SWIFT was last week.
1 Like
https://twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1499931630668075012
This. Need to be screaming this stuff from the rooftops.
2 Likes
Bizarre stance. Seems like a guarantee that whoever the oligarchs in their Miami yachts pick to replace Putin would back de-escalation.
I think ultimately you’d be right - but the period of instability until his successor is found could be very ugly - both for Russians and the risk of nuclear war (e.g. warlords making off/selling nuclear arsenals).
I think the best situation is Putin sees the writing on the wall and makes off with his billions to leave out the rest of is life, but think there are many worse possibilities.
1 Like
You obviously must have a much greater understanding of internal Russian politics than I have, so I’ll defer to you, as I have no idea who would be most likely to successfully stage a coup against Putin or what their likely policies would be. But it’s reassuring to hear it would definitely be someone reasonable who wants to de-escalate things.
1 Like
Rasputin
7 Likes
T-19 hours until I’m way to Bulgaria. We in the US are so lucky to live in a place so far from any active war zone. Will be interesting to only be 1,000 km or less away.
3 Likes
It’s the logical conclusion based on who holds the power and what they want. But I’m not the one arguing that Ukraine should have sacrificed their independence and economic prosperity because Russia will obviously retaliate.
I mean, my OP in this thread is a better introduction to Mearsheimer and his ideas than yours. But if the mods want to move the OP and subsequent discussions on the topic that seems like a reasonable thing to do.
Ok, I’ll edit it to include your OP.
Edit: Ok, I removed it and will let the mods do it.
1 Like
Let the mods break out the discussion we’re having ITT.
Tactical cuke incoming!
3 Likes
The problem is, I think everyone agrees that if Putin could summon a genie and wish for all of the old Soviet Union to be firmly back under the Russian umbrella, if not outright Russian territory, he would do it. I don’t even need Putin to say so to know that. It’s a natural consequence of the sort of Russian nationalist ideology he subscribes to.
The disagreement is over to what extent this drives Russia’s actual behaviour. And the problem is this connect-the-dots thing you’re doing where the invasion of Ukraine is evidence that this whole plan of reconstructing the Soviet Union is underway. But there are many, less maximalist motivations from Russia which explain the Ukraine invasion. And the 2014 annexation of Crimea, for example, is more compatible with the strategic motivations I’m describing than with your ideological explanation (although the two aren’t mutually exclusive).
I think this is another facet of Marvel Villain Brain in that you seem to be under the impression that Putin will give a grand explanation of his evil plan that you can decipher from public statements. Imagine trying to predict American foreign policy from the ideological principles laid out by the President in speeches. You would have assumed in 2003 that after Iraq, regime change in Saudi Arabia was next. It was, after all, a repressive dictatorship exporting terrorist ideology, including literally Bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers. Understanding the US’s actual actions requires ignoring ideology and thinking in strategic terms. And if Putin is actually motivated by, say, control of petroleum resources in the Black Sea, he is not going to give a speech explaining this to you.
7 Likes
It’s Hillary’s fault.
In a second Trump term, I think he may well have withdrawn from NATO. And I think Putin was waiting for that.
If I didn’t know better I’d have guessed this photo was taken from a Benny Hill episode. Look at these fuckin’ stooges.
Wow yeah - keep us posted on the mood over there.
1 Like
It’s not just his public statements. It’s also US intelligence assessments, which were not meant to be shared with the public (which I posted itt). It’s his manifesto that he made the military read. It’s the fact that he just invaded Ukraine at gigantic personal risk to his legacy.
Why are you doing backflips to imagine a world where we can say “well, we just don’t know” that runs counter to everything Putin has said or done since the mid-2000s?
The people who are saying Putin doesn’t really have grand plans to recreate the USSR are the same people who said he would never actually invade Ukraine. Their credibility is suspect.
So like you said, we both agree he’d love to recreate the USSR, and we’re really just quibbling about how far he’s willing to go. Given what I’ve seen right now, if he’d have won easily in Ukraine (which he probably would have w/o massive support from the West), I’d say that’s pretty far. No way he’d be happy stopping at Ukraine. I categorically reject the idea that it’s obvious in any way that letting Ukraine get steamrolled would have been the pragmatic thing to do for the West.
Can I imagine a world where all Putin wants is Black Sea oil resources? Sure. But I’m not willing to bank on that being all he wants. And if we just don’t know - we have to assume and prepare for the worst, right? Why would we imagine the less bad scenario and then plan for that?
1 Like
Apparently one of the perks of being a Russian fighter pilot is you get to eat well and you don’t have to stay in shape.
1 Like
yup.
The mearsheimer stufff has morphed from “NATO has caused this by doing something objectively wrong and aggressive” to “NATO has caused this by not respecting realism aka Putin’s superpower toxicity of wanting the right to do whatever he wants in eastern Europe”. It’s just word games.
1 Like
it’s fake in the sense that it is all staged. putin is famous for it. everyone he meets is an fsb agent who is known to be loyal. those flight attendants could easily be that.
couple of weeks ago putin went to put flowers on the anniversary of leningrad blockade. the police cleared out even 80yo survivors from the place. because putin is actually hated so much by so many he could meet in real life, he cannot take the risk.