advertisement


Ukraine V

Only managed to catch up with this last night, the BBC’s ‘Putin vs The West’. The events of course are well documented already but the first hand accounts from western politicians and officials of how he conducts himself in face to face encounters with other leaders (along with film of the same events) is revealing. Basically someone who is entirely comfortable lying to the faces of others and contradicting himself repeatedly.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0dlz7tz
 
DimitryZ said:
Yes it's a debate technique - throwing lots and lots of either barely relevant or irrelevant "historical perspective" to "explain" in a very complicated manner why Russians decided to attack a giant country next door to acquire more land to plus up to billions of square kilometers they already have and have run into the ground for centuries.

There is a very simple, rational explanation for empirical evidence we have in front of us: Russia is run by a criminal dictator, who has made a habit of chewing off parts of other countries for decades - because it was nearly free, good for popular adoration and fun.

Occam's razor.

One can look over history and try to tease out what world events may (or may not have) triggered some resentment (or alternatively, started an evil calculation) in the mind of the dictator. This is similar to trying to explain triggers for the mind of a homicidal maniac that lead to his murder spree. Was it his neighbor's political leanings? Did his wife not like her birthday present? Did his boss reprimand him? Outside of professional criminal psychology, there is very little educational value for general society here.

Such people are too far outside the mainstream to be accommodated. Societies try to identify them early and isolate them. Once the crime spree is on the way, society has every right to protect itself from the maniac by all means necessary.
Click to expand...

Putin may well be a criminal psychopath, but why was he not considered a criminal psychopath when he invaded Georgia? And if invasion is the measure of criminality, why not other invaders, US presidents Eisenhower/JFK for Cuba? Nixon for Chile? Regan for Grenada? Bush for Afghanistan? Blair for Iraq? And why, even after his invasion of Georgia and Crimea, did Putin still receive the admiration of a US president?
 
ks.234 said:
Putin may well be a criminal psychopath, but why was he not considered a criminal psychopath when he invaded Georgia? And if invasion is the measure of criminality, why not other invaders, US presidents Eisenhower/JFK for Cuba? Nixon for Chile? Regan for Grenada? Bush for Afghanistan? Blair for Iraq? And why, even after his invasion of Georgia and Crimea, did Putin still receive the admiration of a US president?
Click to expand...

Zero cheese.
 
ks.234 said:
Putin may well be a criminal psychopath, but why was he not considered a criminal psychopath when he invaded Georgia? And if invasion is the measure of criminality, why not other invaders, US presidents Eisenhower/JFK for Cuba? Nixon for Chile? Regan for Grenada? Bush for Afghanistan? Blair for Iraq? And why, even after his invasion of Georgia and Crimea, did Putin still receive the admiration of a US president?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, as Tom Lehrer famously put it:

For might makes right,
And 'til they've seen the light,
They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
'Til somebody we like can be elected!

Clausewitz made a famous remark that is rendered (not quite correctly) in English as "war is politics continued by other means" (Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln - note, mit (with) other means). In other words, just another tool in the arsenal to get what we deserve. And, unfortuunately, everyone does it - see Mark Twain's scathing version of The Battle Hymn of the Republic on the US acquistion of the Philippines from Spain in the early 20th century:

http://www.bachlund.org/The_Battle_Hymn_of_the_Republic_Updated.htm

It doesn't make it right, and all of these should be roundly condemned. In the case of Putin, I suspect that they thought he'd be satisfied with wee bits of neighbouring states. They now know better.
 
defenestrations-of-prague-featured.jpg


It's not the fall, it's the sudden stop at the bottom...
 
Were her fingers in the till or more likely did she know which powerful individuals had theirs in? Maybe it was depression?
 
ks.234 said:
Putin may well be a criminal psychopath, but why was he not considered a criminal psychopath when he invaded Georgia? And if invasion is the measure of criminality, why not other invaders, US presidents Eisenhower/JFK for Cuba? Nixon for Chile? Regan for Grenada? Bush for Afghanistan? Blair for Iraq? And why, even after his invasion of Georgia and Crimea, did Putin still receive the admiration of a US president?
Click to expand...
You are doing the exactly same thing I believe is useless.

Because, in the very deep part of your head, you think that Putin's not so bad and that he certainly possess very little threat to YOU.

So your priority isn't to stop him, but to score clever points about JFK and IMF.
 
DimitryZ said:
You are doing the exactly same thing I believe is useless.

Because, in your very deep part of your head you think that Putin's not so bad and that he certainly possess very little threat to YOU.
Click to expand...

Nonsense, yet again you invent things you know nothing about. I have never said, or thought, “Putin’s not so bad”, in fact I have many times expressed the precise opposite sentiment. Do not presume to know what goes on in my head at a deep level when you clearly do not understand even my most rudimentary thinking

That you continue to make things up about people who do not follow you shows how little you are able to comprehend what happens outside your own head
 
ks.234 said:
Nonsense, yet again you invent things you know nothing about. I have never said, or thought, “Putin’s not so bad”, in fact I have many times expressed the precise opposite sentiment.

That you continue to make things up about people who do not follow you shows how little you are able to comprehend what happens outside your own head
Click to expand...
See? I got to the EXACT reason why you think the way you do.

Most people in Europe think the way you do. The closer they live(d) to Russia, the more they think like me and @gints . The French and Italians think like you, all the countries around Russia think like me and Germany is decided 50/50 (along old border, I suspect).

It could be that we are in the midst of an anti-Russia worldwide racist campaign, with countries closest to Russia as the epicenter of this new naziysm (Putin's version).

Or, far more rationally, those who have actually experienced Russian world personally, understand the mortal danger that the new incarnation of Russian expansionism means to the rest of the world.
 
DimitryZ said:
See? I got to the EXACT reason why you think the way you do.

Most people in Europe think the way you do. The closer they live(d) to Russia, the more they think like me and @gints . The French and Italians think like you, all the countries around Russia think like me and Germany is decided 50/50 (along old border, I suspect).

It could be that we are in the midst of an anti-Russia worldwide racist campaign, with countries closest to Russia as the epicenter of this new naziysm (Putin's version).

Or, far more rationally, those who have actually experienced Russian world personally, understand the mortal danger that the new incarnation of Russian expansionism means to the rest of the world.
Click to expand...
You have demonstrated that you have absolutely no idea how I think. But interesting that you now also condemn entire nations to your own particular stereotype is revealing. There’s a word for that you know
 
ks.234 said:
You have demonstrated that you have absolutely no idea how I think. But interesting that you now also condemn entire nations to your own particular stereotype is revealing. There’s a word for that you know
Click to expand...
If you want to understand large historical differences between public perceptions, look no further than large differences in lived experience.

Harry Sheldon and psychohistory.

And yes of course I understand how you think - everyone thinks the same way, except psychopaths.
 
DimitryZ said:
If you want to understand large historical differences between public perceptions, look no further than large differences in lived experience.

Harry Sheldon and psychohistory.

And yes of course I understand how you think - everyone thinks the same way, except psychopaths.
Click to expand...
That you constrain entire nations to your own particular world view and contrast them with other national identities, again based on your own perceptions, is ample demonstration of how little you understand about how individuals think.
 
DimitryZ said:
If you want to understand large historical differences between public perceptions, look no further than large differences in lived experience.

Harry Sheldon and psychohistory.

And yes of course I understand how you think - everyone thinks the same way, except psychopaths.
Click to expand...

Hari.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top