golden sloth said:

---

concordtom said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

concordtom said:

---

bearister said:

---

…been thinking same. Plenty of terror groups willing to take his funding and go on a mission.

---

Yeah.
It seems pretty likely.

He can explode a small nuke somewhere in Ukraine, and what's the response going to be?
I mean, play it out....
The West could then send massive non-nukes and soldiers and planes into Ukraine and begin to wipe Putin out. But then he can send nukes to blow up our positions en masse.
He can then decide to blow up Warsaw if he doesn't like Poland. Or London if he doesn't like London. Where does it end? Will we launch a strike on Moscow? No. We cannot. Because then the WarGames scenario is on.

This only will end when Putin is taken out. Who is going to be the Valkyrie hero??? (I don't suppose we can get any type of agent in there....)
Any "Von Stauffenberg" type isn't going to show up until Putin endangers the entire planet. Even then....

US and NATO needs to be employing Psychological Ops with Russians.
We can't win this with helicopters and missiles. Dude has gone mad mad mad.
I hope we have James Bond and Q working on this.

---

I disagree with your premise. In spite of me not approving the actions of Russia, and believing they have miscalculated their assumptions, I do think Putin is acting rationally, and I do think he wants to avoid nuclear war.

I dont see the constant escalation you are talking about. NATO continues to supply Ukraine, but not commit to troops in Ukraine. This has not changed from the war's outset.

---

Well, I certainly hope you are right - that would obviously be a great relief from my imagined possible outcome.
Thank you for the optimism.

Perhaps you can tell me what you think is rational about what Putin is doing, rational in HIS mind (admittedly), that is.

---

I don't know if the motivation was security or greed, but I think Putin's original goal was subjugate Ukraine and wither annex it or turn it into a puppet state.

I don't know if I believe al the arguments from folks like George Freidman and Peter Zeihan that use geographic determinism to predict future conflicts, of which they both believe that Putin and Russia were trying to expand to reclaim their old Soviet borders, which actually would mean Russia would have less border to defend (due to natural geographic barriers). I also don't believe John Mearsheimer who claims this is the west's fault because they expanded NATO and felt threatened. In either case, the underpinnings of both of those arguments are rational when choosing to invade a country.

I do think Putin saw the pending Russian demographic collapse and the fracturing NATO and decided now was the time to invade. He obviously misunderstood the Ukrainian response, but I still think its rational. Just like I think it is rational he is withdrawing from Kyiv and choosing to focus on the east. That is all rational to me.

---

It would be equally rational that he retire to his palace near Sochi.
I imagine if he made a deal with the West to leave him alone until age 100, we'd accept and even defend his prison from would-be internal assassins.
Because right now the guy has the entire world wanting him dead. How much longer does he live like this?

concordtom said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

concordtom said:

---

bearister said:

---

…been thinking same. Plenty of terror groups willing to take his funding and go on a mission.

---

Yeah.
It seems pretty likely.

He can explode a small nuke somewhere in Ukraine, and what's the response going to be?
I mean, play it out....
The West could then send massive non-nukes and soldiers and planes into Ukraine and begin to wipe Putin out. But then he can send nukes to blow up our positions en masse.
He can then decide to blow up Warsaw if he doesn't like Poland. Or London if he doesn't like London. Where does it end? Will we launch a strike on Moscow? No. We cannot. Because then the WarGames scenario is on.

This only will end when Putin is taken out. Who is going to be the Valkyrie hero??? (I don't suppose we can get any type of agent in there....)
Any "Von Stauffenberg" type isn't going to show up until Putin endangers the entire planet. Even then....

US and NATO needs to be employing Psychological Ops with Russians.
We can't win this with helicopters and missiles. Dude has gone mad mad mad.
I hope we have James Bond and Q working on this.

---

I disagree with your premise. In spite of me not approving the actions of Russia, and believing they have miscalculated their assumptions, I do think me Putin is acting rationally, and I do think he wants to avoid nuclear war.

I dont see the constant escalation you are talking about. NATO continues to supply Ukraine, but not commit to troops in Ukraine. This has not changed from the war's outset.

---

The state of their current invasion should also not inspire confidence in Russia's ability to competently execute a nuclear attack. Are we sure they wouldn't just hit themselves with their own missiles?

---

I dunno. Seems like they are doing a pretty good job of blowing up Ukraine.

---

Call me a pessimist, but I figure the Russians will aim their missiles at Kyiv and hit Chernobyl.

---

But only when they know that the wind is blowing southeast. Ooops!

---

The pessimist in me believes the Russians will launch when the winds blow to the southeast and disregard that the winds won't stay southeast forever.

Cal88 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

concordtom said:

---

bearister said:

---

…been thinking same. Plenty of terror groups willing to take his funding and go on a mission.

---

Yeah.
It seems pretty likely.

He can explode a small nuke somewhere in Ukraine, and what's the response going to be?
I mean, play it out....
The West could then send massive non-nukes and soldiers and planes into Ukraine and begin to wipe Putin out. But then he can send nukes to blow up our positions en masse.
He can then decide to blow up Warsaw if he doesn't like Poland. Or London if he doesn't like London. Where does it end? Will we launch a strike on Moscow? No. We cannot. Because then the WarGames scenario is on.

This only will end when Putin is taken out. Who is going to be the Valkyrie hero??? (I don't suppose we can get any type of agent in there....)
Any "Von Stauffenberg" type isn't going to show up until Putin endangers the entire planet. Even then....

US and NATO needs to be employing Psychological Ops with Russians.
We can't win this with helicopters and missiles. Dude has gone mad mad mad.
I hope we have James Bond and Q working on this.

---

I disagree with your premise. In spite of me not approving the actions of Russia, and believing they have miscalculated their assumptions, I do think Putin is acting rationally, and I do think he wants to avoid nuclear war.

I dont see the constant escalation you are talking about. NATO continues to supply Ukraine, but not commit to troops in Ukraine. This has not changed from the war's outset.

---

Agreed. Russia's main objective is to encircle the ~60k strong Ukrainian forces on the Donbass front, which I think they will achieve within the next 2-4 weeks. These forces are the main Ukrainian army body outside of the cities, without which Russia will have a free rein over the entire eastern bank of the Dniepr river.

Their next objective will be Nikolayev then Odessa, Russia is ultimately planning on breaking up Ukraine in 2 or 3 parts, with the Russian/russophone-majority area either forming a new state or being outright annexed, and possibly the southwestern Rusyn region seceding and/or going to Hungary. Basically Russia wants to break up Ukraine along ethnic lines, the same way NATO broke up Yugoslavia in the 1990s or the US broke up Iraq in the 00s.

---

The new strategy hinges on what the ultimate goal is for Russia, and I can't say what Russia's ultimate objective is now. Is it still Ukrainian regime change, or is it to grab Donetsk and Luhansk, get them to break off from Ukraine, declare victory and call it a day.

Basically, does Russia still hold out hope of conquering Ukraine or have they given up that goal and are looking to achieve something the propaganda machine can work with, then rewrite the narrative of the war to appease the people back home.

I have a feeling its a mix of the two, Putin knows he can't capture all of Ukraine, but wants to grab as much as he can and then have a cease fire. The Dnieper is a realistic stopping point. Grabbing Odesa would be a huge win as it would greatly weaken Ukraine's ability to have a functioning economy in the post-war, and they could annex Transnistria, but I think they struggle to get to Odesa and the Dnieper.

It should also be reiterated, that although Russia has struggled mightily, they are still favored to win. They are simply too big too powerful and too ruthless to lose. If they want all of Ukraine, they will blow it up city by city to do so. Ukraine can resist, but Russia can outlast them.

concordtom said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

concordtom said:

---

bearister said:

---

…been thinking same. Plenty of terror groups willing to take his funding and go on a mission.

---

Yeah.
It seems pretty likely.

He can explode a small nuke somewhere in Ukraine, and what's the response going to be?
I mean, play it out....
The West could then send massive non-nukes and soldiers and planes into Ukraine and begin to wipe Putin out. But then he can send nukes to blow up our positions en masse.
He can then decide to blow up Warsaw if he doesn't like Poland. Or London if he doesn't like London. Where does it end? Will we launch a strike on Moscow? No. We cannot. Because then the WarGames scenario is on.

This only will end when Putin is taken out. Who is going to be the Valkyrie hero??? (I don't suppose we can get any type of agent in there....)
Any "Von Stauffenberg" type isn't going to show up until Putin endangers the entire planet. Even then....

US and NATO needs to be employing Psychological Ops with Russians.
We can't win this with helicopters and missiles. Dude has gone mad mad mad.
I hope we have James Bond and Q working on this.

---

I disagree with your premise. In spite of me not approving the actions of Russia, and believing they have miscalculated their assumptions, I do think Putin is acting rationally, and I do think he wants to avoid nuclear war.

I dont see the constant escalation you are talking about. NATO continues to supply Ukraine, but not commit to troops in Ukraine. This has not changed from the war's outset.

---

Agreed. Russia's main objective is to encircle the ~60k strong Ukrainian forces on the Donbass front, which I think they will achieve within the next 2-4 weeks. These forces are the main Ukrainian army body outside of the cities, without which Russia will have a free rein over the entire eastern bank of the Dniepr river.

Their next objective will be Nikolayev then Odessa, Russia is ultimately planning on breaking up Ukraine in 2 or 3 parts, with the Russian/russophone-majority area either forming a new state or being outright annexed, and possibly the southwestern Rusyn region seceding and/or going to Hungary. Basically Russia wants to break up Ukraine along ethnic lines, the same way NATO broke up Yugoslavia in the 1990s or the US broke up Iraq in the 00s.

---

Perhaps.
But I wonder..... If I have anything to do with it, Russia's economy will forever be shut out from the Rest of World. And I think that's what's going to happen - so what has he gained?
Perhaps merely a massive miscalculation, and what he's left with is his new little pile of ****.

---

He was rated as the third most insulated leader in the world prior to invasion. This means people only tell him what he wants to hear. I think he and his intelligence services thought the Russian energy card was going to be able to break Germany and a few others away from the rest of Europe with regards to supporting the Ukrainians. Instead it galvanized Europe. I don't think that thought is inherently irrational.

He forgot, democracies always appear weaker than they actually are, autocracies always appear stronger.

golden sloth said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

concordtom said:

---

bearister said:

---

…been thinking same. Plenty of terror groups willing to take his funding and go on a mission.

---

Yeah.
It seems pretty likely.

He can explode a small nuke somewhere in Ukraine, and what's the response going to be?
I mean, play it out....
The West could then send massive non-nukes and soldiers and planes into Ukraine and begin to wipe Putin out. But then he can send nukes to blow up our positions en masse.
He can then decide to blow up Warsaw if he doesn't like Poland. Or London if he doesn't like London. Where does it end? Will we launch a strike on Moscow? No. We cannot. Because then the WarGames scenario is on.

This only will end when Putin is taken out. Who is going to be the Valkyrie hero??? (I don't suppose we can get any type of agent in there....)
Any "Von Stauffenberg" type isn't going to show up until Putin endangers the entire planet. Even then....

US and NATO needs to be employing Psychological Ops with Russians.
We can't win this with helicopters and missiles. Dude has gone mad mad mad.
I hope we have James Bond and Q working on this.

---

I disagree with your premise. In spite of me not approving the actions of Russia, and believing they have miscalculated their assumptions, I do think Putin is acting rationally, and I do think he wants to avoid nuclear war.

I dont see the constant escalation you are talking about. NATO continues to supply Ukraine, but not commit to troops in Ukraine. This has not changed from the war's outset.

---

Agreed. Russia's main objective is to encircle the ~60k strong Ukrainian forces on the Donbass front, which I think they will achieve within the next 2-4 weeks. These forces are the main Ukrainian army body outside of the cities, without which Russia will have a free rein over the entire eastern bank of the Dniepr river.

Their next objective will be Nikolayev then Odessa, Russia is ultimately planning on breaking up Ukraine in 2 or 3 parts, with the Russian/russophone-majority area either forming a new state or being outright annexed, and possibly the southwestern Rusyn region seceding and/or going to Hungary. Basically Russia wants to break up Ukraine along ethnic lines, the same way NATO broke up Yugoslavia in the 1990s or the US broke up Iraq in the 00s.

---

The new strategy hinges on what the ultimate goal is for Russia, and I can't say what Russia's ultimate objective is now. Is it still Ukrainian regime change, or is it to grab Donetsk and Luhansk, get them to break off from Ukraine, declare victory and call it a day.

Basically, does Russia still hold out hope of conquering Ukraine or have they given up that goal and are looking to achieve something the propaganda machine can work with, then rewrite the narrative of the war to appease the people back home.

I have a feeling its a mix of the two, Putin knows he can't capture all of Ukraine, but wants to grab as much as he can and then have a cease fire. The Dnieper is a realistic stopping point. Grabbing Odesa would be a huge win as it would greatly weaken Ukraine's ability to have a functioning economy in the post-war, and they could annex Transnistria, but I think they struggle to get to Odesa and the Dnieper.

It should also be reiterated, that although Russia has struggled mightily, they are still favored to win. They are simply too big too powerful and too ruthless to lose. If they want all of Ukraine, they will blow it up city by city to do so. Ukraine can resist, but Russia can outlast them.

---

Odessa seems like a major stretch goal at best. They don't occupy nearby territory right now and Russia's military is already overstretched.

I actually don't think Russia is favored at this point. Holding captured territory is way harder than just defending your own.

Who are these pro Russia congress people?

NEW INDICTMENTS: Today, the SDNY has unsealed an indictment against three Russians with ties to Putin. It appears these three sanctioned guys had a US citizen friend with ties to pro-Russian US congresspeople and used that person to try to set up meetings with them. 1/

— Mueller, She Wrote (@MuellerSheWrote) April 14, 2022

sycasey said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

concordtom said:

---

bearister said:

---

…been thinking same. Plenty of terror groups willing to take his funding and go on a mission.

---

Yeah.
It seems pretty likely.

He can explode a small nuke somewhere in Ukraine, and what's the response going to be?
I mean, play it out....
The West could then send massive non-nukes and soldiers and planes into Ukraine and begin to wipe Putin out. But then he can send nukes to blow up our positions en masse.
He can then decide to blow up Warsaw if he doesn't like Poland. Or London if he doesn't like London. Where does it end? Will we launch a strike on Moscow? No. We cannot. Because then the WarGames scenario is on.

This only will end when Putin is taken out. Who is going to be the Valkyrie hero??? (I don't suppose we can get any type of agent in there....)
Any "Von Stauffenberg" type isn't going to show up until Putin endangers the entire planet. Even then....

US and NATO needs to be employing Psychological Ops with Russians.
We can't win this with helicopters and missiles. Dude has gone mad mad mad.
I hope we have James Bond and Q working on this.

---

I disagree with your premise. In spite of me not approving the actions of Russia, and believing they have miscalculated their assumptions, I do think Putin is acting rationally, and I do think he wants to avoid nuclear war.

I dont see the constant escalation you are talking about. NATO continues to supply Ukraine, but not commit to troops in Ukraine. This has not changed from the war's outset.

---

Agreed. Russia's main objective is to encircle the ~60k strong Ukrainian forces on the Donbass front, which I think they will achieve within the next 2-4 weeks. These forces are the main Ukrainian army body outside of the cities, without which Russia will have a free rein over the entire eastern bank of the Dniepr river.

Their next objective will be Nikolayev then Odessa, Russia is ultimately planning on breaking up Ukraine in 2 or 3 parts, with the Russian/russophone-majority area either forming a new state or being outright annexed, and possibly the southwestern Rusyn region seceding and/or going to Hungary. Basically Russia wants to break up Ukraine along ethnic lines, the same way NATO broke up Yugoslavia in the 1990s or the US broke up Iraq in the 00s.

---

The new strategy hinges on what the ultimate goal is for Russia, and I can't say what Russia's ultimate objective is now. Is it still Ukrainian regime change, or is it to grab Donetsk and Luhansk, get them to break off from Ukraine, declare victory and call it a day.

Basically, does Russia still hold out hope of conquering Ukraine or have they given up that goal and are looking to achieve something the propaganda machine can work with, then rewrite the narrative of the war to appease the people back home.

I have a feeling its a mix of the two, Putin knows he can't capture all of Ukraine, but wants to grab as much as he can and then have a cease fire. The Dnieper is a realistic stopping point. Grabbing Odesa would be a huge win as it would greatly weaken Ukraine's ability to have a functioning economy in the post-war, and they could annex Transnistria, but I think they struggle to get to Odesa and the Dnieper.

It should also be reiterated, that although Russia has struggled mightily, they are still favored to win. They are simply too big too powerful and too ruthless to lose. If they want all of Ukraine, they will blow it up city by city to do so. Ukraine can resist, but Russia can outlast them.

---

Odessa seems like a major stretch goal at best. They don't occupy nearby territory right now and Russia's military is already overstretched.

I actually don't think Russia is favored at this point. Holding captured territory is way harder than just defending your own.

---

Russia (and even the US) couldn't hold Afghanistan let alone Ukraine.

They will only succeed where and if the people living there want them to succeed unless their plan is to kill/relocate everyone.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Who are these pro Russia congress people?

NEW INDICTMENTS: Today, the SDNY has unsealed an indictment against three Russians with ties to Putin. It appears these three sanctioned guys had a US citizen friend with ties to pro-Russian US congresspeople and used that person to try to set up meetings with them. 1/

— Mueller, She Wrote (@MuellerSheWrote) April 14, 2022

---

Biden's son took $3 million from the mayor of Moscow. That's one.

---

Biden's son has ties to pro Russia congresspeople? Or are you suggesting that Biden's son and the Mayor of Moscow are pro Russia congresspeople?

Also lol Trump still in love with Putin. Totally normal and not a reason to question why the hell this is the case. Maybe Trump can tell us who the pro Russian congresspeople are.

Hannity (again) tries to get Trump to condemn Putin. Trump won't do it, and instead rants about NATO. pic.twitter.com/i8XcMGeI6V

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 14, 2022

Putin found the perfect cover for thinning the herd of the potentially disloyal:
Russia loses eighth general in latest blow to Putin's botched invasion



https://mol.im/a/10724673


Ukraine war: Doomed Russia warship 'seen burning in satellite image'



https://mol.im/a/10723973


*I hope Zelinsky has a cyanide capsule under a crown in his mouth. If Putin captures him alive it will be unimaginable.

Russian colonel dies after suffering shrapnel wounds near Kharkiv



https://mol.im/a/10728771

Russia-Ukraine war: what we know on day 54 of the invasion


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/18/russia-ukraine-war-what-we-know-on-day-54-of-the-invasion?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

styrofoam tiger?

Google's increased resolution over Russian military bases is already yielding hilarity.

Just how much of the Russian Air Force is styrofoam? pic.twitter.com/E26MNKu28R

— Expat in Kyiv (@expatua) April 18, 2022

Malcolm Nance in the Ukraine. If he survives, there is a book in there somewhere.

When he starts counting the seconds like it’s a thunderstorm

— Jack Posobiec ☦️ (@JackPosobiec) April 19, 2022

Posobiec is trolling Nance so hard.
People are just walking around calmly in the background.

How key Putin allies have died, been jailed and suffered mystery 'heart attacks' as he fights off Palace coup


https://www.the-sun.com/news/5155722/vladimir-putin-overthrown-coup-russia/

Just checking in with Malcom Nance in Ukraine

How do we not have a 24/7 livestream. How do we achieve this. pic.twitter.com/mu7SkBI4R8

— Jack Posobiec ☦️ (@JackPosobiec) April 21, 2022

How's Nance holding up?

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.

Sebastabear said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Hey Sebastabear. Hope you're doing well.

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...

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.

---

There's already a World Cup without Brazil, Argentina, or Africa, it takes place every 4 years and it's called the Euro.

This is what this coalition of "free countries" looks like, roughly:



It represents about 1/7th the world population, and less than the majority of global GDP. As well the great majority of global economic growth is taking place in the remaining "unfree" countries.

OneKeg said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Hey Sebastabear. Hope you're doing well.

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...

---

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.