
As with all questions, the answer to that one is "money". Schroder was (and continues to be) bought and paid for by Putin. But the Germans ran into Putin's arms willingly.
I think it's also fair to say that the invasion of Ukraine proves once and for all that the policy of economic engagement with totalitarian states is an abject failure. Contrary to that Ill-conceived approach, it doesn't "civilize" these states to engage them with the world's economy through multilateral trade. It just enriches them. And you know what crazy mofo's do with mad money? The answer is they do crazy mofo things. China gets rich and uses the money to entrench a totalitarian government, build the Great firewall of China and wipe out the Uighurs. And Putin sells billions of dollars of oil and gas to the West and then uses the money to try to recreate Czarist Russia. And 10's of thousands of innocents die.
Why? Money. Always money.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/world/europe/schroder-germany-russia-gas-ukraine-war-energy.html?referringSource=articleShare
My counterpoint is that there was a theory that if free countries traded with authoritarian countries, the authoritarian countries would see the virtues of the free and push for reform. That worked rather well until the mid-naughties, when the democratic backsliding throughout the world started.
In any event, it clearly didn't work. And all we did was enrich the two states who (together with North Korea) are the closest reflection of Orwell's dystopian nightmare the world has ever seen.
Moral of the story is you should do business with good people and not do business with bad people. It may seem at times like you are sacrificing opportunities but in the long run you will always come out ahead.
You're comparing today's reality with what you imagine things might be under other circumstances, but what if it were different than you imagine?
I don't think I was responding to the correct post of yours. I meant the one where you stated that the "policy of engagement with totalitarian states is an abject failure".
(quite possible that you will disagree with me nevertheless)
You're assuming a better outcome with a different hypothetical scenario. What we have done to date maybe hasn't worked out all that well in many respects, but we don't know that a different policy in the same situation would have been better. Speculation.
Case in point, I can't even imagine what our world might be like if we hadn't chosen to engage with China economically, over the past few decades, but it would be different for sure. Too many variables to factor in.
Sebastabear said:Ah. I see now. Yes, it's fair to speculate that we'd be looking at a worse outcome had we never economically engaged with these states in the first place. Would we be a pile of radioactive rubble for example if we'd never engaged? Yeah, that's certainly possible and certainly a worse outcome. But what I was trying to say was that the stated objective of bringing them into the world's economy (and enriching these authoritarian states in the process) is an abject failure at least in terms of making them more democratic. That definitely didn't happen and it definitely didn't work.Big C said:Sebastabear said:Wait, what?Big C said:Sebastabear said:That was 100% the theory. Seemed at least plausible. The fact that thesis was being proffered most loudly by those who would personally benefit from multilateral trade (and by the politicians beholden to them) should have made us all a bit more cynical.golden sloth said:Sebastabear said:
If people ever wonder how Germany could have possible gotten themselves so beholden for energy to an unstable kleptocracy, there was an interesting piece in The NY Times today on former German Chancellor Schroder.
As with all questions, the answer to that one is "money". Schroder was (and continues to be) bought and paid for by Putin. But the Germans ran into Putin's arms willingly.
I think it's also fair to say that the invasion of Ukraine proves once and for all that the policy of economic engagement with totalitarian states is an abject failure. Contrary to that Ill-conceived approach, it doesn't "civilize" these states to engage them with the world's economy through multilateral trade. It just enriches them. And you know what crazy mofo's do with mad money? The answer is they do crazy mofo things. China gets rich and uses the money to entrench a totalitarian government, build the Great firewall of China and wipe out the Uighurs. And Putin sells billions of dollars of oil and gas to the West and then uses the money to try to recreate Czarist Russia. And 10's of thousands of innocents die.
Why? Money. Always money.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/world/europe/schroder-germany-russia-gas-ukraine-war-energy.html?referringSource=articleShare
My counterpoint is that there was a theory that if free countries traded with authoritarian countries, the authoritarian countries would see the virtues of the free and push for reform. That worked rather well until the mid-naughties, when the democratic backsliding throughout the world started.
In any event, it clearly didn't work. And all we did was enrich the two states who (together with North Korea) are the closest reflection of Orwell's dystopian nightmare the world has ever seen.
Moral of the story is you should do business with good people and not do business with bad people. It may seem at times like you are sacrificing opportunities but in the long run you will always come out ahead.
You're comparing today's reality with what you imagine things might be under other circumstances, but what if it were different than you imagine?
I don't think I was responding to the correct post of yours. I meant the one where you stated that the "policy of engagement with totalitarian states is an abject failure".
(quite possible that you will disagree with me nevertheless)
You're assuming a better outcome with a different hypothetical scenario. What we have done to date maybe hasn't worked out all that well in many respects, but we don't know that a different policy in the same situation would have been better. Speculation.
Case in point, I can't even imagine what our world might be like if we hadn't chosen to engage with China economically, over the past few decades, but it would be different for sure. Too many variables to factor in.
There was some hope with China before Tiananmen Square, but things tacked a different direction. Same with Russia. In fact not engaging with Russia economically brought them closer to being a functioning democracy than they've been in 1,000 years. But the more we've engaged - and the more money we've shoveled at them - the farther they've slid and the more authoritarian they've become.
So are we better off? Too many variables, but there's a reason to think "no." Are China and Russia closer to being functioning democracies? Absolutely not.
China poses a similar problem.Big C said:
And I wanna say that Russia, post-Putin, is going to be more democratic. Admittedly, that might be the optimist in me, but hopefully their equivalents of Millennials and Gen Z are looking at the world situation and thinking that the US/Western Europe model for success is more compelling and, ultimately, more successful. Russia is tough, though, because they don't have much of a democratic tradition. Seems like a no-brainer to us, but it's not really in their mindset.
Yeah, as you implied I really don't think those are analogs. We didn't economically "engage" with Japan and Germany until after the war. Here we are talking about economic engagement to bring about political change. In WWII we overthrew their governments and rebuilt them from the ground up and then economically engaged with those new governments. Hell, we wrote the Japanese constitution. If we engaged with them before 1945 it was at the pointy end of a bayonet.Big C said:Sebastabear said:Ah. I see now. Yes, it's fair to speculate that we'd be looking at a worse outcome had we never economically engaged with these states in the first place. Would we be a pile of radioactive rubble for example if we'd never engaged? Yeah, that's certainly possible and certainly a worse outcome. But what I was trying to say was that the stated objective of bringing them into the world's economy (and enriching these authoritarian states in the process) is an abject failure at least in terms of making them more democratic. That definitely didn't happen and it definitely didn't work.Big C said:Sebastabear said:Wait, what?Big C said:Sebastabear said:That was 100% the theory. Seemed at least plausible. The fact that thesis was being proffered most loudly by those who would personally benefit from multilateral trade (and by the politicians beholden to them) should have made us all a bit more cynical.golden sloth said:Sebastabear said:
If people ever wonder how Germany could have possible gotten themselves so beholden for energy to an unstable kleptocracy, there was an interesting piece in The NY Times today on former German Chancellor Schroder.
As with all questions, the answer to that one is "money". Schroder was (and continues to be) bought and paid for by Putin. But the Germans ran into Putin's arms willingly.
I think it's also fair to say that the invasion of Ukraine proves once and for all that the policy of economic engagement with totalitarian states is an abject failure. Contrary to that Ill-conceived approach, it doesn't "civilize" these states to engage them with the world's economy through multilateral trade. It just enriches them. And you know what crazy mofo's do with mad money? The answer is they do crazy mofo things. China gets rich and uses the money to entrench a totalitarian government, build the Great firewall of China and wipe out the Uighurs. And Putin sells billions of dollars of oil and gas to the West and then uses the money to try to recreate Czarist Russia. And 10's of thousands of innocents die.
Why? Money. Always money.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/world/europe/schroder-germany-russia-gas-ukraine-war-energy.html?referringSource=articleShare
My counterpoint is that there was a theory that if free countries traded with authoritarian countries, the authoritarian countries would see the virtues of the free and push for reform. That worked rather well until the mid-naughties, when the democratic backsliding throughout the world started.
In any event, it clearly didn't work. And all we did was enrich the two states who (together with North Korea) are the closest reflection of Orwell's dystopian nightmare the world has ever seen.
Moral of the story is you should do business with good people and not do business with bad people. It may seem at times like you are sacrificing opportunities but in the long run you will always come out ahead.
You're comparing today's reality with what you imagine things might be under other circumstances, but what if it were different than you imagine?
I don't think I was responding to the correct post of yours. I meant the one where you stated that the "policy of engagement with totalitarian states is an abject failure".
(quite possible that you will disagree with me nevertheless)
You're assuming a better outcome with a different hypothetical scenario. What we have done to date maybe hasn't worked out all that well in many respects, but we don't know that a different policy in the same situation would have been better. Speculation.
Case in point, I can't even imagine what our world might be like if we hadn't chosen to engage with China economically, over the past few decades, but it would be different for sure. Too many variables to factor in.
There was some hope with China before Tiananmen Square, but things tacked a different direction. Same with Russia. In fact not engaging with Russia economically brought them closer to being a functioning democracy than they've been in 1,000 years. But the more we've engaged - and the more money we've shoveled at them - the farther they've slid and the more authoritarian they've become.
So are we better off? Too many variables, but there's a reason to think "no." Are China and Russia closer to being functioning democracies? Absolutely not.
Examples of "policy of engagement" in fairly recent history that have worked: Germany and Japan after WWII. Different situations, granted, as we got to perform a complete "re-do".
Russian FSB has fabricated a "plot" to kill Russian TV propagandist Solovyov. Allegedly by Ukrainian SBU and Nazis. One of the "evidences" is neonazi inscription on a book. Signed by "Signature unclear". Yes, FSB got an order to sign it with a "signature unclear" - and did so! pic.twitter.com/P1vnDOXOIB
— Sergej Sumlenny (@sumlenny) April 25, 2022
I don't necessarily disagree, but what if all those 'Gen-Z's' that want democracy and were intelligent already left. Russia has been experiencing a pretty significant brain drain over the last few decades.Big C said:Sebastabear said:Ah. I see now. Yes, it's fair to speculate that we'd be looking at a worse outcome had we never economically engaged with these states in the first place. Would we be a pile of radioactive rubble for example if we'd never engaged? Yeah, that's certainly possible and certainly a worse outcome. But what I was trying to say was that the stated objective of bringing them into the world's economy (and enriching these authoritarian states in the process) is an abject failure at least in terms of making them more democratic. That definitely didn't happen and it definitely didn't work.Big C said:Sebastabear said:Wait, what?Big C said:Sebastabear said:That was 100% the theory. Seemed at least plausible. The fact that thesis was being proffered most loudly by those who would personally benefit from multilateral trade (and by the politicians beholden to them) should have made us all a bit more cynical.golden sloth said:Sebastabear said:
If people ever wonder how Germany could have possible gotten themselves so beholden for energy to an unstable kleptocracy, there was an interesting piece in The NY Times today on former German Chancellor Schroder.
As with all questions, the answer to that one is "money". Schroder was (and continues to be) bought and paid for by Putin. But the Germans ran into Putin's arms willingly.
I think it's also fair to say that the invasion of Ukraine proves once and for all that the policy of economic engagement with totalitarian states is an abject failure. Contrary to that Ill-conceived approach, it doesn't "civilize" these states to engage them with the world's economy through multilateral trade. It just enriches them. And you know what crazy mofo's do with mad money? The answer is they do crazy mofo things. China gets rich and uses the money to entrench a totalitarian government, build the Great firewall of China and wipe out the Uighurs. And Putin sells billions of dollars of oil and gas to the West and then uses the money to try to recreate Czarist Russia. And 10's of thousands of innocents die.
Why? Money. Always money.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/world/europe/schroder-germany-russia-gas-ukraine-war-energy.html?referringSource=articleShare
My counterpoint is that there was a theory that if free countries traded with authoritarian countries, the authoritarian countries would see the virtues of the free and push for reform. That worked rather well until the mid-naughties, when the democratic backsliding throughout the world started.
In any event, it clearly didn't work. And all we did was enrich the two states who (together with North Korea) are the closest reflection of Orwell's dystopian nightmare the world has ever seen.
Moral of the story is you should do business with good people and not do business with bad people. It may seem at times like you are sacrificing opportunities but in the long run you will always come out ahead.
You're comparing today's reality with what you imagine things might be under other circumstances, but what if it were different than you imagine?
I don't think I was responding to the correct post of yours. I meant the one where you stated that the "policy of engagement with totalitarian states is an abject failure".
(quite possible that you will disagree with me nevertheless)
You're assuming a better outcome with a different hypothetical scenario. What we have done to date maybe hasn't worked out all that well in many respects, but we don't know that a different policy in the same situation would have been better. Speculation.
Case in point, I can't even imagine what our world might be like if we hadn't chosen to engage with China economically, over the past few decades, but it would be different for sure. Too many variables to factor in.
There was some hope with China before Tiananmen Square, but things tacked a different direction. Same with Russia. In fact not engaging with Russia economically brought them closer to being a functioning democracy than they've been in 1,000 years. But the more we've engaged - and the more money we've shoveled at them - the farther they've slid and the more authoritarian they've become.
So are we better off? Too many variables, but there's a reason to think "no." Are China and Russia closer to being functioning democracies? Absolutely not.
I can't say I disagree, but two points:
Examples of "policy of engagement" in fairly recent history that have worked: Germany and Japan after WWII. Different situations, granted, as we got to perform a complete "re-do".
And I wanna say that Russia, post-Putin, is going to be more democratic. Admittedly, that might be the optimist in me, but hopefully their equivalents of Millennials and Gen Z are looking at the world situation and thinking that the US/Western Europe model for success is more compelling and, ultimately, more successful. Russia is tough, though, because they don't have much of a democratic tradition. Seems like a no-brainer to us, but it's not really in their mindset.
That's hysterical but also kind of depressing that we were dumb enough to let these numbnuts hack our election.Unit2Sucks said:
Putin's really lost his touch.Russian FSB has fabricated a "plot" to kill Russian TV propagandist Solovyov. Allegedly by Ukrainian SBU and Nazis. One of the "evidences" is neonazi inscription on a book. Signed by "Signature unclear". Yes, FSB got an order to sign it with a "signature unclear" - and did so! pic.twitter.com/P1vnDOXOIB
— Sergej Sumlenny (@sumlenny) April 25, 2022
The track records of America's oligarchs aren't much better. While Bezos's employees have to pee in bottles to meet their schedules, he's shooting weird rockets with his crazy mofo $$$. I don't think any nation has a monopoly on good or evil.Sebastabear said:
If people ever wonder how Germany could have possible gotten themselves so beholden for energy to an unstable kleptocracy, there was an interesting piece in The NY Times today on former German Chancellor Schroder.
As with all questions, the answer to that one is "money". Schroder was (and continues to be) bought and paid for by Putin. But the Germans ran into Putin's arms willingly.
I think it's also fair to say that the invasion of Ukraine proves once and for all that the policy of economic engagement with totalitarian states is an abject failure. Contrary to that Ill-conceived approach, it doesn't "civilize" these states to engage them with the world's economy through multilateral trade. It just enriches them. And you know what crazy mofo's do with mad money? The answer is they do crazy mofo things. China gets rich and uses the money to entrench a totalitarian government, build the Great firewall of China and wipe out the Uighurs. And Putin sells billions of dollars of oil and gas to the West and then uses the money to try to recreate Czarist Russia. And 10's of thousands of innocents die.
Why? Money. Always money.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/world/europe/schroder-germany-russia-gas-ukraine-war-energy.html?referringSource=articleShare
Blue AnonSebastabear said:That's hysterical but also kind of depressing that we were dumb enough to let these numbnuts hack our election.Unit2Sucks said:
Putin's really lost his touch.Russian FSB has fabricated a "plot" to kill Russian TV propagandist Solovyov. Allegedly by Ukrainian SBU and Nazis. One of the "evidences" is neonazi inscription on a book. Signed by "Signature unclear". Yes, FSB got an order to sign it with a "signature unclear" - and did so! pic.twitter.com/P1vnDOXOIB
— Sergej Sumlenny (@sumlenny) April 25, 2022
Great way to lose whatever sympathy you have from Russian civilians and anti-war people all over the world. Also might get you nuked or chemical weaponed because Russia will feel even more justified.Big C said:
I can't decide if the above is the worst best idea ever, or the best worst idea ever.
Not saying Bezos is a saint but this is classic bothsides-ism. Comparing what China is doing to the Uighurs and Russia is doing to Ukraine with people peeing in bottles? Really?cbbass1 said:The track records of America's oligarchs aren't much better. While Bezos's employees have to pee in bottles to meet their schedules, he's shooting weird rockets with his crazy mofo $$$. I don't think any nation has a monopoly on good or evil.Sebastabear said:
If people ever wonder how Germany could have possible gotten themselves so beholden for energy to an unstable kleptocracy, there was an interesting piece in The NY Times today on former German Chancellor Schroder.
As with all questions, the answer to that one is "money". Schroder was (and continues to be) bought and paid for by Putin. But the Germans ran into Putin's arms willingly.
I think it's also fair to say that the invasion of Ukraine proves once and for all that the policy of economic engagement with totalitarian states is an abject failure. Contrary to that Ill-conceived approach, it doesn't "civilize" these states to engage them with the world's economy through multilateral trade. It just enriches them. And you know what crazy mofo's do with mad money? The answer is they do crazy mofo things. China gets rich and uses the money to entrench a totalitarian government, build the Great firewall of China and wipe out the Uighurs. And Putin sells billions of dollars of oil and gas to the West and then uses the money to try to recreate Czarist Russia. And 10's of thousands of innocents die.
Why? Money. Always money.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/world/europe/schroder-germany-russia-gas-ukraine-war-energy.html?referringSource=articleShare
Follow the money.
Sebastabear said:
That's hysterical but also kind of depressing that we were dumb enough to let these numbnuts hack our election.
Unit2Sucks said:Great way to lose whatever sympathy you have from Russian civilians and anti-war people all over the world. Also might get you nuked or chemical weaponed because Russia will feel even more justified.Big C said:
I can't decide if the above is the worst best idea ever, or the best worst idea ever.
Have you seen Rocky II or III?Big C said:Unit2Sucks said:Great way to lose whatever sympathy you have from Russian civilians and anti-war people all over the world. Also might get you nuked or chemical weaponed because Russia will feel even more justified.Big C said:
I can't decide if the above is the worst best idea ever, or the best worst idea ever.
Surely it would be a risk. Meanwhile, Ukraine's in a boxing match where only its opponent is allowed to throw punches. The best they can do is try to block the punches really hard.
Big C said:
Completely different angle: It's worrisome that Russia is now able to concentrate its might on eastern/southeastern Ukraine. I don't want WW III, but it sure would shake their Rooskie azzes up if THEIR OWN country got attacked at a completely different location. But where... and how... and who? Then it hit me:
Ukraine ought to launch a counter-offensive, take the fight right into Russia! I know that limits their credibility when it comes to getting world sympathy, but why does Russia get to do whatever-the-heck it wants, with impunity?
They should go right into Moscow! Get a small, elite force (dunno how many that would be... 20? 50? 100? 500?) and some great weapons that do not have a US label on them and fake their way right to the Russian equivalent of the Pentagon (if there is such a thing... the Kremlin?) and just blow up as much of it as possible!
Then also go to a super-fancy apartment building that might be inhabited by the Russian elite and fill it with bullet holes. Not shells that would explode though, because Ukraine is the good guys! Hopefully kill a few civilians, but not too many. Yes, I wrote "hopefully kill a few civilians". Tough toenails. You know what they say, "War is hell."
Likely a suicide mission, but maybe if they worked quickly and planned it well enough, they could even get their guys out of there.
When they do this, they need to immediately and thoroughly spread a message to the effect of the following: "Hey Russia, you probably don't like having your capital city attacked, do you. Well, now you know how we feel the past month! And you better start defending the insides of your borders, rooskies, because you have no idea where or when the next one is coming! Getting hard to sleep at night now? Try one more bottle of vodka: It seems to be putting your soldiers to sleep." (ok, I'm getting carried away...maybe a slightly different tone).
Basically, pull a "Doolittle's Raiders on 21st Century Steroids".
I can't decide if the above is the worst best idea ever, or the best worst idea ever.
Unit2Sucks said:Have you seen Rocky II or III?Big C said:Unit2Sucks said:Great way to lose whatever sympathy you have from Russian civilians and anti-war people all over the world. Also might get you nuked or chemical weaponed because Russia will feel even more justified.Big C said:
I can't decide if the above is the worst best idea ever, or the best worst idea ever.
Surely it would be a risk. Meanwhile, Ukraine's in a boxing match where only its opponent is allowed to throw punches. The best they can do is try to block the punches really hard.
dimitrig said:Big C said:
Completely different angle: It's worrisome that Russia is now able to concentrate its might on eastern/southeastern Ukraine. I don't want WW III, but it sure would shake their Rooskie azzes up if THEIR OWN country got attacked at a completely different location. But where... and how... and who? Then it hit me:
Ukraine ought to launch a counter-offensive, take the fight right into Russia! I know that limits their credibility when it comes to getting world sympathy, but why does Russia get to do whatever-the-heck it wants, with impunity?
They should go right into Moscow! Get a small, elite force (dunno how many that would be... 20? 50? 100? 500?) and some great weapons that do not have a US label on them and fake their way right to the Russian equivalent of the Pentagon (if there is such a thing... the Kremlin?) and just blow up as much of it as possible!
Then also go to a super-fancy apartment building that might be inhabited by the Russian elite and fill it with bullet holes. Not shells that would explode though, because Ukraine is the good guys! Hopefully kill a few civilians, but not too many. Yes, I wrote "hopefully kill a few civilians". Tough toenails. You know what they say, "War is hell."
Likely a suicide mission, but maybe if they worked quickly and planned it well enough, they could even get their guys out of there.
When they do this, they need to immediately and thoroughly spread a message to the effect of the following: "Hey Russia, you probably don't like having your capital city attacked, do you. Well, now you know how we feel the past month! And you better start defending the insides of your borders, rooskies, because you have no idea where or when the next one is coming! Getting hard to sleep at night now? Try one more bottle of vodka: It seems to be putting your soldiers to sleep." (ok, I'm getting carried away...maybe a slightly different tone).
Basically, pull a "Doolittle's Raiders on 21st Century Steroids".
I can't decide if the above is the worst best idea ever, or the best worst idea ever.
Terrible idea, because it would rightly paint Ukraine as an aggressor.
Big C said:Unit2Sucks said:Have you seen Rocky II or III?Big C said:Unit2Sucks said:Great way to lose whatever sympathy you have from Russian civilians and anti-war people all over the world. Also might get you nuked or chemical weaponed because Russia will feel even more justified.Big C said:
I can't decide if the above is the worst best idea ever, or the best worst idea ever.
Surely it would be a risk. Meanwhile, Ukraine's in a boxing match where only its opponent is allowed to throw punches. The best they can do is try to block the punches really hard.
Yes, why? Do you want Mr. T to play Putin in the movie version of this?
Unit2Sucks said:Big C said:Unit2Sucks said:Have you seen Rocky II or III?Big C said:Unit2Sucks said:Great way to lose whatever sympathy you have from Russian civilians and anti-war people all over the world. Also might get you nuked or chemical weaponed because Russia will feel even more justified.Big C said:
I can't decide if the above is the worst best idea ever, or the best worst idea ever.
Surely it would be a risk. Meanwhile, Ukraine's in a boxing match where only its opponent is allowed to throw punches. The best they can do is try to block the punches really hard.
Yes, why? Do you want Mr. T to play Putin in the movie version of this?
Think about how Rocky won.
Big C said:dimitrig said:Big C said:
Completely different angle: It's worrisome that Russia is now able to concentrate its might on eastern/southeastern Ukraine. I don't want WW III, but it sure would shake their Rooskie azzes up if THEIR OWN country got attacked at a completely different location. But where... and how... and who? Then it hit me:
Ukraine ought to launch a counter-offensive, take the fight right into Russia! I know that limits their credibility when it comes to getting world sympathy, but why does Russia get to do whatever-the-heck it wants, with impunity?
They should go right into Moscow! Get a small, elite force (dunno how many that would be... 20? 50? 100? 500?) and some great weapons that do not have a US label on them and fake their way right to the Russian equivalent of the Pentagon (if there is such a thing... the Kremlin?) and just blow up as much of it as possible!
Then also go to a super-fancy apartment building that might be inhabited by the Russian elite and fill it with bullet holes. Not shells that would explode though, because Ukraine is the good guys! Hopefully kill a few civilians, but not too many. Yes, I wrote "hopefully kill a few civilians". Tough toenails. You know what they say, "War is hell."
Likely a suicide mission, but maybe if they worked quickly and planned it well enough, they could even get their guys out of there.
When they do this, they need to immediately and thoroughly spread a message to the effect of the following: "Hey Russia, you probably don't like having your capital city attacked, do you. Well, now you know how we feel the past month! And you better start defending the insides of your borders, rooskies, because you have no idea where or when the next one is coming! Getting hard to sleep at night now? Try one more bottle of vodka: It seems to be putting your soldiers to sleep." (ok, I'm getting carried away...maybe a slightly different tone).
Basically, pull a "Doolittle's Raiders on 21st Century Steroids".
I can't decide if the above is the worst best idea ever, or the best worst idea ever.
Terrible idea, because it would rightly paint Ukraine as an aggressor.
I get it. I mentioned this possibility just a tiny bit tongue-in-cheek, as it would present the problem that you mention. But think about it. This is so screwed up: All Ukraine can do is play defense and hope Russia decides to quit (for whatever reason). Russia, completely untethered from any sort of international rules, just does whatever the heck it wants. Right now they get to concentrate all of their forces on a few hundred miles of their shared border with Ukraine. I'd love to see them have to worry about actually being attacked on their own soil, from a different front.
dimitrig said:Big C said:dimitrig said:Big C said:
Completely different angle: It's worrisome that Russia is now able to concentrate its might on eastern/southeastern Ukraine. I don't want WW III, but it sure would shake their Rooskie azzes up if THEIR OWN country got attacked at a completely different location. But where... and how... and who? Then it hit me:
Ukraine ought to launch a counter-offensive, take the fight right into Russia! I know that limits their credibility when it comes to getting world sympathy, but why does Russia get to do whatever-the-heck it wants, with impunity?
They should go right into Moscow! Get a small, elite force (dunno how many that would be... 20? 50? 100? 500?) and some great weapons that do not have a US label on them and fake their way right to the Russian equivalent of the Pentagon (if there is such a thing... the Kremlin?) and just blow up as much of it as possible!
Then also go to a super-fancy apartment building that might be inhabited by the Russian elite and fill it with bullet holes. Not shells that would explode though, because Ukraine is the good guys! Hopefully kill a few civilians, but not too many. Yes, I wrote "hopefully kill a few civilians". Tough toenails. You know what they say, "War is hell."
Likely a suicide mission, but maybe if they worked quickly and planned it well enough, they could even get their guys out of there.
When they do this, they need to immediately and thoroughly spread a message to the effect of the following: "Hey Russia, you probably don't like having your capital city attacked, do you. Well, now you know how we feel the past month! And you better start defending the insides of your borders, rooskies, because you have no idea where or when the next one is coming! Getting hard to sleep at night now? Try one more bottle of vodka: It seems to be putting your soldiers to sleep." (ok, I'm getting carried away...maybe a slightly different tone).
Basically, pull a "Doolittle's Raiders on 21st Century Steroids".
I can't decide if the above is the worst best idea ever, or the best worst idea ever.
Terrible idea, because it would rightly paint Ukraine as an aggressor.
I get it. I mentioned this possibility just a tiny bit tongue-in-cheek, as it would present the problem that you mention. But think about it. This is so screwed up: All Ukraine can do is play defense and hope Russia decides to quit (for whatever reason). Russia, completely untethered from any sort of international rules, just does whatever the heck it wants. Right now they get to concentrate all of their forces on a few hundred miles of their shared border with Ukraine. I'd love to see them have to worry about actually being attacked on their own soil, from a different front.
I get it, but imagine if Iraq had conducted an operation inside the US. It would be perceived as terrorism and would galvanize much of the US population who was previously ambivalent or maybe even supportive against them.
Same thing here. An attack on Russia would play right into Putin's narrative about needing to neutralize Ukraine and would galvanize the Russian population against Ukraine.
Ukraine can kill plenty of Russians on its own soil.
Big C said:dimitrig said:Big C said:dimitrig said:Big C said:
Completely different angle: It's worrisome that Russia is now able to concentrate its might on eastern/southeastern Ukraine. I don't want WW III, but it sure would shake their Rooskie azzes up if THEIR OWN country got attacked at a completely different location. But where... and how... and who? Then it hit me:
Ukraine ought to launch a counter-offensive, take the fight right into Russia! I know that limits their credibility when it comes to getting world sympathy, but why does Russia get to do whatever-the-heck it wants, with impunity?
They should go right into Moscow! Get a small, elite force (dunno how many that would be... 20? 50? 100? 500?) and some great weapons that do not have a US label on them and fake their way right to the Russian equivalent of the Pentagon (if there is such a thing... the Kremlin?) and just blow up as much of it as possible!
Then also go to a super-fancy apartment building that might be inhabited by the Russian elite and fill it with bullet holes. Not shells that would explode though, because Ukraine is the good guys! Hopefully kill a few civilians, but not too many. Yes, I wrote "hopefully kill a few civilians". Tough toenails. You know what they say, "War is hell."
Likely a suicide mission, but maybe if they worked quickly and planned it well enough, they could even get their guys out of there.
When they do this, they need to immediately and thoroughly spread a message to the effect of the following: "Hey Russia, you probably don't like having your capital city attacked, do you. Well, now you know how we feel the past month! And you better start defending the insides of your borders, rooskies, because you have no idea where or when the next one is coming! Getting hard to sleep at night now? Try one more bottle of vodka: It seems to be putting your soldiers to sleep." (ok, I'm getting carried away...maybe a slightly different tone).
Basically, pull a "Doolittle's Raiders on 21st Century Steroids".
I can't decide if the above is the worst best idea ever, or the best worst idea ever.
Terrible idea, because it would rightly paint Ukraine as an aggressor.
I get it. I mentioned this possibility just a tiny bit tongue-in-cheek, as it would present the problem that you mention. But think about it. This is so screwed up: All Ukraine can do is play defense and hope Russia decides to quit (for whatever reason). Russia, completely untethered from any sort of international rules, just does whatever the heck it wants. Right now they get to concentrate all of their forces on a few hundred miles of their shared border with Ukraine. I'd love to see them have to worry about actually being attacked on their own soil, from a different front.
I get it, but imagine if Iraq had conducted an operation inside the US. It would be perceived as terrorism and would galvanize much of the US population who was previously ambivalent or maybe even supportive against them.
Same thing here. An attack on Russia would play right into Putin's narrative about needing to neutralize Ukraine and would galvanize the Russian population against Ukraine.
Ukraine can kill plenty of Russians on its own soil.
Well, how did things end up for Iraq? All things considered, maybe they should've attacked us. It would've been a balls out move. They could've had a mid-sized boat filled with a few dozen armed soldiers pull into a harbor in Maine and start an awesome invasion from the Northeast. What could we have done, whupped them worse than we did?
It seems obvious to me that only one of us has ingested "special gummies" this week and -- no offense -- it ain't you.
Signed,
- a non-Maine resident
golden sloth said:Big C said:dimitrig said:Big C said:dimitrig said:Big C said:
Completely different angle: It's worrisome that Russia is now able to concentrate its might on eastern/southeastern Ukraine. I don't want WW III, but it sure would shake their Rooskie azzes up if THEIR OWN country got attacked at a completely different location. But where... and how... and who? Then it hit me:
Ukraine ought to launch a counter-offensive, take the fight right into Russia! I know that limits their credibility when it comes to getting world sympathy, but why does Russia get to do whatever-the-heck it wants, with impunity?
They should go right into Moscow! Get a small, elite force (dunno how many that would be... 20? 50? 100? 500?) and some great weapons that do not have a US label on them and fake their way right to the Russian equivalent of the Pentagon (if there is such a thing... the Kremlin?) and just blow up as much of it as possible!
Then also go to a super-fancy apartment building that might be inhabited by the Russian elite and fill it with bullet holes. Not shells that would explode though, because Ukraine is the good guys! Hopefully kill a few civilians, but not too many. Yes, I wrote "hopefully kill a few civilians". Tough toenails. You know what they say, "War is hell."
Likely a suicide mission, but maybe if they worked quickly and planned it well enough, they could even get their guys out of there.
When they do this, they need to immediately and thoroughly spread a message to the effect of the following: "Hey Russia, you probably don't like having your capital city attacked, do you. Well, now you know how we feel the past month! And you better start defending the insides of your borders, rooskies, because you have no idea where or when the next one is coming! Getting hard to sleep at night now? Try one more bottle of vodka: It seems to be putting your soldiers to sleep." (ok, I'm getting carried away...maybe a slightly different tone).
Basically, pull a "Doolittle's Raiders on 21st Century Steroids".
I can't decide if the above is the worst best idea ever, or the best worst idea ever.
Terrible idea, because it would rightly paint Ukraine as an aggressor.
I get it. I mentioned this possibility just a tiny bit tongue-in-cheek, as it would present the problem that you mention. But think about it. This is so screwed up: All Ukraine can do is play defense and hope Russia decides to quit (for whatever reason). Russia, completely untethered from any sort of international rules, just does whatever the heck it wants. Right now they get to concentrate all of their forces on a few hundred miles of their shared border with Ukraine. I'd love to see them have to worry about actually being attacked on their own soil, from a different front.
I get it, but imagine if Iraq had conducted an operation inside the US. It would be perceived as terrorism and would galvanize much of the US population who was previously ambivalent or maybe even supportive against them.
Same thing here. An attack on Russia would play right into Putin's narrative about needing to neutralize Ukraine and would galvanize the Russian population against Ukraine.
Ukraine can kill plenty of Russians on its own soil.
Well, how did things end up for Iraq? All things considered, maybe they should've attacked us. It would've been a balls out move. They could've had a mid-sized boat filled with a few dozen armed soldiers pull into a harbor in Maine and start an awesome invasion from the Northeast. What could we have done, whupped them worse than we did?
It seems obvious to me that only one of us has ingested "special gummies" this week and -- no offense -- it ain't you.
Signed,
- a non-Maine resident
I think the better and more realistic hypothetical is that if the Russians are staging supplies just inside their territory (at the end of the rail line), and you know where the supplies are (oil and ammo), and you have a missile or small, mobile, elite squad, do you target the supply depot just inside Russia?
Yes, its attacking within Russia, but it directly feeds into their ability to wage war on you.
