Senate Russia: its impact on the world, its invasion of Ukraine, and its future

Jay, you know better than that one. Putin is in no position to be doing things like that, and certainly not a long-term basis.

 

Vivec, the ad hominem attack was unnecessary, and frankly, inappropriate. And I don't think the comparison is either lazy or off-base. The fact is, history tends to repeat itself. The fact is, Russia is an increasingly isolated nation with large amounts of resources, a growing military, and a faltering economy with a collapsing currency which may or may not lead its power-hungry leader to do something crazy or stupid. World War 2 might not be a template for every future conflict, but it does show a roadmap to how such a situation can arise, and an increasingly desperate and nationalistic leader like Putin may not behave in a manner too dissimilar to another leader from decades ago.

My point is that you can't always expect people to behave in a manner that is rational.

Do I really believe Putin is going to do the things I stated? No. But I'm willing to bet he's thought about them. And that means we should too. Furthermore, I think the likelihood of him trying to take over NATO is vanishingly small....but I bet he's thought about it. And we should too, even if it never gets past the 'thinking' stage.

It all comes down to psychology. As long as Putin believes that a red line still exists 'somewhere', he's unlikely to do anything truly suicidal...or so we like to think, but all things being equal, the West would be well advised not to disabuse him of that notion.

On another front, weakness in the face of his behavior may invite the more aggressive use of 'soft power', ie covert threats, cyberattacks, increasing support for the enemies of western interests, etc. I'm not saying we should go to war (in fact, that should always be the option of last resort only), but we can't let him think we'll NEVER go to war, or the west will have lost. He won't have to fire a single shot to get what he wants; psychologically defeating an enemy is, in many ways, superior to militarily defeating him.

Josh, does that put my comments into a better context? War between Russia and Europe is highly unlikely, but I don't think NATO should ignore Putin either, or pretend he can't do a lot of damage. There's a fine line between over-and-underreacting, and its up to the US and its allies to figure out where that line is.

Peace,

V-03

 

I suspect -- and this isn't inside baseball -- Putin likes it that way. Stabilizing with the Euro would be "bad for business" (notwithstanding a Euro devaluation -- coming to theaters near you this summer!) and allows him to consolidate power since he can control the central bank this way.

 

What was the ad hominem attack?

As first shown in Newton's "On the Cyclical Dynamics of Historical Bodies..."

This is a common trope in bad history: the idea that history "repeats itself" or we need to "learn from history." There is no cyclical nature of history, nor does history repeat itself.

The Interwar period and today are very dissimilar. You've done nothing to demonstrate any similarity between the Great Depression and the Eurozone Crisis. And that's because there isn't any. In addition, unlike Hitler, Putin doesn't want to annex these countries into Russia. He wants a buffer zone between Russia and NATO. This is a huge political difference. It's the defining political difference.

Of course, but that's really a meaningless argument. It's the "anything could happen at any moment for any reason." No one can discuss that because there's nothing to discuss.

You're countering your own argument. If you're saying that it's ripe for him not acting rational, then how can you present that a red line is the solution? A red line solution is by definition based on him acting rational?

We're not showing any weakness. We've crippled his economy. We don't have to threaten with military to show strength, and you've just stated that there are ways to defeat an enemy that's superior to militarily. You've...once again undermined your own argument

 

"We need breathing room!" - General Chang
"Earth, Hitler. 1938." - Kirk

Just because of Nimoy.

But you're right, even with the above your assertion is largely correct.

 

The laziness assertion was very much ad hominem.

In terms of the other stuff you said, I agree with some, disagree with others.

Let's leave it at that.

Peace,

V-03

 

Whilst poking the bear has been the cornerstone of some of the stupidest low points in US foreign policy, the best commentary on the shooting came from Mikhail Iampolski (Михаил Ямпольский), a Russian cultural historian who wrote of Nemtsov's shooting on Facebook saying "one cannot exclude the possibility that the execution of Nemtsov could become for Russia something like the murder of [Sergei] Kirov."

 

Calling a type of argument lazy isn't an ad hominem attack. An adhominem attack is when you attack the character of person making the argument, implying that a specific aspect of said person makes the person wrong.

I made no such comment about your character. I called a specific type of argumentation lazy.

Also, somewhat related.

Spoiler

 

That's great and all Vivec, but all you're doing now is patting yourself on the back and using a long winded cartoon to make a point.

I mean, I know the Senate lowered it's standards, but...

 

I feel like clarifying you to someone that you weren't personally going after them is a pretty worthwhile comment. Civility and all, you know.

 

Senate and all.

It was more that the comic took about half an hour to read, and the point could have been made in a shorter time frame - like quoting an appropriate allegorical novel or novella.

 

I think he just wanted to share something he found amusing. Though, yes, the joke did drag on a bit long. The ending payoff wasn't really worth it, and just the absurdity of someone making such a huge deal of fallacies was amusing enough that they could have done the first one or two scenes and left it at that.

 

Wocky, look, I will level with you. You've made a bigger deal out of it than it needed, and I actually think Iampolski's point is worth considering. So, maybe you could tell me if you think there are parallels with the Kirov shooting?

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to rile anyone up. I mostly just wanted a backdoor to comment on the quality of that cartoon and how I would improve it.

 

You just like backdoors.

 

Ender, the comic was optional, hence hidden in spoiler tags. I know you constantly need to criticize every post I make ever, but frankly, this one's a stretch. If your biggest criticism is that I'm patting myself on the back too much, I suggest a mirror is in order.

You didn't even have anything negative to say about my point. You really should get this compulsion checked.

 

I'm just saying, all we're doing is correcting each other on silly points when in reality there's been a significant event in Moscow and it hints at serious undertones.

 

Russia is more likely to move on Georgia or Macedonia before attempting to destabilise the Baltic's.

 

Ugh.

Sometimes I wonder why I still post here.

If one's ego is defined by winning arguments on an internet message board, I'd say that person has issues.

But hey, what do I know? Nice cartoon, by the way.

On another note, Ender, I think Putin is very much behind this assasination, and I would find the fact that he's 'personally' leading the investigation amusing, if it weren't so scary.

Seems like Russia is basically devolving into pure thuggery. Makes me almost wish for the old days of the Cold War.

Brain hemorrhage, anyone?

Peace,

V-03

 

Is he suggesting a purge of the power apparatus?

 

Now *this* is a personal attack. As opposed to stating that an argument is bad/lazy/has issues/etc.

Glad we could clear this up.

 

Ok and I mean that's pretty wonderful and all Vivec but how about you talk about Russia, and not you?

I believe he's suggesting that like Kirov's murder, it's the justification for heavy handed tactics to commence in response to it. Stalin was obviously a very canny operator and used the fact a Bolshevik hero like Kirov was assassinated in the Kremlin itself to justify a massive crackdown. Nemtsov's murder takes place in spitting distance of the Kremlin, an ostensibly heavily patrolled area. The killers were bold to strike where they did, and a question about whether or not they expected an unhindered escape springs to mind. But given the proximity to the capital, could additional security measures follow? A crackdown on dissent? Sadly, it could, simply because as has been said before - Putin is Russia.

 

Hey! It's "its".