- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Posted on 7/10/22 at 10:29 pm to OMLandshark
Posted on 7/10/22 at 10:29 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Dude, Hitler might be the biggest underdog to ever take true power in human history. If he isn’t, then he’s certainly in the debate. The coincidences were unbelievable.
What the frick are you talking about?
quote:
Here’s what I’m saying though: I doubt it would have been Hitler, but some nationalist, fascist, or communist would have inevitably taken over Germany due to what Britain and France did to them. It’s not a matter of if, it was just a matter of who and what would take them over.
You really need to read the history of that period before making such statements. Arguably, some concessions on the part of German conservatives and militarists with the SPD could have avoided the later decisions they made to try to form a possible coalition with the Nazis. The problem with a lot of Revanchism or any politics of revenge really, is that time moves forward, not backward, and looking to and being enamored with the past sometimes blinds you to new realities. The world will pass you by unless you adapt to those new realities. That's instructive with regard to both Putin and the German conservatives and militarists.
quote:
No, not necessarily and I don’t see the Germans in WWI as being the bad guys over the French and British. Make no mistake, if Germany did that to France after winning WWI, a figure that could be compared in some way to Hitler would have risen there. Try for some forgiveness. Shame, bitterness, and humiliation tend to be brought back up decades later.
This is straight up nonsense. While Versailles may have been misguided, you have to understand that part of it was designed to appease the public of the Allies. The original value of the reparations was 132 billion marks in cash. The reality was that Germany was expected to pay only 50 billion, with that value reduced to 40 billion due to loss of overseas possessions etc. Before a schedule of payments was made, Germany had paid 7 billion and offered to pay 20 billion at once.
German payments slowed to a trickle after the Allied Powers gave Germany control of their custom posts for delivering reparations. The French occupied the Ruhr in response. German economic officials pursued inflationary policies too, as those officials wanted to sabotage repayments. The Young-Dawes Plan set the final reparations figure at 118 billion, to be paid in full by the 1980s, and Germany was given access to foreign direct investment in the form of loans. The first loan they received was in excess of 300 million dollars, and by the end of the decade, Germany received more money than West Germany did in the Marshall Plan.
Placing too much emphasis on the terms of the Treaty of Versailles ignores that Germany immediately tried to work around sanctions through a rearmament program with the USSR and sank their own economy to get more favorable repayment terms. By the Great Depression, I believe they had the largest economy in Europe by GDP, no doubt fueled heavily by the foreign direct investment I alluded to earlier.
You seem to continually give the benefit of the doubt to bad-faith actors and you seem to do this repeatedly. And you rely on simplistic explanations where none exist for some reason.
Posted on 7/10/22 at 10:35 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
But he gets into my point is what if this is escalated and where do you think this ends. Outside of LSUPilot007, who is just outright a genocidal lunatic literally begging for World War III, I do think everyone in this thread means well. I just think you’re naive on what could spark my fears. I think Peterson speaks for me here.
No I'm not naïve on what sparks your fears. I also absolutely do not think that culture war bullshite informed any of this war, because it isn't as if this isn't the only time there have been tensions with the Russian state and with the 'West' more broadly. It's an absolutely silly thing to lean on. And Peterson seems to speak of the West and Russia both as monoliths, but he doesn't seem to do credit to any of their ideological traditions other than repeating Russian nonsense on the West's decadence and degeneracy verbatim. Again, it is a boring analysis that just happens to ignore the entirety of European history.
Posted on 7/10/22 at 10:36 pm to Lima Whiskey
What you said about Poroshenko and Kolomoyskyi is true.
But can you name one specific example of corruption by Zelensky since he has been president?
Ukraine has a lot of young educated professionals in their parliament now. They acknowledge the past corruption but I think that they realize that if Ukraine is going to realize its goal of EU membership they have to get their act together and clean it up. Ukraine just might come out if this realizing for them to have a future they have to. They have no other choice. If they can finally shake the Russian influence, maybe they can. Other East European countries did it when they finally shook the Soviet influence. Ex: Poland, Czech Republic, etc. etc.
Yanukovych (Putins stooge) was a thieving bastard. Do you agree?
But can you name one specific example of corruption by Zelensky since he has been president?
Ukraine has a lot of young educated professionals in their parliament now. They acknowledge the past corruption but I think that they realize that if Ukraine is going to realize its goal of EU membership they have to get their act together and clean it up. Ukraine just might come out if this realizing for them to have a future they have to. They have no other choice. If they can finally shake the Russian influence, maybe they can. Other East European countries did it when they finally shook the Soviet influence. Ex: Poland, Czech Republic, etc. etc.
Yanukovych (Putins stooge) was a thieving bastard. Do you agree?
This post was edited on 7/10/22 at 10:42 pm
Posted on 7/10/22 at 10:36 pm to Obtuse1
(no message)
This post was edited on 6/16/26 at 1:20 pm
Posted on 7/10/22 at 10:38 pm to crazy4lsu
(no message)
This post was edited on 6/16/26 at 1:19 pm
Posted on 7/10/22 at 10:49 pm to OMLandshark
Russia and China are not true allies, and never have been. They have always hated each other. China is NOT supplying Russia with any of the technology as it fears US sanctions more than anything. China is taking full advantage of Russia begging for sales of oil. Recently it canned the minister who was all for playing nice nice with Russia and replaced him with one who could work out differences with the USA.
China needs the USA as an economic trading partner without which millions of jobs will be lost. and a repeat of Sri Lanka is possible
China needs the USA as an economic trading partner without which millions of jobs will be lost. and a repeat of Sri Lanka is possible
Posted on 7/10/22 at 10:50 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Russia and China
Ray McGovern (CIA) has spoken about that.
He says it was the Soviet Unions concerns about China drove their increasingly conciliatory foreign policy in the 80s.
The Soviets were worried about Chinas growing ties to the US. With US support, they believed China would eclipse them.
I don’t know how much of a factor it was, but it is true that US policy has taken two enemies, Russia and China, two countries with a long history of bad blood, and turned them into allies.
This post was edited on 7/10/22 at 10:51 pm
Posted on 7/10/22 at 10:53 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
He outright says it yes and thinks it’s tragic since we could have turned Russia against China. I agree with him.
Based on what? Hope?
There is a lot to say about Russia and the West, but I think some of the best writing on it is a little none book by Dostoevsky called Winter Notes on Summer Impressions that echo many of the same thematic elements as some other Russian writers but also some cultural elements that are repeated today. There is the same contempt for liberalism, the same critique of Republicanism as a hypocrisy, and was confident that the Western world of decadence could not last. And yet, here we are, 167 years later, where the same critiques could apply. Again, it is so boring and stupid that it really doesn't deserve 2 minutes, let alone 50. But alas.
This post was edited on 7/10/22 at 10:54 pm
Posted on 7/10/22 at 10:56 pm to crazy4lsu
(no message)
This post was edited on 6/16/26 at 1:19 pm
Posted on 7/10/22 at 10:58 pm to Lima Whiskey
quote:
I don’t know how much of a factor it was, but it is true that US policy has taken two enemies, Russia and China, two countries with a long history of bad blood, and turned them into allies.
Wow, unprecedented! Allies of convenience!
You could say this about France and Germany too. 'I don’t know how much of a factor it was, but it is true that US policy has taken two enemies, France and Germany, two countries with a long history of bad blood, and turned them into allies.'
What can't the US do? Does anyone else in the world have any agency?
Posted on 7/10/22 at 10:59 pm to AU86
quote:
Yanukovych (Putins stooge) was a thieving bastard.
Yanukovych was a member of the Party of Regions, but he wasn’t Putin’s stooge. One of his biggest problems, was the way he played Europe and Moscow against each other, to get the best deal.
The Europeans felt cheated, and Moscow was annoyed, they had little desire to save him.
I do think he was corrupt.
Posted on 7/10/22 at 11:03 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
They had an opportunity to enter NATO. Clinton turned Russia down. That’s specifically what Peterson is referring to.
There was never an official invitation to my knowledge, only a general warming of relations during the period, but regardless, I'm guessing they would have treated Russia's potential ascension into NATO the same way the EU has treated Turkey, as a means for compliance. Again, I'm skeptical of Peterson's reading of any aspect of international politics when he uses it as a medium for his own self-perception. Maybe that's why you like him. But again, it isn't as simple as the West rejected Russia.
Posted on 7/10/22 at 11:06 pm to crazy4lsu
(no message)
This post was edited on 6/16/26 at 1:19 pm
Posted on 7/10/22 at 11:06 pm to OMLandshark
quote:Hm was the post-ww1 treatment more or less harsh than dismantling the country post-ww2? Do countries only start wars because they were treated poorly in the past?
Here’s what I’m saying though: I doubt it would have been Hitler, but some nationalist, fascist, or communist would have inevitably taken over Germany due to what Britain and France did to them.
quote:Consequences are still required. Forgiveness only works if the aggressor is sorry for what they've done. Consequences go a long way in making people feel sorry for what they've done.
Try for some forgiveness.
quote:These are unavoidable feelings when the instigator loses.
Shame, bitterness, and humiliation tend to be brought back up decades later.
Posted on 7/10/22 at 11:09 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
There wasn’t, but it’s said that Bill Clinton is the key factor why that invitation wasn’t issued. Again, Peterson’s point, not mine.
Again, I'm saying that is a massive oversimplification and really isn't as instructive as you (or Peterson) think it is. Given that Peterson is a pretty sloppy in anything outside his own field, that tracks.
Posted on 7/10/22 at 11:12 pm to crazy4lsu
(no message)
This post was edited on 6/16/26 at 1:19 pm
Posted on 7/10/22 at 11:13 pm to OMLandshark
quote:When the frick did Jordan Peterson become an expert on everything? That guy's ego knows no bounds. Not really directed at you, just a general observation.
Again, Peterson’s point, not mine.
Posted on 7/10/22 at 11:15 pm to northshorebamaman
(no message)
This post was edited on 6/16/26 at 1:18 pm
Posted on 7/10/22 at 11:16 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Wow, unprecedented! Allies of convenience!
US hostility drove Beijing and Moscow together, despite a long history of mutual hostility.
Without the US, it doesn’t happen.
And there was nothing inevitable about it. Going back in time, analysts in the late 80s and early 90s would have called it an unlikely scenario, because relations were so poor.
The whole thing points to just how dumb the policy makers in Washington are. And to much power the Eastern European exiles in the bureaucracy have. (They’re driven by their grandparents old grudges.)
They picked a fruitless fight with Russia, and in doing so, strengthened the one country that actually wants to bring America to its knees.
Posted on 7/10/22 at 11:16 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
I actually agree with you that Peterson may be a little naive here that Russia would have truly joined NATO without corrupting it. Now it’s a tragedy it didn’t happen as Peterson, but I don’t think it was really on the table regardless of Bill Clinton.
So then you admit there was no way we could have prevented any possible Chinese-Russian alliance, right? Regardless, it was a nonsensical point.
Popular
Back to top


0




