(Thread IKs:
fatherboxx)
|
Nenonen posted:Yeah, but again it's hard to ascertain those claims. The tracking info ended around Tver, and there were claims that he went to one of his favourite dachas near it. The flight path from Moscow to St. Petersburg aligns with Tver, so either version is plausible. But there are no reports of anyone seeing him in any of those places afaik. Which again doesn't mean anything because he could have landed at the airport and taken helicopter from there. Stephen Kotkin mentioned that Putin flies his planes around all the time without being seated on them. I unfortunately agree there's not enough info based on what I've read independent of this thread. I want to believe Putin is a weenie that fled Moscow though. That'd warm my heart to know for certain.
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 19:01 |
|
|
Here's an interesting thread from Twitter that I have screenshotted because who the hell knows how much longer Twitter is going to be around. Maps also reuploaded and put at the bottom in the order they appeared.        
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 03:14
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:You really shouldn't believe anything Prigosjin have said or will say. i'm not attesting to its accuracy, i'm pointing out that the claim wasn't even '1000 a day'
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 05:52
|
|
|
Just for the sake of comparison, I'm seeing the Ukrainian MoD has claimed 7 days of > 1000 casualties. https://index.minfin.com.ua/en/russian-invading/casualties/ So if you assume Ukrainian numbers are double what they should be, it still happened 3 times right? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 07:13
|
|
|
Like Cameron loving the pig's head, we can't prove Putin bounced at the first sign of trouble, but we also all know in a manner deeper than mere facts that he absolutely bounced at the first sign of trouble.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 08:07
|
|
|
Peskov said Putin didn't flee the sinking ship and that's good enough for me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 09:09
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:bit of interesting listening about what russian security agencies were up to during the mutiny
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 11:37
|
|
|
I had someone cite this today as an authoritative source on the status of Ukraine. Is mearshimer reliable? https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/the-darkness-ahead-where-the-ukraine
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 15:10
|
|
|
notwithoutmyanus posted:I had someone cite this today as an authoritative source on the status of Ukraine. Is mearshimer reliable? Absolutely not. He's a champion of the "Realist" school of thought which sounds reasonable but has been absolutely wrong about everything in this war. Here's a long form video on why: https://youtu.be/XXmwyyKcBLk spankmeister fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Jul 2, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 15:12
|
|
|
notwithoutmyanus posted:I had someone cite this today as an authoritative source on the status of Ukraine. Is mearshimer reliable? quote:Western leaders have additional goals, which include regime change in Moscow, putting Putin on trial as a war criminal, and possibly breaking up Russia into smaller states The last one is explicitly not a postion of main western allies quote:Finally, there is the casualty-exchange ratio, which has been a controversial issue since the war started in February 2022. The conventional wisdom in Ukraine and the West is that the casualty levels on both sides are either roughly equal or that the Russians have suffered greater casualties than the Ukrainians. The head of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, Oleksiy Danilov, goes so far as to argue that the Russian lost 7.5 soldiers for every one Ukrainian soldier in the battle for Bakhmut.29 These claims are wrong. Ukrainian forces have surely suffered much greater casualties than their Russian opponents for one reason: Russia has much more artillery than Ukraine. No sources for casualties, just a childish math of "there are more people in Russia so they are going to win". Mearshmeier is braindead
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 15:33
|
|
|
fatherboxx posted:The last one is explicitly not a postion of main western allies More than that: it's something they're incredibly afraid of.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 15:36
|
|
|
Mearsheimer's arguments make sense if you remember he has made up the motivations of the key actors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 15:38
|
|
|
This topic has historically not turned out well in this thread, but: There's a lot of dumb stuff in that article but I think the things that I really hate are his argument that more artillery = Russia inflicting more casualties = inevitable Russian victory. quote:In attrition warfare, artillery is the most important weapon on the battlefield. In the U.S. Army, artillery is widely known as the “king of battle,” because it is principally responsible for killing and wounding the soldiers doing the fighting. No doubt, he has a great set of excuses why this didn't apply in any other conflict where the bigger side didn't win, mostly because they didn't want it enough. Guess what, you find out which side wants it more seeing who is willing to bleed more for it and nobody gets to shortcut the answer. There's also some blatantly historically incorrect stuff like: quote:There is little doubt that Putin was committed to making Minsk work. When a major issue contributing to the failure of Minsk 2 in 2021 was that Russia refused to admit to sock puppeting the LDR/DNR republics and negotiate as party but only as a mediator. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/france-says-russia-refused-hold-normandy-format-meeting-ukraine-2021-11-09/
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 15:44
|
|
|
notwithoutmyanus posted:I had someone cite this today as an authoritative source on the status of Ukraine. Is mearshimer reliable? If someone told you the world is divided into Realists and Moralists, would you think they are a serious thinker with a complex understanding of man, or a teenager
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 15:48
|
|
|
The thing that would have made Minsk agreeements work would have been the presence of UN peacekeeping forces but those obviously were not allowed by Russia and the ongoing invasion should have shattered any perception of 2014-2022 as a civil war or that Russia had any will to resolve the situation in Donbass in a honest way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 15:49
|
|
|
Actually, let me circle back to something: the big flaw in Mearsheimer's arguments is that he regards Russia as a Great Power. If he actually adjusted his inputs for the facts on the ground where it's a vestigial empire coasting off Soviet arsenals, then his theoretical framework does a much better job.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 15:49
|
|
|
Putin would be perfectly happy for "Minsk 2" to work by which he means turning it into Oslo 2, and therefore completely destroying the ability of Ukraine to function as a state. In other words, like just about every person who started an aggressive war, Putin would be happy if the target surrendered under his preferred terms.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 15:49
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:Absolutely not. He's a champion of the "Realist" school of thought which sounds reasonable but has been absolutely wrong about everything in this war. That video started out hilariously wrong. The 3 starting assumptions he states right off the bat are a wildly incorrect (Men are self interested, Ideals are Counterproductive, Man's natural state is anarchy). IR Realism, depending on which school has a number of different assumptions but the common core assumptions usually shake out to something like this: -Nations are the primary actors in IR. NGOs or other transnational organizations are recognized but have limited powers in the IR sphere. -Nations should be treated as unitary when it comes to core concerns. That is to say, it doesn't matter who is in charge politically but leaders or leadership groups will all act similarly when it involves core interests. -Nations are rational actors and, if put to the test between choosing morals vs expedience, choose self-expedience over moral considerations to protect core interests. -Nations exist in a state of anarchy where there is no higher power to enforce rules. (IE there isn't a teacher or principal you can call if the school bully comes after you that will enforce a moralistic outcome). And realists haven't been totally wrong. It was realists that were arguing that integration of Eastern Europe into NATO while cutting out the Russians would inevitably lead to confrontation. And until Ukraine actually wins the war, the core hypothesis that the Russians are ultimately going to be willing to pour more blood and treasure into Ukraine than the West will hasn't actually been disproven. Also please stop talking about IR as some monolithic block. It isn't. fatherboxx posted:The last one is explicitly not a postion of main western allies To be fair, his logic is Russia has more artillery so "Ceterus Paribus.....". I can't agree with that logic either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 15:50
|
|
|
MikeC posted:-Nations should be treated as unitary when it comes to core concerns. That is to say, it doesn't matter who is in charge politically but leaders or leadership groups will all act similarly when it involves core interests. My favorite part of Mearshmeier is in the "Russian taking Crimea is fine" videos where he says Russia would never invade the rest of Ukraine because that would be a horrible idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 16:07
|
|
|
Realism is a framework but like all frameworks people put all sorts of bullshit that's barely supported by the frame. If you broadly say that Russia will always want to exert its influence on its neighbors, that is true, but there are plenty of ways for that to play out. I don't think the most ardent Ukraine supporter will claim that its possible to win the war so hard Russia stops interfering with Ukraine in the future, that's just not possible. If you define US core interests as something broad like European stability, it will be the same between all leaders, but you can't argue that the implementation doesn't change between electing Obama vs electing Trump. The framework isn't really the problem, its the use of the framework to advance bogus conclusions that is the problem. Realism as a framework doesn't really provide a strong enough structure to support the claims being made.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 16:18
|
|
|
WarpedLichen posted:
What I would claim, though, is that the invasion has reduced Russia's ability to influence Ukraine by means other than force close to zero.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 16:22
|
|
|
IR always seems to have an Economics feel to me. Trying to rationalize or quantify what are human systems made up of inconsistent and irrational actors with any degree of accuracy is fundamentally impossible without taking the motivations of the decision making humans into account.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 16:27
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:What I would claim, though, is that the invasion has reduced Russia's ability to influence Ukraine by means other than force close to zero. I think that would be a nearsighted way to look at it. There are economic agreements between Ukraine and Russia that haven't even been terminated due to the war (see Russian gas through Ukrainian pipelines: https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/03/30/why-russian-oil-and-gas-is-still-flowing-through-ukraine) There will always be money to be made between the two sides, and that exchange will always be subject to government influence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 16:30
|
|
|
StumblyWumbly posted:I don't know if you're a Realist or not, and I don't want to lump you in with Mearshmeier, but how do these 2 items relate to the Ukraine war? It seems absolutely like a war of choice and something that nobody besides Putin would have done. Even if you buy the delusion that Russia sees NATO as an existential threat, going straight for Kyiv seems like the dumbest way to avoid that. I subscribe to IR Realism since imo, it has the best explanatory power of how nations behave. Ie, how the US is simultaneously a horrible imperialist invader trampling on democratically elected governments yet provides protection, arms, and aid to those aligned ideologically to it when it suits them. Rationality is defined within a nation's core interest. Russia under Putin maintains great power aspirations so while it may not be rational to you or me, overthrowing Kyiv and reinstalling a friendly regime or even outright annexation fits within that framework. It's just that everyone, Mearsheimer included thought that an outright invasion was a crazy way of trying to go about it. Finally, core interests can change over time depending on elite preferences and Keynsian "animal spirits". Japan's core interests in 1933 are not the same interests in 2023 ----------------- Civ Div has posted some helmet cam footage of what daily fighting in the south looks like. Small units poking up, getting spotted, shelled, and then falling back.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFxLhioWnio2 videos so far, and more to come.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 16:33
|
|
|
MikeC posted:I subscribe to IR Realism since imo, it has the best explanatory power of how nations behave. I'm so sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 16:39
|
|
|
a theory of neorealism where national interests are mutable in response to domestic or cross-national conflict, or where national interests can be defined in a predominantly nonrivalrous way, would seem to be a neorealism drained of much of its methodological focus of the state as actor
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 16:41
|
|
|
I subscribe to the theory that countries themselves aren't a single rational actor but groups of people with varying amounts of power and different interests and other groups of people trying to implement the wishes of the first group imperfectly. Not sure what that's called.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 16:49
|
|
|
ronya posted:a theory of neorealism where national interests are mutable in response to domestic or cross-national conflict, or where national interests can be defined in a predominantly nonrivalrous way, would seem to be a neorealism drained of much of its methodological focus of the state as actor How? The state remains the primary actor in IR. The challenge has and always will be trying to ascertain the driving motivations of the state beyond the ever-present issue of existential security.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 16:50
|
|
|
MikeC posted:How? The state remains the primary actor in IR. The challenge has and always will be trying to ascertain the driving motivations of the state beyond the ever-present issue of existential security. I am asking in all honesty and without malice, I'm curious: How does Hitler fit into this theory? Is the idea that if Adolf had been punished harder than a stint in Landsberg writing a political pamphlet, eventually there would have been a cabal of German generals (or whatever) who led the nation into an existential conflict against the Soviet Union? Germany's need for Lebensraum was of existential security? Of course we could frame the EU in these terms, so it sort of tracks, but World War 2 as a conflict was disastrous and the amount of dead people, geez. And from an IR perspective, it did shape the fates of a huge number of nations world-wide, hence the, erm, world war moniker I suppose. edit: the tired Hitler comparison being that Putin is a more irrational actor than another state leader, given that Russia is an autocracy at the mercies of a ruling class without checks and balances. Rappaport fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Jul 2, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 16:58
|
|
|
MikeC posted:-Nations are the primary actors in IR. To be more specific, the nations of the USA, Russia, and China are the primary actors in IR. Other nations are merely puppets. WarpedLichen posted:When a major issue contributing to the failure of Minsk 2 in 2021 was that Russia refused to admit to sock puppeting the LDR/DNR republics and negotiate as party but only as a mediator. Mearshmeier himself refuses to admit this; the linked article describes the 2014-2022 conflict merely as a "civil war", which is technically correct, but kind of omits the main driver of the war. I doubt anyone who describes the Donbas conflict as a purely internal affair of Ukraine would give the same description to any of the various conflicts where one side is armed and funded entirely by the CIA, reinforced with U.S. boots on the ground.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 17:04
|
|
|
If I'm reading it right, the assumption would be that even if Hitler had been strangled in his cradle by a time traveler, things wouldn't be all that different.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 17:07
|
|
|
Does anyone have a good link to some decent writing on why Seymour Hersh was also full of poo poo on Nordstream? I hate when people cite a conspiracy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 17:34
|
|
|
This was the original debunking with good data to back it up https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/blowing-holes-in-seymour-hershs-pipe
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 17:39
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:I am asking in all honesty and without malice, I'm curious: How does Hitler fit into this theory? Is the idea that if Adolf had been punished harder than a stint in Landsberg writing a political pamphlet, eventually there would have been a cabal of German generals (or whatever) who led the nation into an existential conflict against the Soviet Union? Germany's need for Lebensraum was of existential security? I don't know enough about Weimar Germany to say with confidence. My 50-thousand-foot view is that Hitler came along and sang a song about how Germany was unfairly punished for WWI and pushed out of the great power game (core interest) thanks to the backstabbing Jews so it was time to follow him and get some. It was a song that the political and military elite as well as by the population at large accepted who were willing to march to war under his leadership. From the time that Hitler gained political power, it would seem to me that unless everyone acquiesced to Hitler's territorial demands, there would be a conflict. Whether it specifically required Hitler or whether the elites and populace would have been willing to follow someone else? I don't know. IR realism isn't always about existential security, great power ambitions are usually the reason, but most IR realists believe that is the bedrock. If a state feels that there is an existential threat, all other concerns will be subordinated to that. To bring this back to the Russo-Ukrainian war, Putin rightly or wrongly wants Russia back in the great power game (I would argue the sun has already set for them even if they somehow win this war) and that the American affinity for undermining autocratic regimes around the world means that Ukraine falling into the US/EU orbit puts him next in line.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 17:54
|
|
|
MikeC posted:I subscribe to IR Realism since imo, it has the best explanatory power of how nations behave. Ie, how the US is simultaneously a horrible imperialist invader trampling on democratically elected governments yet provides protection, arms, and aid to those aligned ideologically to it when it suits them. Rationality is defined within a nation's core interest. Russia under Putin maintains great power aspirations so while it may not be rational to you or me, overthrowing Kyiv and reinstalling a friendly regime or even outright annexation fits within that framework. It's just that everyone, Mearsheimer included thought that an outright invasion was a crazy way of trying to go about it. Realism and rational choice theory both fail on the premise that humans, or nations, always act rationally in a way that protects their self-interest or "core interests." Neither, it turns out, are actually falsifiable either since IR and rat choice theorists take any evidence that challenges this assumption, then build this huge edifice to support why the behavior that falls outside of their theoretical framework actually falls inside it. It's literally no different than the ptolomaic model of the solar system preserving the earth at the center of the universe by explaining, "well now that you point that out, those planets do not look like they orbit the earth... BUT that's because they are doing donuts while they orbit the earth!" ZombieLenin fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Jul 2, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 17:56
|
|
|
Also talking about states like they're entities with their own minds is silly when the people actually making the decisions are leaders who have their own interests which are different from those of their country's. It's not in Hungary's interest to weaken NATO and the EU by sucking up to Russia, but Orban thinks it's in his interest to do so and so that's what happens. Leaders do stupid poo poo that damages their own countries all the time, how do realists explain Bush Jr's decision to invade Iraq?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 18:29
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:Also talking about states like they're entities with their own minds is silly when the people actually making the decisions are leaders who have their own interests which are different from those of their country's. It's not in Hungary's interest to weaken NATO and the EU by sucking up to Russia, but Orban thinks it's in his interest to do so and so that's what happens. Leaders do stupid poo poo that damages their own countries all the time, how do realists explain Bush Jr's decision to invade Iraq? It was clearly in US interest to add Iraq to the sphere of influence of... Iran?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 18:37
|
|
|
MikeC posted:I subscribe to IR Realism since imo, it has the best explanatory power of how nations behave. Ie, how the US is simultaneously a horrible imperialist invader trampling on democratically elected governments yet provides protection, arms, and aid to those aligned ideologically to it when it suits them. Rationality is defined within a nation's core interest. Russia under Putin maintains great power aspirations so while it may not be rational to you or me, overthrowing Kyiv and reinstalling a friendly regime or even outright annexation fits within that framework. It's just that everyone, Mearsheimer included thought that an outright invasion was a crazy way of trying to go about it. Similarly I'd argue you can't analyze America's invasion of Iraq without Bush (who was a coin flip away from Gore). Without Hitler you might have WWII, but you wouldn't have the holocaust. Pretty off topic so I'll just stop posting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 18:42
|
|
|
hey mom its 420 posted:This was the original debunking with good data to back it up https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/blowing-holes-in-seymour-hershs-pipe That’s a really interesting read. Also very telling to read emails written by Seymour Hersh - his brain is very clearly no longer functioning very well. Kind of sad, like when people do Weekend at Bernie’s with the corpse of Noam Chomsky, or what happened with James Watson, or with Diane Feinstein. I think Europe is bizarrely strict with its mandatory and fairly young retirement ages but US journalists taking advantage of decrepit 90 year olds is sad too. E: no criticism to this author detailing that Hersh has lost his mind and is completely delusional and I think the articles showing that Feinstein is insanely senile are good too - but what’s bad journalism is quoting those people for what they say without highlighting that they have severe cognitive decline.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 19:01 |
|
|
The problems in the democratic party highlight why organizations have mandatory retirement ages. These people become institutions themselves and there are a ton of incentives for people in their orbit to keep them in office long past the point where it's harming the organization.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2023 18:57
|
|
