Russia begins moving troops into eastern Ukraine

[hollodero]

(03-08-2022, 06:25 PM)Dill Wrote: Putin, I think, is not Putin anymore.

I hear that all the time. I, however, think that is the same old Putin, maybe dropping his mask a little. But the goal of his is hardly new, and neither are the means he's willing to use. He might just be running out of time, to fulfil his masterplan of first destabilizing the west and then just take the pieces he wants for the Czar empire within his lifespan.

Of course, it is all too big a goal and megolomaniac, but Putin always was that way as well. He thought the west and their alliances could be effectively destroyed by supporting some nationalistic right-wing nutjobs and some other slick manoeuvers. It was hubris, as is the current invasion part of his plan.

But I don't think he's any more out of his mind as George W. Bush was when he invaded Iraq while pretty much using the same propaganda lines. We go for Hitler and his weapons of mass destruction! Putin sees no difference there, just more effective instruments of power. Even if Selenski is quickly becoming the world's most beloved person and Saddam was undeniably a very bad man; that isn't the reason why the real global superpower invades one country and leaves the other be. Putin sees that in a cynical way, in a "well, you kill one mass murderer and shake the other's hand or aid them in a coup"-kind of way. You wanted to occupy Iraq for your own reasons, he wants to invade Ukraine for his own reasons, the only issue is having the power to do so, there's no ethical or moral difference and that's how the world just is.

[Dill]

(03-08-2022, 08:32 PM)HarleyDog Wrote:
Dill Wrote:[url=http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Russia-begins-moving-troops-into-eastern-Ukraine?pid=1187127#pid1187127][/url]3. You do sound rather like Putin,

Damn.

You'd be a much nicer dictator than Putin, H-Dog.

Don't get me wrong.

[HarleyDog]

(03-11-2022, 01:45 PM)Dill Wrote: You'd be a much nicer dictator than Putin, H-Dog.

Don't get me wrong.

Thanks. I'm too compassionate to be a dictator. Although, I get set in an opinion sometimes and it's not easy to move me off of that train. I love this country that's for sure. Very passionate about it's future. But then again, I think most people, if not all posting in this forum are the same way. We come to discuss issues and try to weigh those opinions and add some sort of sense to it all. Sometimes, this forum get's stupid though.

I have tried lately to leave the presidential bashing to the wayside and just type thoughts on issues. I say tried, not that I've been successful. But I think I've been pretty good. The reason is due to the far leaning R/L opinions in here. Everything is Trumps fault. Everything is Bidens fault. We point too many fingers in this forum anymore to have a decent conversation. Not that I'm a huge contributor, but something I've noticed and found myself getting angry and stepping away for weeks, if not months at a time.

This country is too darn divided. But when it comes to war and sustainability, I get pretty passionate. Yet I don't think I'm different than most.

[Interceptor]

Syria is getting involved (siding with Russia):

https://twitter.com/HalabTodayTV/status/1502270879065116677

Doesn't that mean a 3rd country would be getting involved?

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-11-2022, 08:39 PM)Interceptor Wrote: Syria is getting involved (siding with Russia):

https://twitter.com/HalabTodayTV/status/1502270879065116677

Doesn't that mean a 3rd country would be getting involved?

Four right?

Russia, Belarus, Chechnya, and now Syria.

[Interceptor]

(03-11-2022, 11:56 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Four right?

Russia, Belarus, Chechnya, and now Syria.

Isn't Belarus considered a territory of Russia?

[CKwi88]

(03-12-2022, 12:13 AM)Interceptor Wrote: Isn't Belarus considered a territory of Russia?

De jure? No.

De facto? Essentially.

[GMDino]

Quote:Russia says China refuses to supply aircraft parts after sanctions
Reuters


A view shows the first Airbus A350-900 aircraft of Russia's flagship airline Aeroflot during a media presentation at Sheremetyevo International Airport outside Moscow, Russia March 4, 2020. REUTERS/Maxim Shemetov

March 10 (Reuters) - China has refused to supply Russian airlines with aircraft parts, an official at Russia's aviation authority was quoted by Russian news agencies as saying on Thursday, after Boeing (BA.N) and Airbus (AIR.PA) halted supply of components.

Russia's aviation sector is being squeezed by Western sanctions over the invasion of Ukraine, with Russia's foreign ministry warning this week that the safety of Russian passenger flights was under threat. read more

Agencies including Interfax quoted Valery Kudinov, a Rosaviatsia official responsible for maintaining airplane airworthiness, as saying that Russia would look for opportunities to source parts from countries including Turkey and India after a failed attempt to obtain them from China.

He also said Russian companies were registering their planes, many of which had been registered abroad, in Russia after the U.S. and European Union sanctions on aviation and that he expects some others to be returned to leasing companies.

Separately, a draft law published on Thursday showed the Russian government plans to order domestic airlines to pay for leased aircraft in roubles and could bar them from returning planes to foreign companies if leases are cancelled. read more

[/url]
[url=https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/russia-says-china-refuses-supply-aircraft-parts-after-sanctions-2022-03-10/?fbclid=IwAR2VxgCQot8cJG6QcG95LZC496W8GPNub1xe4jG-Rqw_UYvB2FrVZah4Xbg]Link

[Dill]

(03-11-2022, 11:56 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Four right?

Russia, Belarus, Chechnya, and now Syria.

Chechnya is not a country. It is a Russian state/"republic", run by Ramzan Kadyrov, son of a Putin-aligned warlord who was killed some years ago.

[Dill]

(03-10-2022, 06:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: I hear that all the time. I, however, think that is the same old Putin, maybe dropping his mask a little. But the goal of his is hardly new, and neither are the means he's willing to use. He might just be running out of time, to fulfil his masterplan of first destabilizing the west and then just take the pieces he wants for the Czar empire within his lifespan.

Of course, it is all too big a goal and megolomaniac, but Putin always was that way as well. He thought the west and their alliances could be effectively destroyed by supporting some nationalistic right-wing nutjobs and some other slick manoeuvers. It was hubris, as is the current invasion part of his plan.

Thanks for responding, H. A couple of questions--

Howcum you think Putin was "always that way"?  I haven't seen any evidence he was "megalomaniacal" before the limited Georgia invasion in 2008, which seemed to me, arguably, a rational response to Georgia's attempt to join NATO and attack on Ossetia. A similar case could be made for the Crimean Anschluss* in 2014 (I believe SSF has argued along this line as well.)

I don't think Putin ever thought that "the West" could be destroyed by supporting right wing authoritarians (e.g. Orban, Trump, Le Pen, Yevtushenko) and disinformation campaigns. But he certainly thought it could be weakened.

Anyway, when you compare Putin's most notable writing and speeches, and behavior, from the first decade of the century with those since 2018, there is quite a difference I think. The rational armature is gone, along with the sense of an achievable long game. No more talk of multipolarity and appeals to international norms/rule of law. Rather he seems no longer to be addressing the rest of the world at all, just Russians, and those without a secure history of Ukraine/Russia at that. More surprising is the (seeming) sudden inability to correctly gage international reactions to total invasion of a sovereign neighbor, so indispensable to a good long game. Hannity's "three-dimensional chess player" had checked out by 2019 for sure. Now Putin seems to be behaving like Saddam and other autocrats who shape their immediate security/advisory environment by gradually excluding/punishing truth tellers and rewarding yes-men. Much easier to do there than in the US (though not impossible in the US, as a recent president demonstrated). 

What makes you think Putin was ALWAYS megalomaniacal and looking to restore empire? Anything he wrote or said before 2010? Just wondering. I see incremental changes from 1999 onward, which appear to be in part driven by his inability to master democratic norms, especially a free press, and post 2014 by his suspension from the grown ups' table, e.g., the G7. I actually don't think he had a clear idea of what the new Russia should be like when Yeltsin appointed him temporary premier in 1999, and no long game for getting there. He sought to partner with the US, with partial success, after 9/11 (arguing against his own advisors) and recognized how important Russia could be in international affairs/conflicts, successfully parlaying that into global power; the US recognized it too, as signalled by his inclusion in the Iran Deal and the WTO and the G7 (pre 2014). 

[Dill]

(03-10-2022, 06:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: But I don't think he's any more out of his mind as George W. Bush was when he invaded Iraq while pretty much using the same propaganda lines. We go for Hitler and his weapons of mass destruction! Putin sees no difference there, just more effective instruments of power. Even if Selenski is quickly becoming the world's most beloved person and Saddam was undeniably a very bad man; that isn't the reason why the real global superpower invades one country and leaves the other be. Putin sees that in a cynical way, in a "well, you kill one mass murderer and shake the other's hand or aid them in a coup"-kind of way. You wanted to occupy Iraq for your own reasons, he wants to invade Ukraine for his own reasons, the only issue is having the power to do so, there's no ethical or moral difference and that's how the world just is.

Had I the common faith in American exceptionalism that pervades our domestic politics (it's different when we do it!)I'd have to be outraged at the Bush Iraq/Putin Ukraine analogy. But I don't have that faith and am willing to explore the analogy, for whatever it helps us understand about the Ukraine invasion.

"Reasons" do matter though, as do goals. That's why I don't find the ethical equivalence between the Iraq and Ukraine invasions so clear--though both were clearly wrong. I have always argued that even if Saddam HAD wmds, we still had no right, no real self-defense-based rationale, to invade.** Hence the world outcry, similar to the one now on behalf of Ukraine. The WMD angle may be too flimsy to support a similarity with Ukraine, since Saddam actually HAD had them*** and used them against Iran and Iraqi Kurds, and had tried to annex a wholly unwilling neighbor. And unless kept in a box, S. was a danger to his neighbors, unlike Zelenskyy, whose primary crime appears to be steering his country's economy towards the West and constituting a competing, less-corrupt model of governance within the Slavophone world.

I'm not finding it easy to close the analogical gaps between Bush and Putin's character and motivations.  Bush was more of a magical thinker than Putin, not the same as crazy or suffering from dementia, and also a more decent man. Annexing Iraq was not the US goal, though invading was certainly part of a larger plan to "tame" the Middle East with democracy.  Bush wanted a sovereign democratic Iraq, ruled by its own people; that doesn't make it ok to kill 150,000 Iraqis, but it wasn't "all about power." He was certainly not as cynical as Putin, whose goals are clearly revanchist and thus driven by national identity insecurity, viewing the Ukraine much as Germans viewed territory ceded to Poland post Versailles, and as the old DDR viewed the BDR as destabilizing due to its economic success.  A double threat.

*I chose this term because a sizeable portion of the Crimean population wanted to join Russia, including the top military commander/admiral. 
** Syria had plenty of wmds, and more unstable than Iraq, with multiple Al Qaeda affliates actually controlling territory there. And there was little chance of either Assad or Saddam allowing easy access to common enemies, just because they were Muslims too or whatever.
** The "HAD" has always been operative for me. There was no reason, no good intel, establishing S. still had or was reconstituting wmds. That had to be fabricated. 

[hollodero]

(03-12-2022, 10:07 PM)Dill Wrote: Thanks for responding, H. A couple of questions--

Howcum you think Putin was "always that way"?  I haven't seen any evidence he was "megalomaniacal" before the limited Georgia invasion in 2008, which seemed to me, arguably, a rational response to Georgia's attempt to join NATO and attack on Ossetia. A similar case could be made for the Crimean Anschluss* in 2014 (I believe SSF has argued along this line as well.)

Well, it might be a matter of interpretation. Also, it might appear easy for me to say now "I knew it all along" and be Captain Hindsight about all things Putin. But to me, he always was pretty close to the cliche of a KGB man. Cynical and patriotic and having little to no ethical boundaries. That's how he always acted. And he always appeared to have plans for a new greater Russia. He called the end of the Soviet union the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20. century, for one. He does not mean the end of communism, but the end of the Russian-led power bloc. He also underlined that he sees Russians and Ukrainians as one people, he always wanted to expand his power to the neighboring former Soviet republics, bey all means at his disposal, to lead Russia, his Russia, to glory once again. I always saw him as that kind of person.

Taking countries militarily, imho, was just not possible for him. Not before the western alliances are broken up, anyway. Which I'd say was his whole master plan. Bring down Nato, the EU with widespread propaganda campaigns, sawing distrust, strenghening nationalists and so on. So when he finally can move to recreate the Russian empire, there will be little response, and no coordinated one, from the estranged western countries and he can just move along. In a few days, possibly, Ukrainians want to be Russians under his rule anyway. Something he might actually have believed. 
All of which are plans that to me appear megalomaniac, in that he overestimated what he and his oligarch clan can actually achieve.

As for the Iraq analogy, I'm not saying that's how I see things. I'm saying that's how Putin sees things.

[hollodero]

(03-12-2022, 10:23 PM)Dill Wrote: Had I the common faith in American exceptionalism that pervades our domestic politics (it's different when we do it!)I'd have to be outraged at the Bush Iraq/Putin Ukraine analogy. But I don't have that faith and am willing to explore the analogy, for whatever it helps us understand about the Ukraine invasion.

"Reasons" do matter though, as do goals. That's why I don't find the ethical equivalence between the Iraq and Ukraine invasions so clear--though both were clearly wrong.

Just to expand on my previous point, I don't find it all that clear either. But Putin does. I feel that much becomes more and more apparent once one gets used to his interviews and the points he makes. For him, everything noble is a lie, every expression of a noble instinct is hypocritical, and hence all these reasons play no real part in anything. Regarding invasions and the like, the only topics that do remain are do I have the power to invade, and to a lesser extent, do I have the guts.

Eg. if americans say something about humanitarian reasons to do anything, Putin will not believe that. He is not prone to the good and evil picture of things that is quite common in western countries and the Us specifically - rather, he thinks these categories have little meaning. Same, if you ask him about human right violations in Russia, or freedom of the press, anti-democratic tendencies or anything, he will point right back at the US and mention Capitol storms or how black people are treated or how your democracy in the end is the same sham as his and the same issues are everywhere. Immoral behaviour and blatant cynicism, if anything, is just being more honest.

I myself often am in the middle of those viewpoints. But yeah, motivations aside, indeed the difference between US rhetoric and propaganda lies before Iraq and Putin's current rhetoric and propaganda lies is smaller as many acknowledge. The means were a bit different maybe, eg. the US took their most honorable admin member and make him do a Lawrow to the world, while the actual Lawrow is just Lawrow, but yeah Putin sure took notice of the way the US handled that one. And now he just makes shit up and invades.

[Dill]

(03-13-2022, 02:57 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, it might be a matter of interpretation. Also, it might appear easy for me to say now "I knew it all along" and be Captain Hindsight about all things Putin. But to me, he always was pretty close to the cliche of a KGB man. Cynical and patriotic and having little to no ethical boundaries. That's how he always acted. And he always appeared to have plans for a new greater Russia. He called the end of the Soviet union the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20. century, for one. He does not mean the end of communism, but the end of the Russian-led power bloc. He also underlined that he sees Russians and Ukrainians as one people, he always wanted to expand his power to the neighboring former Soviet republics, bey all means at his disposal, to lead Russia, his Russia, to glory once again. I always saw him as that kind of person.

Taking countries militarily, imho, was just not possible for him. Not before the western alliances are broken up, anyway. Which I'd say was his whole master plan. Bring down Nato, the EU with widespread propaganda campaigns, sawing distrust, strenghening nationalists and so on. So when he finally can move to recreate the Russian empire, there will be little response, and no coordinated one, from the estranged western countries and he can just move along. In a few days, possibly, Ukrainians want to be Russians under his rule anyway. Something he might actually have believed. 
All of which are plans that to me appear megalomaniac, in that he overestimated what he and his oligarch clan can actually achieve.

Sorry for the late response.  I have not been online much lately.

Regarding the bolded, remember what I am questioning is whether Putin was "always" what he is now, and always aiming to expand Russia to former Tsarist dimensions or whatever. Most of the bolded matches statements and behavior since 2014. Certainly not pre-2007. 

But I don't think that behavior was there when he allied himself with the US against Al Qaeda and gave the US flyover rights and accepted a "temporary" base in Tajikistan without objection. This alliance with the US was not welcomed by all. 18 retired generals signed a letter of protest, in the belief it was to Russia's strategic advantage NOT to help the US. Putin went against them.

In 1999, I don't think he aspired to national leadership, as he apparently thought that his war in Chechnya would ruin his political future. He was surprised it had the opposite effect.

By the way, there is an article in the recent Atlantic you might like. Remember last year when I was arguing for the broader dissemination of knowledge about authoritarian politics? Some journalists are doing that.

Vladimir Putin Has Fallen Into the Dictator Trap
by Brian Klaas  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/vladimir-putin-has-fallen-into-the-dictator-trap/ar-AAV7Lky

...How did he miscalculate so badly?

To answer that question, you have to understand the power and information ecosystems around dictators. I’ve studied and interviewed despots across the globe for more than a decade. In my research, I’ve persistently encountered a stubborn myth—of the savvy strongman, the rational, calculating despot who can play the long game because he (and it’s typically a he) doesn’t have to worry about pesky polls or angry voters. Our elected leaders, this view suggests, are no match for the tyrant who gazes into the next decade rather than fretting about next year’s election.

Reality doesn’t conform to that rosy theory.

Autocrats such as Putin eventually succumb to what may be called the “dictator trap.” The strategies they use to stay in power tend to trigger their eventual downfall. Rather than being long-term planners, many make catastrophic short-term errors—the kinds of errors that would likely have been avoided in democratic systems. They hear only from sycophants, and get bad advice. They misunderstand their population. They don’t see threats coming until it’s too late. And unlike elected leaders who leave office to riches, book tours, and the glitzy lifestyle of a statesman, many dictators who miscalculate leave office in a casket, a possibility that makes them even more likely to double down....

...despots rarely get told that their stupid ideas are stupid, or that their ill-conceived wars are likely to be catastrophic. Offering honest criticism is a deadly game and most advisers avoid doing so. Those who dare to gamble eventually lose and are purged. So over time, the advisers who remain are usually yes-men who act like bobbleheads, nodding along when the despot outlines some crackpot scheme.
Even with such seemingly loyal cronies, despots face a dilemma. How can you trust the loyalty of an entourage that has every reason to lie and conceal its true thoughts? 

To solve this problem, despots create loyalty tests, ghoulish charades to separate true believers from pretenders. To be trusted, advisers must lie on behalf of the regime. Those who repeat absurd claims without blinking are deemed loyal. Anyone who hesitates is considered suspect.

In Kim Jong Un’s North Korea, for example, the lies have gotten progressively more ridiculous. Once a lie becomes widely accepted, the value of that individual loyalty test declines. Once [i]everyone knows that Kim Jong Un learned to drive when he was just 3 years old, a new, more extreme lie must emerge for the test to serve its purpose. The cycle repeats itself, and a cult of personality is born.

Plenty of people around Putin understood that dynamic, which is why they were willing to parrot Putin’s outlandish claim that the Jewish president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, is presiding over a “neo-Nazi” state. (Such mythmaking can happen in democracies too, if you have an authoritarian-style leader. Just consider how many Republicans have fallen over one another to endorse Donald Trump’s lies about the 2020 election in order to prove their MAGA bona fides.). . . .
[/i]

[hollodero]

(03-17-2022, 09:00 PM)Dill Wrote: Sorry for the late response.  I have not been online much lately.

Regarding the bolded, remember what I am questioning is whether Putin was "always" what he is now, and always aiming to expand Russia to former Tsarist dimensions or whatever. Most of the bolded matches statements and behavior since 2014. Certainly not pre-2007.

Well, you also claimed Putin isn't Putin any more and that he has changed within the last 2-3 years. Which, overall, I doubted. The expansionist ideas came clear after the Krim annexation at the latest, but imho they were visible long before that. Putin always tried to increase his power and influence, by the means that he deemed to be at his disposal at the time. Eg. creating vassal states like Belarus and other dictatorhips he supports, or the Georgia war in 2008. If he was like that from the very beginning of his tenure, it's hard to tell. He's in power since 1999, a long time not to change at all. It could be that he changed drastically and "lost it" so to say, I just don't really see it, I rather see someone finally following through on long-held plans and goals.

Which, btw. is a counter-argument to your idea he fell into this dictator trap. He's in power for 23 years, seems like he did well in avoiding the ultimate consequences of said trap so far. Of course there are hints that his system has severe flaws; for example it seems like he was grossly uninformed about the actual state of the military and the apparently vast amounts of investment that oozed in someone's pocket and no one dared to tell him. One can see that as manifestation of said trap.

But then again, I'm a bit sceptical about the absoluteness of your article's conclusion. Often it seems to me as if journalist's opinion pieces are too reliant on inductive inferences, meaning if I see ten white sheep I can claim that every sheep is white. Putin is a special sheep though.

(03-17-2022, 09:00 PM)Dill Wrote: But I don't think that behavior was there when he allied himself with the US against Al Qaeda and gave the US flyover rights and accepted a "temporary" base in Tajikistan without objection. This alliance with the US was not welcomed by all. 18 retired generals signed a letter of protest, in the belief it was to Russia's strategic advantage NOT to help the US. Putin went against them.

That might have been a propaganda choice though. Putin has discovered the war against terrorism as a wonderful reason to lead his own battles like in Chechnya. It might appear harder to sell these lines if one on the other hand hinders actions taken in the name of said war against terror.

[*Nately120*]

I saw the deepfake of Zelensky telling the Ukrainians to lay down their arms and surrender. If that technology gets better I look forward to endless political commercials where deepfakes of American candidates go on monologues about how much they love going to gay bathouses

[Arturo Bandini]

(03-18-2022, 06:52 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I saw the deepfake of Zelensky telling the Ukrainians to lay down their arms and surrender.  If that technology gets better I look forward to endless political commercials where deepfakes of American candidates go on monologues about how much they love going to gay bathouses

This is really dangerous to be honest. 

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

(03-18-2022, 06:52 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I saw the deepfake of Zelensky telling the Ukrainians to lay down their arms and surrender.  If that technology gets better I look forward to endless political commercials where deepfakes of American candidates go on monologues about how much they love going to gay bathouses

(03-21-2022, 11:33 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: This is really dangerous to be honest. 

Yeah . . . I'm just now hoping that Nately isn't laying the groundwork for an upcoming defense after he announces a run for office . . . not that there's anything wrong with that.

[*Nately120*]

(03-23-2022, 01:48 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: Yeah . . . I'm just now hoping that Nately isn't laying the groundwork for an upcoming defense after he announces a run for office . . . not that there's anything wrong with that.

Funny you should mentioned that, but people act like cancel culture is new but I've been in skits and I've made music and albums and stuff for the past 20+ years and my friends and I would joke that none of us could run for office after making this stuff.

I own up to it.  

[masonbengals fan]

(03-23-2022, 02:20 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Funny you should mentioned that, but people act like cancel culture is new but I've been in skits and I've made music and albums and stuff for the past 20+ years and my friends and I would joke that none of us could run for office after making this stuff.

I own up to it.  

Well that would rule you out immediately. No honesty could be tolerated.