Ukraine and Endless War for Profit

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

30 minutes ago, anthony said:

Putin still did NOT 'have to do' what he did.

Tony,

I am confused. Why do people keep talking about Putin as if he were a moral actor?

He is not.

He is a very dangerous bully who is as cunning as all get out and armed to the teeth.

Treating him as a moral syllogism is doomed to fail every time. This is refusing to identify him correctly. 

 

I'm merely engaged in keeping awareness up about how the predator class wants to monetize stories about all this... And I'm not talking about novels and movies.

The predator class wants to sell guns and bombs and other ordinance. And they want juicy infrastructure rebuilding contracts. All paid for by governments.

If they were not running things, I would be on board with facing down Putin in a bellic manner. I don't like bullies. But the predator class is running things. They are not moral actors. They are just as bad as Putin and they are not even facing down Putin, for that matter.

They are squeezing him (with an exit plan) and pounding the propaganda drums to see if they can find their endless war for profit sweet spot.

 

The danger is, like with the bear example, this could escalate real fast, depending on the fury of the bear...

If that happens with Putin, the Russian people will be with him, not with the West. And not just because of propaganda either. The Russian people already see the West as a threat to their own personal lives. That's what that idiot attack on the ruble--by kicking Russia out of SWIFT--did. 

I keep saying, Biden is not the man to face down Putin. He's a goddam idiot and grifter. He will cause a worldwide disaster if people keep beating war drums. We have to wait until someone else is President. This isn't a choice between good and bad. It's a choice between horrible and catastrophic.

 

Reality doesn't care, though. It will punish those who ignore it, regardless of whether they are moral or bullies.

It's really simple. If the bad guys ignore reality, the bad guys will be punished. If good guys ignore reality, the good guys will be punished.

And if a nuke war goes off, we will all get punished. Women and children, too.

Reality is not political.

And it doesn't give a shit about victimization stories.

Michael

[tmj]

Look at Putin’s position , the capital he has to expend to use his military ultimately comes out of his ‘pile’, if in fact he is the oligarch of the oligarchs , which is quite likely.

The predator class in the West , the leaders/decision makers ‘generate’ a pile via tax and government funded debt and then target and rake at the pile to grow their stash.

Predators both , which group would be more motivated/incentivized to prolong the conflict? Neither side even enters the lives of the citizens as part of any real sufficient calculus.

Those who call for ending the actual shooting are not among the predator class , nor part of those mindlessly espousing /cheering on either predator.

This isn’t 1776 and neither Churchill nor Hitler is here , maybe a little Rommel , maybe.

[tmj]

Finland in NATO ?

Finnish Supreme Court doesn't consider sexual-abuse of 10-year-old as rape | NewsBytes

WWW.NEWSBYTESAPP.COM

---

In a strange judgment, the Finland Supreme Court refused to consider sexual abuse of a 10-year-old girl, by 23-year-old asylum seeker, as rape

 

[anthony]

22 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

I am confused. Why do people keep talking about Putin as if he were a moral actor?

He is not.

He is a very dangerous bully who is as cunning as all get out and armed to the teeth.

Treating him as a moral syllogism is doomed to fail every time. This is refusing to identify him correctly. 

 

 

 

Michael

Okay, but Putin is nowhere near the most evil man on the planet.  I don't place he and Russia up there, as a clear and future threat to the West, even. Apart from the obvious nukes, they aren't a powerful military; They have no unifying purpose, their dead Communist ideology, any longer, to disseminate or inflict abroad or locally. The truly evil ones are already inside our nations, they come at you with sweet smiles wanting 'to help' and gouge out your eyes and steal your soul.  I could mention a dozen or two among them 'world leaders' Thousands more behind them.

Hilarious, and a sign of the soft, modern times that 'experts' predict Putin has belligerent designs on Sweden et.al. Which has nitwits swooning in anxiety. I trust these nations remain independent, don't buy into the panic-mongering, or submit to the extortionate pressure to pull them into NATO. Scheming to place Putin under more extreme border paranoia, not less: very smart.

'Wokeism' already insidiously has and will do greatly more damage non-physically than VP would, physically, acting from within countries, penetrating and weakening the people and institutions, Putin is the crude baseball bat over your head: on balance, I prefer to fight his up-front assault - it's at least visible, honest and unhypocritical.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Tony,

100% in agreement.

How's that for a change?

(Don't get used to it, though.  )

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Let me add to that.

The Russian and Chinese governments do not like each other.

But they are starting to work together because of the stupidity of the predator class in the West.

If the people demanding Putin's head (and even think it's easy) think he's a monster, imagine him and Xi Jinping united in a common cause against the West.

That is exactly where the idiots are driving him.

Then, for shits and giggles, won't it be fun once they team up with Iran, after it gets the nuke bomb of course? Don't worry, the Biden (Obama) machine is working hard to make sure that happens as soon as possible.

It is jaw-dropping how incompetent the people in the Deep State and current administration are now that the Deep State's endless war for profit seems to have run its course.

Michael

[anthony]

A fair take this far; straight reporting, wow.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Tony,

The key phrase of that video is "defense contractors."

Moolah...

They are all over this.

They don't want the invasion to deescalate. They want it to escalate.

And lots of politicians and fellow travelers here in the USA are already dreaming about buying a new house or a yacht .

Michael

 

 

[Peter]

On 4/15/2022 at 8:41 AM, tmj said:

Finland in NATO ?

I have no idea why the Finnish court refused to consider the case, and I don’t want to dig any deeper into the issue. But there is actually a site dedicated to “age of consent” so I looked up their info. You can even find the ages for different American states too.

Quote: The Age of Consent in Finland is 16 years old. The age of consent is the minimum age at which an individual is considered legally old enough to consent to participation in sexual activity. Individuals aged 15 or younger in Finland are not legally able to consent to sexual activity, and such activity may result in prosecution for statutory rape or the equivalent local law. end quote

I think any country that is “acceptable” should be in NATO. That is freedom of choice and self-defense. I think Finland and Sweden would be acceptable. But as far as not hearing the case? maybe had something to do with the minor wishing to remain relatively unknown?

[Peter]

Bill Browder who was just on Fox News had an interesting take on Vlad. He thinks Putin needs “a war” to survive at this time. If he wins or even stalemates in Ukraine he will just be at the doors of other countries. Putin has NO regard for human life, outside of his own. He wants war to drag on, and if Russia can’t score a quick victory, so what? And I searched for Browder’s name and found the following.

From Vanity Fair: . . . On this week’s episode of Inside the Hive, Bill Browder, formerly the largest foreign investor in Russia and now a staunch Vladimir Putin critic, joins Emily Jane Fox to talk about where the war in Ukraine goes from here, how governments around the world can more effectively turn the screws on Russia by implementing more sanctions, and how Putin could be stripped of his power if the Russian people are able to see him as what Browder calls a “failed, corrupt, tin-pot dictator.”

[anthony]

On 4/16/2022 at 12:30 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

The key phrase of that video is "defense contractors."

Moolah...

They are all over this.

They don't want the invasion to deescalate. They want it to escalate.

And lots of politicians and fellow travelers here in the USA are already dreaming about buying a new house or a yacht .

Michael

 

 

The primary take-out for me is how Zelensky is coyly playing hard to get, harmfully so for his country. First he wouldn't sit down with Putin because of Russian atrocities/'atrocities', a week later, he will only agree to non-NATO status, - if - the West gives Ukraine defense assurances or security guarantees. Which is exactly what NATO membership confers. The same thing dressed up differently. And he knows, equally unacceptable for Putin.

It's becoming quite clear Z wishes, expects and demands for the West to eventually intervene - if he could only drag the peace talks out long enough, while in the interim, he would conveniently lay blame for future innocent casualties of the war at Putin's door. A neutral observer could claim more civilians dying is -secondarily - his fault too, the result of his delaying tactic and his grandstanding.

Looks certain: Zelensky anticipates ¬winning¬ this war. (With a little help from his friends). He should be told by foreign diplomats he better be instead thinking truce and peace treaties.

On the other side, Putin comparatively is almost the model of consistency: he came for this and that, he publicly and repeatedly stated so, they remain on the table.   

[anthony]

3 hours ago, Peter said:

. He wants war to drag on

 

These talking heads and their pet theories intrigue me. Everyone with his/her novel idea ready and on tap, for public consumption.

As I heard Jordan Peterson say in another context, "that's not just false, it is anti-true".

What would Putin gain from extended war?** what price is he paying now? The facts please.

Any 'dragging-on' apparently comes from Zelensky.

I could be interviewed saying (e.g.) that I have analyzed Zelensky to be a narcissistic glory-hound, to gain my minute of public attention.

[**I forgot, the longer the war the more civilians he can massacre.]

[anthony]

Putin "wants war to drag on"?

The Russian Army can't afford to lose more soldiers

WWW.TELEGRAPH.CO.UK

---

The Battle of the Donbas, if that is what we are to witness, may be Russia’s last throw of the dice with this army

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 hours ago, anthony said:

The primary take-out for me is how Zelensky is coyly playing hard to get, harmfully so for his country.

Tony,

Don't forget, he's a Davos creature.

And that, at the end of the line, will always include George Soros.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 hours ago, Peter said:

Bill Browder...

Peter,

Be very careful with anything coming from Bill Browder.

I don't have time to go into him, but he's bad news with the face of a Cherub. Sweet poison (candy on the outside and venom on the inside), and very deadly.

He's one of the guys (in the shadows) who tried to set up Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner in a hotel meeting with a Russian spy.

A guy who used to work with him ended up making a documentary critical of him that got censored all over the place here in the West.

This guy plays all sides without mercy, he is a Clinton creature to the core, and there is a lot of unknown unknowns that always surround him and his dealings, including that damn law (Magnitsky Act) he helped pass. Even the stench of death surrounds him.

More later if you like.

Michael

[Peter]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This guy plays all sides without mercy,

I did not know that about him. Thanks, Michael. Because he was “the biggest investor” in Russia, he was on Fox, and seems to despise Puton with reasons, and he had stories, I thought he was kosher. I may have mentioned the following already.

From yesterday’s Business Insider: Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer was the first EU leader to meet with Putin since the invasion. Nehammer told NBC's "Meet the Press" the conversation was "frank and tough." He also said Putin is "in his own war logic" and thinks Russia is winning the war. Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer said Russian President Vladimir Putin is fairly confident about his military campaign in Ukraine, even after Russian forces withdrew from part of the country after weeks of stagnation. end quote

Does The North Atlantic Treaty Organization have room or need, for more countries? Hell yes. let’s protect Finland, ABBA and NATO too.  

[anthony]

11 hours ago, Peter said:

Does The North Atlantic Treaty Organization have room or need, for more countries? Hell yes. let’s protect Finland, ABBA and NATO too.  

Indicative of Nato's muddled thinking, loss of clear identity and its evasions, past and present -

"Are we a self-defensive organization - or an offensive one? Mutually protective - or belligerent?" (in fact does anyone know?)

What's going to make Finland a greater target, on the ridiculous assumption Russia would attack it and could ever succeed in attacking it:

A. staying outside Nato; B. being inside?

Being (one more) nearby thorn in Russia's side with missile bases (a la Cuban Crisis) - or a neutral bystander?

If it's all about goading Russia and Putin to pressure them into extreme reactions, Nato and western war lovers are going about things very well.

[Peter]

Anthony wrote: If it's all about pissing off Russia and Putin to pressure them into extreme reactions, Nato and western war lovers are going about things very well. end quote

Nobody cares if Putin or Russia gets ticked off. If a guy who murders and then dumps the bodies in a well in Ukraine for a mother to find as just happened gets angry, that is his problem. If he is not civilized that is his problem. The villain can sneer and lament all he wants as long as he doesn’t break international laws, invade or murder.

If people want to be protected from a monster, as with joining NATO helps ensure, we can rationally help them. If a murderous gang was in your neighborhood and was threatening you, would you be wrong to call the cops? Or join a neighborhood watch group? Of course not!  

Nobody that I have talked to wants to be in a nuclear war and we would never start one. Putin threatens he will. So, who is the rotten dingbat in that duality? Putin. If by being protected from Russia thereby means ticking Russia off, so what? Your faulty logic leads to conclusions of passivity and death but darn we mustn’t piss Russian, China, Iran, or North Korea off by defending ourselves . . . . or planning to protect ourselves in this case.

Perhaps you should rewrite history and tear down all those castle walls and moats in olden times and get rid of all those defensive armies and let Atalla the Hun run amok. You are on the wrong side of reasonable, rational self-defense, Anthony.     

[anthony]

Simple question: who vastly expanded their political-military sphere of influence - after the Soviet's collapse, after the Warsaw Pact was voluntarily dissolved (1991) -

Russia or Nato?

The "encirclement" of Russia by Nato nations (12 to 30 presently) was clearly senseless, gratuitous and provocative; Russia had shown no belligerent designs on any of them.

Your neighborhood watch had turned into the aggressive gang. And it's Russia who believe they need the castle walls against it - in self-defense. You can't accept that perception by Russia, I know. 

No, and I kept repeating, not Russia - the No.1 - nor Ukraine nor Nato come out smelling of roses. They all evaded reality at some time or constantly. This biased global rhetoric, the convenient hero-demon mindset is not the reality. There are thugs all over, some wear business suits and fake respectability.

Rational people conceive of much worse than has happened so far, with these escalations and grandiose talk. Nobody wants nuclear war, right? Then they must look at reality, not noble principles. 

Invasions? well they've occurred in the past also for poor or immoral rationales, and this won't be the worst one of all (if the war-crazies don't get their way).

"Ukraine" comes from the Slavic "Borderland". For good reason. Short story, they announced their independence in 1991, and good for them. The international community all praised this. But in that ancient mix of territories, people and rulers, who's to prevent one region who had no loyalty to a European leaning President (after the duly-elected pro-Russian one was deposed and booted after the Maidan revolution) from - themselves - wanting and gaining separation from them?

Indeed, announcing their own independence in identical fashion to Kyiv? And with a kind of revolution. a civil war? Well, Kyiv stopped them. It will probably pay the cost of that evasion.

 

[Peter]

From: "Dennis May" To: atlantis Subject: ATL: The Strategy of Pacifism Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 23:01:45 -0500. . .  All life forms have survival strategies.  Evolution is the process where strategies and the environment interact to create the next generation of life forms who will be likewise tested.  The process is continuous and interactive on many levels. The values of strategies are context specific.  Each life form employs many strategies.  Failures in some strategies hamper success, others may result in death. Many strategies are genetically programmed, humans having the luxury of greater adaptability and a brain large enough to vary his survival strategies.

Some notable strategic failures in animals: Dodo birds and other animals never exposed to predators for extended numbers of generations fall prey to the first new predator. The prolific passenger pigeon concentrated its numbers into huge flocks and nested in tight quarters.  This allowed a small number of single events: hurricanes, disease, and human pest eliminators to wipe them out in short order. The earliest Native Americans wiped most of the large game animal species of North and South America.  The strategy of fight rather than flight worked until the new predator – humans came along.  Humans and the large game animals on other continents had interacted from the beginning of man’s development.  Many of these large game animals had time to develop successful survival strategies.

Sudden changes in context may destroy the survival advantage of a strategy.  Genius lies in creating new survival strategies; wisdom lies in knowing when to adopt different strategies as required. In human affairs knowledge of your environment is key to understanding what strategies to employ. Strategies may need to change on an event-by-event basis.

I watched the movie “The Patriot” with Mel Gibson last night.  The question of how and whether or not to wage war changed event-by-event.  The colonists were of mixed feeling on whether or not to wage war; the English were tyrants but still wanted to return to normalcy after the war. The colonists had tasted freedom at the high cost of settling a wilderness, the English had not known much freedom but thought their ways superior.  To fight a savage war or a gentleman’s war would determine how the English and colonists viewed themselves and how they might be able to interact after the conflict.  You can never discount the social fabric of the moment.  I consider a gentleman’s war to be a cruel joke but those at the time did not.

I would have spent huge resources going after the leadership back in England and among the invading army.  The price on the head of any commanding general would have been enormous. The King of England would have most certainly forfeited his life. The question of what-ifs and could-have-beens are not as interesting as what to do today.

The pacifists among us are not of one mind on the issue.  I suspect they are comfortable being pacifists only within a limited range of contexts.  Those who are pacifists irregardless of context have latched upon a strategy often doomed to failure.

Successful or unsuccessful tactics depend upon context: Gandhi’s tactics would have failed in Nazi Germany.  The tactics used in the Vietnam War would have worked in Granada.

The old saying goes something like: “The military is always fighting the last war”.  A failure to understand a need for a change in tactics based upon new information and new technology is the hallmark of why nations lose wars, businesses go broke, and individuals fail.

Pacifists are an interesting phenomenon.  Their continued existence depends upon the benevolence of others or a lack of predators.  On the other hand a pragmatic pacifist like George H. Smith is avoiding predators by not exposing himself to their wrath.  The qualifier “pragmatic” in front of pacifist changes the entire meaning of the strategy.  Those who embrace pacifism for reasons outside of their own survival or benefit are not egoists but embracing collectivism or mysticism of one kind or another.  An example would be the pacifist who will not take a human life under any circumstance because “all human life is precious”.  How has it been  determined that all human life is precious?   By who’s standard, certainly not mine.  When humans have become predators upon other humans I see no value in pacifism.

I consider strategy in general much more interesting than pacifism.  It is my contention that the strategies currently employed in trying to bring more freedom to our lives are failing. Some of the individual strategies involved are fine but taken as a whole they are incomplete or ineffective.  You must first understand your context before reasoning if a set of strategies will be effective.  Once tried, feedback will let you know if a change of strategies is in order.

I see those embracing freedom and capable of fruitful association with like-minded people as comprising a very small minority of people in the current context.  The physical dispersion of this minority prevents many benefits falling under the term “critical mass”.  The only cure I see for this situation is to collect a critical mass of people outside of the existing system [form a new nation].

This new nation of people cannot exist as pacifists whether they view themselves as members of a nation or a collection of anarchists.  Such a group will be attacked one way or another and must defend themselves in order to survive.  The strategy of defense will then become a paramount question. Dennis May

[ThatGuy]

6 hours ago, anthony said:

Your neighborhood watch had turned into the aggressive gang. And it's Russia who believe they need the castle walls against it - in self-defense.

Makes me thing of "The Stanford Prison Experiment". Sure, some people need locking up. But, sometimes,  the "guards" become sadists, in turn.

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" 
"Who will guard the guards?"
"Who watches the Watchmen? "

[anthony]

[anthony]

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 hours ago, Peter said:

[quoting Dennis May]:

Those who embrace pacifism for reasons outside of their own survival or benefit are not egoists but embracing collectivism or mysticism of one kind or another.

Peter,

I am against the wholesale pacifism Dennis talks about, but I am not on board with his mind-reading of large collectives in this statement.

How does he know all pacifists (or even pacifists in general) embrace collectivism or mysticism (as he defines them)? He can't without telepathy or a God perspective. And the Dennis I knew did not believe in telepathy and was not God. 

 

5 hours ago, Peter said:

[quoting Dennis May]:

When humans have become predators upon other humans I see no value in pacifism.

Nor do I.

But I wonder if Dennis sees making war on behalf of predators like the Deep State of any value.

I doubt it, but who knows?

When the choice is not between predator and freedom, but between predator and predator, people make the weirdest choices at times.

To me, serving a predator and being happy with it is not an option. I will if forced to. But if not forced to and if I have a voice, I won't. In fact, I will speak out against it.

The only way for a predator to get me to shup up is censorship or force.

Michael

[Jules Troy]

I think the most effective way for a dictator to truly know people are unhappy about him is that half second or so before a bullet enters his forehead…