Comments on: On Ukraine: what course others may take

By: Mike K

Mike K — Thu, 28 Apr 2022 22:16:38 +0000

I have just scanned all the comments today.

om on April 25, 2022 at 10:37 pm said:

Mike K you might consider expanding your knowledge of WWI. Lectures by The Western Front Association on YouTube would be a start.

I have read quite a bit about it (I’m assuming you were not accusing me of being uninformed) and I do not like YouTube as a learning site. I guess we could compare bibliographies if you are serious.

By: Miguel cervantes

Miguel cervantes — Wed, 27 Apr 2022 04:29:16 +0000

So putin makes himself a villain too easily (he should grow a mustache so he twirl it,) but what of other player like the sultan erdogan who purged his countrys ranks twice who has an unhealthy fixation with the kurds and has given sanctuary to al queda on his border, they are passe now, coming up on the 11th anniversary of ubls dirt nap, thats who was the russian rival in syria through proxies of course

By: Miguel cervantes

Miguel cervantes — Wed, 27 Apr 2022 03:42:35 +0000

Why nato didnt go away well its comvenient for europeans they dont want to spring for their own defense bosnia came along fairly quickly the kosovo, within a short interval once time being mostly mute to their orthodox brethren might have been accident the second time coincidence.

Brsides would amampour or robertson have careers if not for the balkans

By: Miguel cervantes

Miguel cervantes — Wed, 27 Apr 2022 03:31:48 +0000

Why did yeltsins general grachev pound grozny for two monthes they were trying to exorcise the ghost of afghanistan from 6 years earlier the obahina was too much competion for the bratva (chechen and native mob outfits) these things develop a relentless logic of our own

By: Miguel cervantes

Miguel cervantes — Wed, 27 Apr 2022 03:27:16 +0000

Well blinken isnt a neocon neither is his handler malley (nod) nor sherman (wynken) i couldnt even gather what austin is, except bishop rooker is still pulling his strings. What is crystal clear is their agenda is not good for any of us

By: Miguel cervantes

Miguel cervantes — Wed, 27 Apr 2022 03:15:50 +0000

Yes they make entirely too much of the azov what is maybe 900 men tops but since the media made special exceptions to excuse actions by that unit. Which has that annoying strangelove fixation,

By: Miguel cervantes

Miguel cervantes — Wed, 27 Apr 2022 03:08:57 +0000

He massed his forces for a year after the regime was installed, i think it was a stupid strategy to just redouble your resources and do little else, the afghan withdrawal proved we were a paper tiger to anyone watching why go after kyev in a climate it has never worked,

The war of 1877 (the setting for anna karenina btw) happened under the good czar alexander 2nd so did the suppression of the hromadas patriotic societies

By: Richard Aubrey

Richard Aubrey — Wed, 27 Apr 2022 02:48:30 +0000

The question is what is/was in Putin’s head. Endless discussions don’t tell us. And Putin may not, may instead be trying to sell a legitimate-seeming justification to cover for something far less marketable.
Putin came up through the KGB. Does that increase, decrease, or is irrelevant to feelings for Greater Russia or, at least, a healthy USSR?
Does it, instead, reward the lowest of morality and manipulation?
Or the second in pursuit of the first?
What impresses a westerner as important may or may not have much to do with Putin’s views.
I get the sense, some here, and some elsewhere, that there is an effort to excuse Putin in order to allow for not getting involved in something dangerous.
Point is, endless discussion is irrelevant. Interesting, relevant to other questions and issues going forward. But unless somebody has some super duper EKG thingy hitched to Putin’s skull, we don’t know. And that means we don’t know what it would take for him to quit. As a practical matter, the only way to get somebody like that to quit is to denude him of all conceivable means of accomplishing it.
What Putin should think is irrelevant.

By: Richard Aubrey

Richard Aubrey — Tue, 26 Apr 2022 19:08:43 +0000

Jiohn S.
It’s not a zero sum issue. Not like the traffic cop who thinks you’re seventy percent at fault and the other guy thirty percent. But then recalculating that you’re fifty percent at fault, the other guy MUST be fifty percent, since one hundred percent is the only total allowed.

By: John S

John S — Tue, 26 Apr 2022 19:02:12 +0000

“But if I did, and if I were to become the victim of a crime there, the person who committed that crime is 100% responsible. I bear no responsibility at all.”

The above statement is erroneous. You bear no responsibility for the CRIME, you do bear responsibility for your own stupidity. This notion of “only one party can be responsible” for a bad event is bullcrap. YOU have a MORAL RESPONSIBILITY to protect yourself, to NOT BE A FOOL. The other party has a MORAL RESPONSIBILITY to NOT attack you. A failure by ONE is in no way exculpatory of the failure by the OTHER. Foolishness, the opposite of prudence, is a MORAL failing, and our society has been giving a pass for too long to FOOLS who are subsequently victimized because they acted foolishly.

Attempts to minimize the primary failure with the secondary failure is the root of the “you can’t blame the victim” stupidity. Yes, yes you can. And often you SHOULD. To repeat: A failure by ONE is in no way exculpatory of the failure by the OTHER.