Ukraine invasion

[popsgarland]

There is a lot of speculation on What should be done, what shouldn't be done, who should do what, who shouldn't do anything. Who's killing who, who's getting killed. Everybody has their own ideas of what should and shouldn't be done. And who should do it.

With everyone who's giving their opinion, I can't help but wonder how many of these people have actually been in a WAR ZONE. If you haven't been in a WAR ZONE, you have no idea how terribly scary it is for your first time and sometime for your entire tour of duty. Training against a non threatening dummy, a target that doesn't shoot back or someone that you know will not kill you, is a hell of a lot different than facing someone really trying to kill you.

If you've been there....THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE, if you haven't...well you have a lot to learn.

 

[Younggun]

Yeah, sounds much like the mujahideen.

So maybe that could be avoided if we had gone in hard at the beginning and made it clear no Russian armor would be allowed to cross the border. Preventing the need for Ukraine to rely on anyone with an extreme ideology (assuming Azov is as evil as they are claimed to be).

Either way, that ship sailed long ago. Maybe my idea would have resulted in a 2 day war, or WW3. Never find out now.

 

[gll]

So maybe that could be avoided if we had gone in hard at the beginning and made it clear no Russian armor would be allowed to cross the border. Preventing the need for Ukraine to rely on anyone with an extreme ideology (assuming Azov is as evil as they are claimed to be).

Either way, that ship sailed long ago. Maybe my idea would have resulted in a 2 day war, or WW3. Never find out now.

WW3, I think... Same as if NATO attacks Russia directly now...

 

[oldag]

WW3, I think... Same as if NATO attacks Russia directly now...

I think not.

Russia knows it cannot win that one, so it won't start.

 

[Younggun]

I think not.

Russia knows it cannot win that one, so it won't start.

I agree. Same reason Russia sat quietly through the Trump admin.



But I wouldn’t be willing to risk American lives on the conflict as it stands today. We should have acted from the very beginning when the enemy would be exposed and easily targeted.

 

[oldag]

I agree. Same reason Russia sat quietly through the Trump admin.



But I wouldn’t be willing to risk American lives on the conflict as it stands today. We should have acted from the very beginning when the enemy would be exposed and easily targeted.

At this point, I am in favor of helping Ukraine obtain the weapons/munitions it needs to win its own fight.

 

[benenglish]

I think not.

Russia knows it cannot win that one, so it won't start.

What makes you think winning is the goal? When it's basically one guy at the top making the decisions, rational goals (like winning) sometimes aren't even in the picture.

That line in one of those Batman movies about "Some people just want to see the world burn" isn't always fiction. I've posted this before but I think it bears repeating. -

 

[oldag]

What makes you think winning is the goal? When it's basically one guy at the top making the decisions, rational goals (like winning) sometimes aren't even in the picture.

That line in one of those Batman movies about "Some people just want to see the world burn" isn't always fiction. I've posted this before but I think it bears repeating. -

Because if Putin gets his tail kicked, he is in danger of being deposed as many have observed. Being a loser at the same time Russia is under hardships could lead to someone else taking the throne.

 

[oldag]

What makes you think winning is the goal? When it's basically one guy at the top making the decisions, rational goals (like winning) sometimes aren't even in the picture.

That line in one of those Batman movies about "Some people just want to see the world burn" isn't always fiction. I've posted this before but I think it bears repeating. -

Did this guy even study WW2?

Is he unaware of the labor camps? Nor Hitler's reaction to his losses?

Hitler did not start the war with the aim of losing.

Garbage.

 

[Younggun]

What makes you think winning is the goal? When it's basically one guy at the top making the decisions, rational goals (like winning) sometimes aren't even in the picture.

That line in one of those Batman movies about "Some people just want to see the world burn" isn't always fiction. I've posted this before but I think it bears repeating. -

I like Peterson, and his insights in to human nature are usually pretty good. But I think in this case he uses a fairly poor example since we know quite a bit about Hitler. He devoted massive resources to his military and could scarcely provide the materials needed to operate the work camps he was running and viewed Jews as a drain on national resources. I don’t think a comparison to the innuate (SP) is at all applicable. But that’s an entirely different debate.

My belief is that Putin is after the resources of Ukraine in an effort to the comparatively small Russian economy and gain control of certain resources that would give him far more leverage on the world stage.

The US has done this many times, we just have the resources to gain that control with money or through covert operations, helping those who would be favorable to our goals gain power, etc. Russia lacks the ability to compete on that field, so they do what people have done for thousands of years. Putin (I believe) wants Russia to have that same sway and power, and sees the resources of Ukraine as a stepping point to reach that goal. Russia would then control resources used to heat a large portion of Europe, massive grain exports, and raw materials needed for the manufacture of almost all modern technology.

 

[benenglish]

Did this guy even study WW2?

Extensively.

Is he unaware of the labor camps?

No, he's aware. I just don't think he's ever considered them to be a logical counterbalance to the camps dedicated to extermination. Even though the Germans used slave labor, they also wasted a lot of resources by killing a lot of people who would have made useful slaves. That was terribly inefficient and wasteful.

Nor Hitler's reaction to his losses?

He's aware. He's just pointing out that in the later stages of the war, Hitler's reaction wasn't always to do what was most efficient to reduce losses. IOW, leadership can do stupid, irrational, self-defeating things when things start to fly apart.

Hitler did not start the war with the aim of losing.

Peterson knows that; everyone does. He's just pointing out that Hitler's psychological state seems to have changed his decisions as the war started to go badly.

But I'm not trying to defend one professor's view of the history of WWII.

I'm just trying to make the same point that he's making. That is, when too much control of military assets is invested in a single leader, the personal, psychological problems and maladjustments of that mind are amplified on the battlefield. Crazy, stupid, irrational things can happen, things that result in more useless death and destruction than would be necessary if the only goal were winning.

And that's what scares me about Ukraine. Putin is calling the shots. If he starts losing too badly and just decides to say "**** it!" and decides to do something stupid that burns the world, who will stop him and how?

The same line of thinking can be extended to China and Taiwan. Peter Zeihan has been a very sharp analyst on that subject for a long time and he still thinks an attack on Taiwan is unlikely but it's far more likely than it used to be. Why? Because there's a single leader who can make it happen and that single leader is facing serious existential crises. His world is falling apart. And if his world is going up in flames, there's a certain warped logic to being the person who chooses when and where to light the fuse that will begin the immolation of your own people and even your own personal power.

 

[benenglish]

I like Peterson, and his insights in to human nature are usually pretty good. But I think in this case he uses a fairly poor example

That's fair criticism. It's off-topic but I'm finding more and more cases where Peterson's success has led him to inquire into and then pontificate upon subjects that are outside his wheelhouse to his detriment. After all, being such a big name means that if he wants to learn about something, he can easily get the best people in those fields to brief him. But being briefed doesn't mean he has real understanding. Some of his comments about climate change, for example, have come from an embarrassingly shallow understanding of the subject.

Nevertheless, he's still a highly competent clinical psychologist. When he starts talking about how a single person, especially someone in command of a large military, can let their personal psychological shortcomings result in illogical massive destruction, well, I think he still provides some excellent insight.

 

[V-Tach]

Never underestimate Joe's ability to *%#& things up..........

 

[Armybrat]

Endless wars? Like Chechnya, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine, probably missed a couple. Putin threatens US with nuclear bombs for giving Ukraine weapons to defend themselves. Putin should nuke himself. Putin is a coward who sends his boys to die so he and his buddies can steal Ukraine resources.


Send me some research papers that shows putin made a good move by invading a country, causing billions in destruction, killing 10,000's of innocent people and creating +5,000,000 refugees.

Screw Putin and the Russians.
I recall the Soviets supplying the Norks and the NVA with heavy weapons that were used to kill tens of thousands of American servicemen & women and shoot down 8,000+ US aircraft over the course of three decades.
I hope the Ukraine military uses our & NATO’s donated equipment to kill every one of those thugs he sent to invade & rape their country.

 

[popper]

IF the US were to put boots on the ground it would be for the same reason, resources.
No, cheap resources! we don't (yet) need their oil or grain or metals. We like their cheap stuff.
So Ru controls a lot of gas/oil and now GRAIN and controls economy, makes oodles of $. Tried to tell you long time ago.

 

[Axxe55]

Never underestimate Joe's ability to *%#& things up..........

^^^^Ditto!^^^^

Quoted for truth...

 

[oldag]

Extensively.

No, he's aware. I just don't think he's ever considered them to be a logical counterbalance to the camps dedicated to extermination. Even though the Germans used slave labor, they also wasted a lot of resources by killing a lot of people who would have made useful slaves. That was terribly inefficient and wasteful.

He's aware. He's just pointing out that in the later stages of the war, Hitler's reaction wasn't always to do what was most efficient to reduce losses. IOW, leadership can do stupid, irrational, self-defeating things when things start to fly apart.

Peterson knows that; everyone does. He's just pointing out that Hitler's psychological state seems to have changed his decisions as the war started to go badly.

But I'm not trying to defend one professor's view of the history of WWII.

I'm just trying to make the same point that he's making. That is, when too much control of military assets is invested in a single leader, the personal, psychological problems and maladjustments of that mind are amplified on the battlefield. Crazy, stupid, irrational things can happen, things that result in more useless death and destruction than would be necessary if the only goal were winning.

And that's what scares me about Ukraine. Putin is calling the shots. If he starts losing too badly and just decides to say "**** it!" and decides to do something stupid that burns the world, who will stop him and how?

The same line of thinking can be extended to China and Taiwan. Peter Zeihan has been a very sharp analyst on that subject for a long time and he still thinks an attack on Taiwan is unlikely but it's far more likely than it used to be. Why? Because there's a single leader who can make it happen and that single leader is facing serious existential crises. His world is falling apart. And if his world is going up in flames, there's a certain warped logic to being the person who chooses when and where to light the fuse that will begin the immolation of your own people and even your own personal power.

None of which supports "winning wasn't the goal".

 

[Younggun]

One of the smartest things I’ve heard Peterson say was when someone made a point countering his argument during a discussion.


“Maybe I was wrong about that.”

-Jordan Peterson

 

[Mohawk600]

I just hope no nukes start flying soon.

edited

 

[cycleguy2300]

I just hope nukes start flying soon.

Using nukes in any capacity would not be in Russia's long or short term interests.

Perun's videos seem on point and I find it easy to spend 3 or 4 hours watching them



Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk