Politics

steve white said:
How many departments could we do without? Without naming the top runners (education comes to mind, though--give that to the states) I would sure like to FIND OUT!
Click to expand...

I remember when the Department of Education was founded. America was #1 in the world in education. Last ranking I remember seeing, America was #24.
 
Red Leg said:
Paul Wolfowitz, who championed the invasion, was heavily influenced by Ahmed Chalabi, who would wax eloquently about how the Iraqis would welcome US forces with open arms (!), and the Israeli MOD who saw an opportunity to rid themselves of Saddam Hussein (the Israelis are great tacticians, but rarely great strategists). Not a single army Arabist of whom I am aware had any illusions about the reception US troops would receive within Iraq - particularly from the Shia who felt betrayed and abandoned in the aftermath of Desert Storm. That assessment was a major reason Rick Shinseki and the Army Staff advocated an adequate invasion and stabilization force, for which he was ridiculed by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. And yes, the eventual Bremer selection compounded that folly exponentially.
Click to expand...

I worked as a direct report to Wolfowitz starting in 2005 (through 2007) and sat through many a meeting as well as numerous casual discussions related to exactly this across a wide body of both politicians and military leaders as well as numerous senior Breton Woods organization officials (IMF, World Bank, UN)... @Red Leg is spot on with the facts and assessment..
 
mark-hunter said:
I will relate this to my earlier posts. (Hoping for @Red Leg comments)
Basically the question can be: how do we define friends and foes.

During cold war, there was soviet union, and communist doctrine and Warsaw pact alliance.
This basically means that communists will support and export communist ideas and active revolution to western world, wherever possible.
This, understandably will mean threat to every liberal capitalists country.
So we had iron curtain.

With fall of berlin wall, communist system and ideology collapsed.

Modern Russia is not Soviet union, and they are not communists.
Since 1990ies, former communist countries went to process of transition to new system, and we accepted them as allies.
Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, etc.
More over, we took them to Nato alliance.

The transition of political system more or less is in the same way made in Ukraine and in modern Russia. (And Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, etc) Arguably, they can also be seen as countries with high rate of corruption, if that is an obstacle.

So, Ukraine is ally, Russia is not.

Where does the western interest makes the line in determining an ally from foe, in countries with the same level of transition from communist states to capitalist states?
Click to expand...
Historically, great powers are either allies or adversaries. They do not have the luxury of ambivalence. Moreover, their relationships change dramatically with time. France and England were adversaries for centuries - until they weren't thanks to the growing continental power of Germany at the end of the 19th century. The United States and Great Britain were on the brink of armed conflict as recently as the mid-nineteenth century thanks to competition in the American and Canadian Northwest.

Russia has historically been pulled eastward and southward as much as it has been a player in Western geo-politics. Prior to WWII, its most expansive efforts were during the Napoleonic Wars under Tsar Alexander I - an absolute autocrat in an age of ever more limited sovereignty in the West. Poland (more accurately - territory occupied by Poles), East Prussia, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire were the primary gameboard for that decades long contest of European political and military strategy, all of which came crashing down in August of 1914 and is still sorting itself out following three world wars (I include the Cold War as the third).

Russia has never been a comfortable ally for the US. With both nations having a similar founding myth built around conquest of a vast frontier, one would think that shouldn't be the case. Perhaps it does explain the affinity Americans and Russians often find for each other individually. But culturally, the chasm remains enormous. Russia today wears its tradition of autocracy as comfortably as it did in the 19th century. Whether a General Secretary of the Communist Party or post Soviet President, Russian leadership continues to be clothed in its Tsarist robes. Whether a communist party membership or now a membership in the oligarchy, a foundation of "royalty" supports the Tsar. Though no longer chattel, the citizenry drudge on in largely apathetic obedience.

For nations with foundations built upon the enlightenment and the notions of limited government, it is extremely difficult to make common cause with such an alien culture without the motivation of a common foe. In WWII, it was of course Nazi Germany. Following the war, mutually exclusive political economic structures made continued rapprochement impossible leading to the Cold War.

The robber baron form of capitalism that emerged in the nineties led by yet another Tsarist structure remains a barrier. Combine that with an expansionist Russian political military policy aimed a correcting "the greatest tragedy of the twentieth century" to quote Putin, while allied to the United State's chief competitor China, and there is no ground for common cause.

With respect to Putin's goals, perhaps you missed the primary axis of the initial Russian assault on Ukraine was the attempt to seize Kyiv. I do not believe any serious commentator on the war believes Russia's initial goal was anything put the total subjugation of the country. I frankly see zero evidence that has changed. Certainly, Russia likely would eagerly now accept an extended truce in place. but I do not believe any serious observer thinks Putin's ambitions end there.

Finally, in spite of all its arguments, historic baggage, and British truculence, the European Union experiment has been remarkably successful on the Continent. Is it any wonder, occasional old guard politicians not withstanding, large majorities of Eastern Europe strongly support a Western rather than Eastern future. Certainly Ukraine pledges that every single day in the most basic way possible.

From a purely cold-blooded American national interest perspective, there is nothing to be gained by abetting the reestablishment of a powerful Russia still in conflict with the fundamental geo-political goals of this country and Europe. Conceding Ukraine's population and resources to a new Russian Empire would be a generational error on the West's part. A Russia allied with the West in opposition to an expansionist China would be a different proposition entirely; one that I think would be clearly in Russian national interests. But as long as Putin's dream of reestablishing the boundaries of the Soviet empire persist, such a dramatically different future for Russia will remain an impossibility.
 
So Iraq worked out well. Go in and push them out of Kuwait and leave. Go back in, finish the job as some had always supported since the 42 day 1st Gulf War and wipe out the Iraqi powers, then substitute our own ideas for proper government. OK, sorry but those who pressed and still press that argument simply can't have it both ways. History clearly reveals the truth about both scenarios. IMO, there is a rare opportunity here to learn something... (but sadly I doubt that will be the case). That leaves exactly which "shoulda, coulda, woulda" magic scenario left for Iraq?
 
Red Leg said:
With respect to Putin's goals, perhaps you missed the primary axis of the initial Russian assault on Ukraine was the attempt to seize Kyiv. I do not believe any serious commentator on the war believes Russia's initial goal was anything put the total subjugation of the country. I frankly see zero evidence that has changed. Certainly, Russia likely would eagerly now accept an extended truce in place. but I do not believe any serious observer thinks Putin's ambitions end there.

Finally, in spite of all its arguments, historic baggage, and British truculence, the European Union experiment has been remarkably successful on the Continent. Is it any wonder, occasional old guard politicians not withstanding, large majorities of Eastern Europe strongly support a Western rather than Eastern future. Certainly Ukraine pledges that every single day in the most basic way possible.
Click to expand...
Attempted seize of Kyiv, could be explained by attempt to remove present Ukraine regime and military leadership. I could explain it as military goal, not political or terirorial (who knows what would happen later?) But indeed the attempt was made and was not successful. And removing regime in Kyiv, is not unrecognized goal of Moscow.

I dont think western culture is resented in Eastern Europe, as well. But (at least in pre war time) was not resented in Russia neither. It could be seen all over. Mac Donallds, theaters, movies, western companies, western car imports, and other products, all was very much present, and accepted by people, and by then-goverment.
My company had a project in Russia before the war, so I have seen it first hand.

What is eastern culture, btw?
We should define that as well.

Orthodox Christianity (as we have in Russia and Eastern European nations - excluding or including roman catholic Poles) - or is it far eastern culture based on Hinduism and Budism as historic dominant religions in those parts? which ones to we tend to prefer naturally?

Is it so much different, then other alliances made, for example with cultures of other countries and regions such sharia states in middle east, like for example Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?

In case Russia wins, there will be a new geopolitical world division, in which we dont yet have experience.
In case they win, they will probably establish themselves as a proven world player. This is the significance of this war.
There is other emerging power, also - China.

China and Russia may emerge out in the future as superpowers. Historically, I cannot remember multipolar world where geostrategic interests will be divided in three zones of interest, as it probably will in this case. So, there will be challenges in politics in the future if it happens.

Can there be three powers in the world opposing each other, or some new alliances will be made, two against one?
Somehow, I see Russia as more natural ally to the west, rather then China.

Russia covers 10% of global land mass, country on two continents and has access to anything between 10 and 30% of natural resources, oars, gas, oil, etc. Plus developped science,, technology and industry. And very importantly, if global warming continues and ice melts, they will have control of shortest commercial sea routes to the east, by polar northern sea passage. (New "suez canal") We know that 90% of all global trade is done by commercial deep sea shipping.
In the long term, I think is better to have them as allies. It will benefit both Europe and USA.
 
Last edited:
Doug3006 said:
Yes, of course! Everything done by every evil regime since the dawn of time is our fault. We forced Japan to attack Pearl Harbor by cutting off their oil. We greased the skids for Stalin to rise to power because of our support for the Western European Allie’s in WWI. We backed both sides of the Iran / Iraq war so naturally Sadaam invaded Kuwait and the Ayatollahs developed nuclear weapons. This idea that the whole world dances to our tune doesn‘t hold water.
Click to expand...
 
@Red Leg
Speaking of eastern cultures earlier, It took me some time to find a documentary on YT, I have seen some time ago.
I will provide the link below.

Basically it is about our western perception of Russian culture and how it is built in years before.
This documentary compares two Hollywood movies, "Enemy at the gates" and "Saving of private Ryan".

From my own reading and few books on WW2 on eastern front in my library, I must agree on some conclusions of the documentary.
Antony Beevor "Stalingrad" and "Berlin - the downfall", and Vasily Zaitsev memoirs.

I remember a details from Beevors book, Berlin the downfall , where Koniev and Zhukov divisions dropped all their standard issued mosin nagant bolt action rifles, just before the battle and changed them for spagin PPSH submachine guns.
It does not happen with unequipped or underequipped army, a complete re armament of divisions in the eve of battle, just because submachine gun is more convenient for street fighting.

It is factual and in direct contrast to opening scenes in movie Enemy at the gates, where soldiers where issued one with ammo clip, 5 rounds, and another one with mosin nagant rifle.

I dont know true US Army policy about sending resources to save the last son of a grieving mother in the chaos of ww2, as in Private RYan, but your comment on this one would be appreciated. I am sure you will have a good idea on the facts of policies of US army in that time.

When I go to modern cinestar theater, it usually opens with a words, "movie is the most influential media od 20th century:" Probably it is. And below, our cultural "western exposure" is tried to be explained.

The movie, with link below, reflects as well on present conflict in Ukraine. Thats how it caught my attention.

 
There is this great pontificating about the great strategies of the west but truth be told the west lost the war between capitalism and communism on a national global/strategic level. The advent of communism in the early 1920's lead to a spread that didn't take long to spread globally. The idea took hold globally largely due to the traditionally large divide between the have's and have's not.

The outbreak of WWII still had colonial allegiances seeing traditional allies banding together for the common good. The Commonwealth stood with Britain. The West did so too but for largely different reasons.

Fast forward 20 years and wokism took hold (yes even then). The colonies were seen to be an embarrassment to their rulers and expediency was favoured over reality. I'll say it now, the countries sanctioning the "white minority" rule were the same countries who shot out their native populations.

The problem with those countries is they never ever understood what it took to create stability in those regions. Fast forward a few decades and we see it happening again. Lybia: Bad man needs eradication. Result: Chaos and the Arab Spring. Iraq: Bad Man needs eradicating. Result: No blunt against Iran and a failed state. Afghanistan: Terrorists need eradicating in retaliation. Result: Cluster f*** today.

With the exception of Afghanistan the fundamental lack of understanding of the local necessities has lead to increased communism or fundamentalism. Rhodesia (in fact all of the Federation) as well as South Africa is 1000 times worse off due to a combination of cowardice/wokism/ and or simple geopolitics for the superpower's pleasure.

So let's let's not all fondle ourselves under the table that anything has been for a noble cause. It's all self serving. Both the East and the West played games and the smaller countries were their slaughter pawns.

So as I said the west lost hands down. 99% of Africa is communist when only as far back as 1950 that wasn't the case. South America is largely communist/socialist. Asia is what it is. The only gains are those who were under the Soviet yoke in Eastern Europe.

Maybe next time round the west will understand the checks and balances employed dy the LOCAL entities carry far more weight than the ivory towers of the "enlightened'


But then again it makes stuff all difference because the superpowers will do as they please as they have done for a centaury or two... And you wonder why some people want to stick it to them...?
 
Last edited:
mark-hunter said:
Attempted seize of Kyiv, could be explained by attempt to remove present Ukraine regime and military leadership. I could explain it as military goal, not political or terirorial (who knows what would happen later?) But indeed the attempt was made and was not successful. And removing regime in Kyiv, is not unrecognized goal of Moscow.

I dont think western culture is resented in Eastern Europe, as well. But (at least in pre war time) was not resented in Russia neither. It could be seen all over. Mac Donallds, theaters, movies, western companies, western car imports, and other products, all was very much present, and accepted by people, and by then-goverment.
My company had a project in Russia before the war, so I have seen it first hand.

What is eastern culture, btw?
We should define that as well.

Orthodox Christianity (as we have in Russia and Eastern European nations - excluding or including roman catholic Poles) - or is it far eastern culture based on Hinduism and Budism as historic dominant religions in those parts? which ones to we tend to prefer naturally?

Is it so much different, then other alliances made, for example with cultures of other countries and regions such sharia states in middle east, like for example Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?

In case Russia wins, there will be a new geopolitical world division, in which we dont yet have experience.
In case they win, they will probably establish themselves as a proven world player. This is the significance of this war.
There is other emerging power, also - China.

China and Russia may emerge out in the future as superpowers. Historically, I cannot remember multipolar world where geostrategic interests will be divided in three zones of interest, as it probably will in this case. So, there will be challenges in politics in the future if it happens.

Can there be three powers in the world opposing each other, or some new alliances will be made, two against one?
Somehow, I see Russia as more natural ally to the west, rather then China.

Russia covers 10% of global land mass, country on two continents and has access to anything between 10 and 30% of natural resources, oars, gas, oil, etc. Plus developped science,, technology and industry. And very importantly, if global warming continues and ice melts, they will have control of shortest commercial sea routes to the east, by polar northern sea passage. (New "suez canal") We know that 90% of all global trade is done by commercial deep sea shipping.
In the long term, I think is better to have them as allies. It will benefit both Europe and USA.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the dialogue and your perspective. I will simply say that under the current regime, I can not imagine a shared international interest with Russia. With respect to aliances, China an Russia have already taken significant steps in forming one. Though, that may yet turn to China's chagrin.

It is worth considering as well whether or not the Russia you describe is a really a country. I think a very strong argument can be made that it is little more than the remnant of a pre-twentieth century empire governed by the modern equivalent of the Grand Dutchy of Moscow. I think it just as likely those component subject pieces may go spinning off into their own respective orbits over the next couple of decades as Putin achieving his objectives.

With respect to the current government, I could care less what Putin or Lavrov claim with regard to almost any subject. I judge them by their actions, and is clear to anyone with any military experience that Russia intended to seize Ukraine. Whether it would be annexed as they are trying to do with the eastern and southern provinces, turned it into a puppet state like Belarus, or more likely, some combination of the two, any dream of an independent Ukraine as a part of the European community would have been destroyed. Ukraine is voting daily with great skill and persistence with respect to their belief about Putin's intent.

I have no idea what your point is about "Enemy at the Gates.' I think the fellow who put the documentary together is clearly an apologist for Russia and one of these all too prevalent hate America and the West first revisionists. His explanation of "barrier troops" is particularly strained. Though true that retreating troops were not machinegunned at Stalingrad, only the Russians, and perhaps the Chinese have utilized such measures against their own soldiers; only the Russians and Wehrmacht have used penal battalions; only Putin would empty his prisons of the worst in his society to use as storm troop formations in Ukraine. So I'll take a pass on the equivalency. I might add that I have little use for the movie, not that it didn't portray the fighting in Stalingrad accurately, but because it took liberties with the remarkable true story of Vasily Grigoryevich Zaitsev.

With respect to Saving Private Ryan, there is a basic element of truth to the story that was precipitated by the destruction of the cruiser Juneau off Guadalcanal. It resulted in the US implementing the Sole Survivor Policy. You are correct, a squad led by a Captain never went in search of a paratrooper, but a surviving young airborne soldier was sent whom in the midst of battle because of the deaths of his brothers. Imagine Russians considering that for a soldier on the outskirts of Avdiivka. No I can't imagine that. I think Spielberg can be forgiven dramatizing a movie rather than filming a documentary.

www.history.com

Saving Private Ryan: The Real-Life D-Day Back Story | HISTORY

The film draws on the story of an actual soldier named Fritz Niland and a U.S. War Department 'sole-survivor' directive designed to keep families from losing every one of their sons.
www.history.com www.history.com
 
mark-hunter said:
Attempted seize of Kyiv, could be explained by attempt to remove present Ukraine regime and military leadership. I could explain it as military goal, not political or terirorial (who knows what would happen later?) But indeed the attempt was made and was not successful. And removing regime in Kyiv, is not unrecognized goal of Moscow.

I dont think western culture is resented in Eastern Europe, as well. But (at least in pre war time) was not resented in Russia neither. It could be seen all over. Mac Donallds, theaters, movies, western companies, western car imports, and other products, all was very much present, and accepted by people, and by then-goverment.
My company had a project in Russia before the war, so I have seen it first hand.

What is eastern culture, btw?
We should define that as well.

Orthodox Christianity (as we have in Russia and Eastern European nations - excluding or including roman catholic Poles) - or is it far eastern culture based on Hinduism and Budism as historic dominant religions in those parts? which ones to we tend to prefer naturally?

Is it so much different, then other alliances made, for example with cultures of other countries and regions such sharia states in middle east, like for example Kingdom of Saudi Arabia?

In case Russia wins, there will be a new geopolitical world division, in which we dont yet have experience.
In case they win, they will probably establish themselves as a proven world player. This is the significance of this war.
There is other emerging power, also - China.

China and Russia may emerge out in the future as superpowers. Historically, I cannot remember multipolar world where geostrategic interests will be divided in three zones of interest, as it probably will in this case. So, there will be challenges in politics in the future if it happens.

Can there be three powers in the world opposing each other, or some new alliances will be made, two against one?
Somehow, I see Russia as more natural ally to the west, rather then China.

Russia covers 10% of global land mass, country on two continents and has access to anything between 10 and 30% of natural resources, oars, gas, oil, etc. Plus developped science,, technology and industry. And very importantly, if global warming continues and ice melts, they will have control of shortest commercial sea routes to the east, by polar northern sea passage. (New "suez canal") We know that 90% of all global trade is done by commercial deep sea shipping.
In the long term, I think is better to have them as allies. It will benefit both Europe and USA.
Click to expand...

Not to be reductionist, but dictatorial thugs stick together. And considering the Chinese dictator for life Xi has given putin a special friendship medal recently, and the supplies, equipment, and weaponry china and north korea are sending to russia I think it’s unlikely that Russia will join the western powers in a tripartite power struggle.
 
Red Leg said:
I will simply say that under the current regime, I can not imagine a shared international interest with Russia.
Click to expand...
This indeed is undesrtandable.. But no regime lasts for ever. I was more looking to the next decade or more in the future.

Thanks for a detailed comments above! Appreciated!
 
mark-hunter said:
Red Leg,
The outcome of the war is still uncertain.

Russians have stated relatively small territorial goals, denazification, and demilitarization - which will on the end mean (if they win) military neutral Ukraine.

Could you elaborate further, what are the threats to the west in Russian goals, if Russia wins? Are there some other goals they did not reveal?
Click to expand...
There will be no neutral Ukraine. The world is already tired of supporting Ukraine.
If Putin wins, Ukraine will cease to exist.
And many people are wondering whether it is so important to keep Ukraine alive, a state that ranks 122nd in the international corruption index, between Niger and Zambia.
Equip Nato's eastern border with weapons to the maximum and that's that.
 
What is happening on the eastern bank of the Dnipro River? No news would tend to indicate Ukraine is advancing.
 
Foxi said:
Equip Nato's eastern border with weapons to the maximum and that's that.
Click to expand...
Most probably, in any case, this will be result.
 
Kevin Peacocke said:
What is happening on the eastern bank of the Dnipro River? No news would tend to indicate Ukraine is advancing.
Click to expand...
The only realistic overview these days is live map of the front.
liveuamap.com

Ukraine Interactive map - Ukraine Latest news on live map - liveuamap.com

Live Universal Awareness Map Liveuamap is a leading independent global news and information site dedicated to factual reporting of a variety of important topics including conflicts, human rights issues, protests, terrorism, weapons deployment, health matters, natural disasters, and weather...
liveuamap.com liveuamap.com
 
IMG_3002.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

... and 1180 more.
Total: 68,399 (members: 1,230, guests: 67,169)

Forum statistics

Threads
59,490
Messages
1,291,353
Members
108,007
Latest member
diptug
 

 

 

Proudly sponsored by

Latest posts

Latest profile posts

S
schwerpunkt88 wrote on Robmill70's profile.
Morning Rob, Any feeling for how the 300 H&H shoots? How's the barrel condition?
•••
HENRY GRIFFITHS SAFARIS
HENRY GRIFFITHS SAFARIS
Blesbok hunt!

•••
mrpoindexter
mrpoindexter wrote on Charlm's profile.
Hello. I see you hunted with Sampie recently. If you don't mind me asking, where did you hunt with him? Zim or SA? And was it with a bow? What did you hunt?

I am possibly going to book with him soon.
•••
PENDLETON AMMUNITION
PENDLETON AMMUNITION
Currently doing a load development on a .404 Jeffrey... it's always surprising to load .423 caliber bullets into a .404 caliber rifle. But we love it when we get 400 Gr North Fork SS bullets to 2300 FPS, those should hammer down on buffalo. Next up are the Cutting Edge solids and then Raptors... load 200 rounds of ammo for the customer and on to the next gun!
•••
G
GuttormG
To much to political shit, to little Africa :-)
•••

Share this page

 
Top