advertisement


Ukraine V

NeilR said:
I thought mearsheimer had been discredited?


It will be interesting to revisit this speech in a couple of years or so to see whether this guy is utterly clueless or not.
Click to expand...
NeilR said:
I thought mearsheimer had been discredited?


It will be interesting to revisit this speech in a couple of years or so to see whether this guy is utterly clueless or not.
Click to expand...

He still hobnobs with foreign policy insiders. Do you have a link?

Distinguished Professors at first tier universities do not suffer from cluelessness. I do think that Mearsiemer has not taken into account the effects of the qualitative superiority of NATO weapons and Russia’s own production difficulties. Whether those will affect the outcome of the war only time will tell.

Not generally reported in the media, Ukrainian losses in Bakhmut were quite heavy.

https://www.n-tv.de/ticker/Bericht-...luste-um-Bachmut-besorgt-article23859142.html
 
Last edited:
al2002 said:
He still hobnobs with foreign policy insiders. Do you have a link?
Distinguished Professors at first tier universities do not suffer from cluelessness. I do think that Mearsiemer has not taken into account the effects of the qualitative superiority of NATO weapons and Russia’s own production difficulties. Whether those will affect the outcome of the war only time will tell.

Not generally reported in the media, Ukrainian losses in Bakhmut were quite heavy.

https://www.n-tv.de/ticker/Bericht-...luste-um-Bachmut-besorgt-article23859142.html
Click to expand...
Please, don't expect "Distinguished X" to always "have a clue." I suspect that those who do, within thusly named population, trail a deep left tail of a normal distribution.

I gave up your quaint and differential notion after my first year at MIT. I must have been on probation at around that time, too, after the ugly spray painting episode in the Infinite Corridor in 1984.*

*They called it "defacing" at the time, but that was "the man" talking.
 
al2002 said:
He still hobnobs with foreign policy insiders. Do you have a link?

Distinguished Professors at first tier universities do not suffer from cluelessness. I do think that Mearsiemer has not taken into account the effects of the qualitative superiority of NATO weapons and Russia’s own production difficulties. Whether those will affect the outcome of the war only time will tell.

Not generally reported in the media, Ukrainian losses in Bakhmut were quite heavy.

https://www.n-tv.de/ticker/Bericht-...luste-um-Bachmut-besorgt-article23859142.html
Click to expand...

He also predicted that Putin would not invade.
 
al2002 said:
I do think that Mearsiemer has not taken into account the effects of the qualitative superiority of NATO weapons and Russia’s own production difficulties. Whether those will affect the outcome of the war only time will tell.
Click to expand...

moving in the direction towards cluelessness then!
 
It seems that those quoting the superiority of Russian forces are either Russian propagandists or their dupes, since to date this overwhelming superiority has not made itself apparent.

The Russian ambassador to the UK is parroting the same line again today. 'We haven't even started seriously yet'. Of course you haven't. We're still waiting.
 
kensalriser said:
It seems that those quoting the superiority of Russian forces are either Russian propagandists or their dupes, since to date this overwhelming superiority has not made itself apparent.

The Russian ambassador to the UK is parroting the same line again today. 'We haven't even started seriously yet'. Of course you haven't. We're still waiting.
Click to expand...

if they haven’t started seriously, then why on earth haven’t they? It is a ridiculous argument, I can’t imagine anyone is taken in by it.

In reality, they have given it all they have got and have been found wanting.
 
al2002 said:
He still hobnobs with foreign policy insiders. Do you have a link?

Distinguished Professors at first tier universities do not suffer from cluelessness. I do think that Mearsiemer has not taken into account the effects of the qualitative superiority of NATO weapons and Russia’s own production difficulties. Whether those will affect the outcome of the war only time will tell.

Not generally reported in the media, Ukrainian losses in Bakhmut were quite heavy.

https://www.n-tv.de/ticker/Bericht-...luste-um-Bachmut-besorgt-article23859142.html
Click to expand...

It looks good that you provided a link. But it gives no hard data on Ukrainian losses, and dates back to January.
 
kensalriser said:
I mean, does Xi seems like a peaceful type of guy going on events in Hong Kong and the persistent sabre rattling over Taiwan?
Click to expand...
DimitryZ said:
Please, don't expect "Distinguished X" to always "have a clue." I suspect that those who do, within thusly named population, trail a deep left tail of a normal distribution.

I gave up your quaint and differential notion after my first year at MIT. I must have been on probation at around that time, too, after the ugly spray painting episode in the Infinite Corridor in 1984.*

*They called it "defacing" at the time, but that was "the man" talking.
Click to expand...

An understandable, albeit emotional, reaction given your position and the beak scenario laid out in the lecture. BTW, others from the Realist School of FP hold similar views.

Have no idea what the MIT reference is all about.

The best hope for the Ukraine is that superior NATO weapons will enable territory to be recovered and bring Russia to the negotiating table where a favourable settlement can be achieved. If the counter-offensive is not a major success, the Ukraine likely will be locked into a war of attrition and end up being wrecked over a period of years. I don’t expect NATO to intervene, but if it does Russia will be toast, as will be most of Europe - a scenario that would play into the hands of the Chinese.

Edit: Assessment based on data from Uncle Sam

https://theconversation.com/ukraine...-that-cant-be-won-but-must-not-be-lost-203698
 
Last edited:
Kirk said:
He also predicted that Putin would not invade.
Click to expand...

Can you provide a link, I’m curious to see the context of his remarks. Neither the Ukrainians nor the West Europeans expected Russia to invade. Were they clueless too?

Many moons ago Meersheimer predicted ongoing trouble:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24483306

Generally, being wrong is not congruent with being clueless. E.g. Einstein was wrong on leaving out the Cosmological Constant from the gravitational field equations, do you think he was clueless?
 
DonQuixote99 said:
It looks good that you provided a link. But it gives no hard data on Ukrainian losses, and dates back to January.
Click to expand...

The article states that the BND estimates 3 figure daily casualties. I don’t think casualty rates would have varied very much over the duration of the fighting.
 
kensalriser said:
It seems that those quoting the superiority of Russian forces are either Russian propagandists or their dupes, since to date this overwhelming superiority has not made itself apparent.

The Russian ambassador to the UK is parroting the same line again today. 'We haven't even started seriously yet'. Of course you haven't. We're still waiting.
Click to expand...
“We have literally millions more potential conscripts to throw onto Ukrainian guns and expend their ammunition”.
 
al2002 said:
An understandable, albeit emotional, reaction given your position and the beak scenario laid out in the lecture. BTW, others from the Realist School of FP hold similar views.

Have no idea what the MIT reference is all about.

The best hope for the Ukraine is that superior NATO weapons will enable territory to be recovered and bring Russia to the negotiating table where a favourable settlement can be achieved. If the counter-offensive is not a major success, the Ukraine likely will be locked into a war of attrition and end up being wrecked over a period of years. I don’t expect NATO to intervene, but if it does Russia will be toast, as will be most of Europe - a scenario that would play into the hands of the Chinese.

Edit: Assessment based on data from Uncle Sam

https://theconversation.com/ukraine...-that-cant-be-won-but-must-not-be-lost-203698
Click to expand...
No, you linked to a bad article, that uses Discord leaks to set the stage for the author's actual opinion, which the article concludes with (no attribution to Uncle Sam given):

Russia’s own military capabilities, however, will increase over time. The country has vast resources, including manpower. Its economy has been weakened but not mortally wounded. And Putin appears to be no less in control of the country and its security apparatus, which allows him to suppress even the slightest domestic opposition and control the narrative of the war that sustains him in power.

See? Your defference to authority makes you a great mark. The conclusion of this article is quite wrong - Russian military capabilities have gone from bad to worse over the course of this war - obvious to any rational observer tracking any standard military metrics.

Articles just like this are written with one purpose only - to lessen western support of Ukraine, allowing Russia to keep occupied lands. Lenin called the Meiersheimers of his day "useful idiots."
 
al2002 said:
The article states that the BND estimates 3 figure daily casualties. I don’t think casualty rates would have varied very much over the duration of the fighting.
Click to expand...
Recommend using Google to check your opinions before posting. Casualty rates in this conflict have varied significantly as a function of time. As they do in any war.
 
al2002 said:
Can you provide a link, I’m curious to see the context of his remarks. Neither the Ukrainians nor the West Europeans expected Russia to invade. Were they clueless too?

Many moons ago Meersheimer predicted ongoing trouble:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24483306

Generally, being wrong is not congruent with being clueless. E.g. Einstein was wrong on leaving out the Cosmological Constant from the gravitational field equations, do you think he was clueless?
Click to expand...


"Mearsheimer dismissed the idea that Russia would ever try to 'conquer Ukraine' — arguing that 'Putin is much too smart for that'" (FT).

“My argument is that [Putin is] not going to re-create the Soviet Union or try to build a greater Russia, that he’s not interested in conquering and integrating Ukraine into Russia. It’s very important to understand that we invented this story that Putin is highly aggressive and he’s principally responsible for this crisis in Ukraine.” (New Yorker)

Western intelligence (except the French, who, on some level, have a thing for Russia) were certainly clued-up. Zelenski didn't want to start a political or economic panic even though he and his intelligence service knew what was coming.

Mearsheimer is no Einstein (clearly) - he's more Niccolo Machiavelli. He is popular with the far left and libertarian right, and sees the Chinese as kindred spirits.
 
al2002 said:
Can you provide a link, I’m curious to see the context of his remarks. Neither the Ukrainians nor the West Europeans expected Russia to invade. Were they clueless too?

Many moons ago Meersheimer predicted ongoing trouble:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24483306

Generally, being wrong is not congruent with being clueless. E.g. Einstein was wrong on leaving out the Cosmological Constant from the gravitational field equations, do you think he was clueless?
Click to expand...

If Ukraine didn't expect the invasion, how to explain to the clear preparedness of Ukrainian defence forces?.
 
From 29 January 2022:

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/1076699748/ukraine-russian-attack-preparation

"Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says his country is ready for hybrid warfare from Russia — meaning a mix of conventional attacks, like an invasion, alongside other forms of warfare, like cyber attacks, disinformation and political maneuvering."

"Ukraine's military has made major strides since 2014, when the annexation of Crimea was made possible in part because of the weakness and inexperience of Ukraine's armed forces.

"We fully trust in our armed forces. They are not novices. They are not rookies," said Zelenskyy this week, a sentiment of confidence echoed by U.S. officials."

Seems they've been preparing and readying forces since Russia first invaded in 2014. Whoddathoughtit?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top