Lottie, how do you see the situation in Ukraine (and with Russia) unfolding? What are the possible outcomes? What do you consider most likely?

Others, feel free to chime in. I see Putin overrunning Ukraine, the Ukrainians conducting a long term guerilla war, and the U.S. Europe, etc. continuing with economic sanctions. After that, no clue. I hope that President Zelensky survives, but I'm not optimistic. Sweden and Finland may find it in their best interest to go to NATO.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2022 06:39PM by summer.

I'll try to give this some thought and write something tonight, summer. Suffice it to say in the meantime that I worry we may headed in the wrong direction.

Is there a wrong direction? What if everything is meant to be? I assume by wrong direction you mean nuclear. That’s what John Nash's theories of "rational self interest" has doomed us to. If someone is willing to die to teach you a lesson, kind of like a suicide bomber with thousands of nukes instead of a vest, is that not extreme self interest? That's when religious fundamentalism breaks the mathematical model behind MAD. Ukraine could just be the straw that broke the camel's back, so the war is not really with Ukraine but with western civilization itself. Doesn't it have the feel of a "holy war", at least in the eyes of Russians?

So, should the world be scared? I don't think so. The Ukraine crisis, or Russian civil war depending on who you ask, is something happening in the external world. We are so focused in the external world when that is not the threat. I could be vaporized like Slim Pickens in Dr Strangelove and I would go on. Corruption of my internal world is the real threat, yet I live in a world that's hell bent on wrecking my soul. Should that world end, would that be good or bad?

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> . . . What if everything is
> meant to be?

Then you are a character in a novel by Voltaire.


---------------------
> That’s what John Nash's theories of
> "rational self interest" has doomed us to.

If a scientist explains how cancer works, do you blame him for cancer? Because that's what you are doing here.

And by the way, you mean Thomas Schelling. He's the game theorist who worked on nuclear deterrence. Nash didn't.


-----------------
> If someone is willing to die to teach you a lesson,
> kind of like a suicide bomber with thousands of
> nukes instead of a vest, is that not extreme self
> interest? That's when religious fundamentalism
> breaks the mathematical model behind MAD.

You mean that crazy people do stupid things?


------------------
> Ukraine
> could just be the straw that broke the camel's
> back, so the war is not really with Ukraine but
> with western civilization itself. Doesn't it have
> the feel of a "holy war", at least in the eyes of
> Russians?

No, it does not. If you watch closely you might notice that Putin is not acting in accordance with the wishes of the Russian people, who oppose the war. That's why the disinformation campaign is necessary.


-----------------
> So, should the world be scared? I don't think so.
> The Ukraine crisis, or Russian civil war depending
> on who you ask, is something happening in the
> external world. We are so focused in the external
> world when that is not the threat. I could be
> vaporized like Slim Pickens in Dr Strangelove and
> I would go on. Corruption of my internal world is
> the real threat, yet I live in a world that's hell
> bent on wrecking my soul. Should that world end,
> would that be good or bad?

You've told us many times. You think the destruction of the world would be a good thing.

Most of us don't accept that premise.

Finally, a real answer. I always wonder about whether people actually want their suffering. The more you try to help them, the more they resist help.

Under the philosophy of "Expect the worst and be happy with what you get", we have cause to celebrate. Never before has the spread been greater between the worst that could happen and what will probably end up happening. That itself is a thrill unless our luck is especially bad. But horrific futures are teleologically repulsive. You have to try extra hard to make them happen. I don't think the support is there.

My understanding is that the anarthrous form is preferred by Ukrainians in English because, to them, the use of "the" implies a subunit of another land.

English has a farrago of rules and usage exceptions, but this is one where I'm personally happy to go with whatever form Ukrainians themselves prefer.

Tyson

Correct.

"Ukraine" literally means "outskirts" or "borderlands." When one says "the Ukraine," it inevitably raises the question "borderlands of what?" The answer is of course Russia.

So Ukrainians prefer the term "Ukraine" without the article. This usage is more consonant with the Ukrainians' desire to be treated as an independent people.

Right, and I've edited accordingly. I grew up thinking, "The Ukraine," so this old dog has had to learn some new tricks.

I always thought "The" Ukraine, too, Summer until my friend (with family there) corrected me.

I think Ukraine in Russian means “borderland”. So it used to be THE borderland.

thank you OPie for starting another thred for "lottie" ~

I stand all amazed at the wealth of expertise on any and all topics on the interwebz.

I, for one, willingly accept anyone’s dissertation on any topic, if it is presented authoritatively and meets the currently acceptable criteria for truthiness vs misinformation.

I wonder if Ukrainians consider Tchaikovsky's Symphony #2, nicknamed "the Little Russian," demeaning or some kind of cultural appropriation, laudatory, or what? He uses Ukrainian folk themes, in the finale especially.

The Ukraine will probably become a neutral state. Will there be a coupe against Putin? Possibly. Will he go? Remains to be seen.

If I had to choose between living in Ukraine or living with Mormons, I have to admit it would be a tough call.

The Mormons have a large temple in the Ukraine. Ukraine is the most Mormon nation in Eastern Europe.

Lemme predict...

The temple probably won't get damaged in this war. Mormons will blab on about what a miracle it was that gawd's house was protected for the beloved Ukrainians or some such.

Like everything else, Mormons will find a way to make the war about them, milking it for faith promoting stories for decades.

I knew there was a silver lining.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> . . . how do you see the situation in Ukraine
> (and with Russia) unfolding? What are the possible
> outcomes? What do you consider most likely?
===============================

Psychopaths are not "crazy."
Intelligent psychopaths often run corporations (or countries) https://fortune.com/2021/06/06/corporate-psychopaths-business-leadership-csr/#:~:text=My%20colleagues%20and%20I%20found,than%20among%20the%20general%20population.
(for your express amusement)

They are not understandable because their minds run differently, in a not-good-way
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-neuroscientist-who-discovered-he-was-a-psychopath-180947814/

Problem is, cannot understand a psychopath unless you are one -
much less predict the future with one running things.

I strongly disagree with yet simultaneously understand Putin in the cold lifeless intellect.
This rather chills me

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2022 10:28PM by caffiend.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2022 10:30PM by caffiend.

Putin has had the invasion plans ready for a long time. Events as I see them:

-Interfere with 2016 elections not because they liked Trump but he could easily be manipulated. America was now divided politically
-Putin cozies up to Trump to make he feel he is part of the team. Trump wants to be Putin
-Trump loses election, doesn’t matter, damage has been done
-Chinese premier tells Putin to invade after the olympics.

Conversation with Putin and aide

Aide: Good news the invasion has been successful and the Americans are blaming Biden for our invasion
Putin: Just smiles

How define success?
- absence of air superiority -- still --
- armor stacked in a 40-mile long unresuppliable unmaneuverable parking lot with a three-vehicle-wide frontage of assault
- 5000+ (and counting) combat personnel losses
- intact government in Kiev
- intact Ukrainian command and control
- a patriotic and superbly pissed-off Ukrainian population
- economic collapse at home
- worldwide condemnation

Not bad.
Wishing the Putin regime continued & bountiful success

Okay, summer, here goes.

I'm not sure what Putin wants. I do not think anyone should take what he says as true, so we should look at his actions to gauge his intentions. If we do that, it looks like he wants to take the southern corridor to Crimea in order to secure that connection to Russia and to install a biddable government in Kiev. He may also want to take the broader region of territory to the Dnieper.

But I sort of doubt the latter since the army he has amassed is invasion-size and not occupation-size, which would need to be three or four times larger. In that sense Western concerns are probably overwrought: there doesn't appear to be a threat to Poland or the Baltic countries. That perspective might offer room for a negotiated solution with the West.

The problem is that the way in which this war has been prosecuted violates all norms of civilized behavior and has rightly enraged the world. Moreover Putin's willingness to violate international norms means that he has to be hit hard. Yet there is a downside to that, for indignation gets in the way of rational decision making. I worry, in other words, that the US and its allies may be sliding into a long-term conflict like the Soviet-Afghan War, one in which the West provides the weaponry with which Ukrainians and Russians slaughter each other for years or even decades.

The best thing would clearly be for the Russian military to give Putin a gold watch, with or without red splatters, so that others can negotiate an early end to this disaster before the West drifts into a long-term conflict that drives Russia and China together and isolates the US and its allies.

Let's hope this ends soon.

Lottie, thanks for your response.

IMO the trouble with a negotiated solution is that Putin would likely view this as weakness on the part of the west. Bullies only understand being hit back, hard. I agree with the economic sanctions at the present time, but I'm not sure how that would play out in the long run.

Oh, I agree about Putin and about sanctions. I just want this sorted out fast. So increase the sanctions rapidly and hard.

But also prepare to start negotiations at the earliest possible moment, When dealing with problems like this, you have to think two steps ahead. Otherwise you end up occupying Iraq.

That makes sense.

Should we stock up on iodine?

Kathleen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Should we stock up on iodine?
===============================

yes

I hear a lot of people mispronouncing the Russian leader's name. Many say "pooo-teen" instead of "poo-tin". I know the situation itself is human tragedy but so sorry, I have to laugh when I hear him referred to as Pooo-teen.

Poutine is described as a "classic Quebec delicacy comprised of fries, cheese curds and gravy". People rave about it but the only time I've ever tasted it I thought someone was joking me. I didn't care for the "delicacy" at all, to be polite about it. (I had to just dump it in the nearest bin, so sorry).

A restaurant in Paris has reportedly received threats for this dish that's on their menu, due to the conflict in Ukraine. "Our dish was born in Quebec in the 1950s" they explain. The Quebec diner called Le Roy Jucep, apparently the birthplace of poutine, is now calling itself "the inventor of the fries-cheese-gravy". A Guardian article calls it a "mushy medley". Mushy is my memory of it, pleasant medley not so much.

Someone on Twitter wrote: "People, please stop confusing Putin and poutine. One is a dangerous and unwholesome mix of greasy, lumpy and congealed ingredients, the other is a delicious food."

-----

I know it's far from a laughing matter, it goes without saying. But this shows how much the Russian aggression has impacted the world and also the united front against it, in big ways and small.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/06/poutine-not-putin-classic-quebec-dish-under-fire-in-france

-----

On another, serious, note, a Russian community centre in Vancouver, B.C. was vandalized the other night, with blue and yellow paint splashed over its outside doors, walls and signs. The people who use the centre are upset at the protest, which has made their hall seem unsafe to them. The irony of it is that a good percentage of those who use the hall are Ukrainian. People should educate themselves a little before they protest, especially by committing vandalism and worse. Be careful who you may inadvertently hurt.

I understand that feelings are understandably running high but vandalism and violence are not acceptable forms of expressing one's opinion, especially if done from ignorance.

They should ask themselves how much personal responsibility they bear for everything, or anything, their government does, at every level. If somebody has a beef with my PM, how thrilled would I be if they made their opinion known by vandalizing my car or home or by attacking me? I have zero input into how the guy makes his decisions. He has yet to ever call and ask for my opinion on his latest moves. Just so with likely most of the Russian people, wherever on this planet they may live. You're kind of stuck with the leader you've got, especially if you don't live in a democracy (but also...).

If people have issues with a leader's choices and actions they should take it up with that person, not anybody who happens by with a similar accent or nationality.

Defacing a building that has nothing to do with the Russian guy? Stupid. Uninformed. A form of violence. All they did was scare people and bring even more grief to people already undergoing unbearable stress.

I'm also not thrilled with the decisions to shun any public figure who is Russian, especially performers and sportsmen and women. They don't have much sway with the head of their country either, same as me with mine, with my one vote every 4 years.

I'm not sure if that's a very unpopular thing to say but that's how I feel. Be informed. Be understanding. Be kind. That's my hope.

https://www.thelocal.fr/20220208/reader-question-why-do-the-french-call-the-russian-leader-poutine/

https://www.mtlblog.com/putin-is-poutine-in-french-confusing-anglos-on-twitter-who-just-want-fries-gravy

Perhaps Tom will weigh in from Paris

I can confirm that the pronunciations are the same, as are the spellings - the reason being that, if you left the name of the Russian leader as "Putin" and pronounced it à la française, it would sound exactly like "putain" which means a whore...

Hmmm, thinking about that, this may evolve ;-)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2022 07:50AM by Soft Machine.

Can also confirm. I sometimes watch the France 24 live stream news feed (to gauge my French comprehension) and they indeed use "Poutine." Having served my mission in Quebec, it was a bit jarring at first.

Kind of like French fries/freedom fries revisited.

After 9/11, a local SLC family-owned restaurant was badly vandalized. It was Curry in a Hurry, still operating, run by (I believe) a Pakistani family. Neither they nor Pakistan had anything to do with 9/11. Some people can be real jerks.

In a completely unrelated note, a couple years ago the SLC City Weekly did an article on poutine in SLC. I think about 9 restaurants had it on their menu. It is basically heart attack on a plate, but so is chili cheese fries, which is quite popular in Utah.

I think poutine is best when the fries are fresh and crisp. With gravy on top, they are going to go soggy pretty fast.

It's like this ...


https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/rJChGNDnkKiJ9srdhM-KTiWNqV0yAqd9uJieAwKJViOr7BS2yngTyrdCX8rG8-8XYDiZIdYeWvkr3h-S7CxrWA0Z5NO26YYngN0nVccySg

All wars end with negotiations. How you get there depends on what values you want to promote. Putin will do what he will do. The major choice for the west is whether they want to persue a Jeffersonian strategy, which holds that liberty is worth the blood of patriots and tyrants, with the latter hopefully losing more than than the former and ultimately losing everything. This is the path being pursued so far, via sanctions and weapons support to Ukraine.

Another option is to sacrifice liberty in favor of less near-term bloodshed. In other words, no sanctions, no weapons to Ukraine, and Putin takes over with less killing.

The risks of the former require that the West walk a tightrope to confine the kinetics to Ukraine, and accept a protracted effort, that will hopefully see liberty prevail.

The latter obviousy emboldens the dictator, and leads to potential, long term human rights violations, oppression and genocide of the Ukrainians, not to mention further aggressions elsewhere.

Humberto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All wars end with negotiations.
===============================

Are there any critical factors required for successful negotiation?
- The absence of any one which would preclude negotiation

Historically has any conflict ended with no negotiation e.g. unconditional surrender

Not challenging; but rather curious as to the logic because if the case why, that's rather hopeful

In any negotiation both sides get something or there's not deal.

Putin says, "I'll stop the bombing is we get (fill in the blank).

If Russia gets anything at all, how could it be anything but a piece of Ukraine. I just can't see what there is to negotiate that allows Ukraine to stand.

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In any negotiation both sides get something or
> there's not deal.
===============================

The logic of a rational reasonable thinking mind -- who with logic, reasons others are likewise rational.

How about negotiating with an ideologue, would that be possible?

Say, hypothetically, a bomb-laden Jihadist believing that in destroying himself and us he awakens in a flowered meadow among a harem of seventy doe-eyed virgins why, who wouldn't go boom for that

Dr. No Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> he
> awakens in a flowered meadow among a harem of
> seventy doe-eyed virgins why, who wouldn't go boom
> for that

Me. I wouldn't.

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Me. I wouldn't.
===============================

How about negotiating with him.
Would ye, being reasonable and a humanitarian, attempt negotiation?
(Assuming there is no danger to ye)

Would it be possible?

"Successful negotiation" depends on perspective...

Fine, if you insist, "all" doesn't allow for the smaller conflicts that might end in the obliteration of one side... but that's not what we're talking about here.

But even "unconditional surrender" is a negotiated term...

just curious.

> Historically has any conflict ended with no
> negotiation e.g. unconditional surrender

Germany, World War Two.

World War One ended without Germany being invaded, which allowed Germans and Hitler to argue that they had not really lost the war (sort of like American elections) and hence had been betrayed by bureaucrats. That played into Nazi propaganda and contributed to WWII.

The next time around, the allies insisted on conquering all of Germany an imposing an unconditional surrender so that there was no myth that the country had not been defeated. There are many other examples as well.

Of course, once the country is defeated, the occupiers must occupy. So the victors start giving orders to the loser's military forces, police, and administrators. While those are not really negotiations, over time they become low-key talks as the occupiers demand something and the bureaucrats explain that it's not possible. Those talks, though, are the equivalent of what happens within any government at any time.

TLDR: there are many instances of unconditional surrender.

. . . and in the example provided there was simply a flattening of Germany, rendering surrender talks merely a matter of time and date -- not outcome

Parallels are interesting.

Although there was organized opposition (e.g. Stauffenberg) Hitler held the country hostage, requiring it's destruction.
His "military" decisions were decidedly irrational and counterproductive.
No real negotiation was possible.
The question is why.

Hypothesize Hitler was an ideologue:
"Therefore, the worth of a State can be determined only by asking how far it actually succeeds in promoting the well-being of a definite race and not by the role which it plays in the world at large." (Mien Kampf p327)

If an ideologue and beholden to belief, it would explain many of his irrational decisions: power being dependent upon racial purity, of which Aryans were the mostest, and the "contamination" of others - specifically Jewish - peoples.
None of this is rational (e.g. Beckhardt was a Jewish WW1 ace who fought valiantly for the Kaiser with 17 victories yet rather than use this information to question the ideology, Beckhardt was simply erased from Luftwaffe history)
So data is sacrificed to the preservation of ideology. It is a signature pattern.

I see parallels here in the current circumstance.

There are definitely parallels.

I would, however, suggest the most important is one that you didn't mention. Hitler was more an egoist than an ideologue. His ideology said that the survival of the German nation was more important than anything, yet when push came to shove Hitler declared that the people were not worthy of him and deserved to die. The fan of Wagner then opted for his version of gotterdamerung, the obliteration of his ungrateful country or even the world. In many instances the survival of Germany, Europe's art, and even European civilization was the result of his generals' refusal to burn the edifice down.

The point is that Putin spews ideology--Russian nationalism, the need to defeat imaginary Nazis in Ukraine--in order to justify his own megalomaniacal objectives. Will he, if confronted by likely defeat, try to destroy Europe or the world? Probably not. But with such men it is always possible that they'll try to play Samson and pull down the pillars.

Ideology is powerful, surely, but often it is really just a fig leaf for the ruler's avarice.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------
> I would, however, suggest the most important is
> one that you didn't mention. Hitler was more an
> egoist than an ideologue.
==============================

And I agree 100%.

Ideology part is easy - "triune Russian nation" - explains why Ukraine etc. (he even wrote an essay on it, required reading in military ranks)
But it is the ideologue part - not the specific ideology type - that is of import:
- explains the allergy to data, as data risks countering the 'ideology über alles' -- why for example he limits to so few in his 'inner circle' - and these are KGB yes-men - and these are thirty feet away lol. (He's trying to choke off data input.)
- It explains why he believed (contrary to readily accessible data) Russians would be welcomed as liberators; and why he can not/will not negotiate in good faith, because the belief must be preserved.

But there's more stuff which being merely wedded to ideology does not explain, for he truly:
- doesn't care if Ukrainian civilians/children die;
- doesn't care if hospitals are bombed;
- doesn't keep his promises e.g. prior treaty to not attack Ukraine for dumping nukes;
- doesn't care if the Russian people live in abject poverty;
- doesn't care a whit about Russian troop casualties;
- stream of lies against all evidence - knowing that we can all see -
This combined would seem more than mere ego/narcissism.

Egoists/narcissists are everywhere; yet it is this malignancy.
This malignancy/anti-life is something more.


It is this latter phenomenon (the truly not caring; the observable inhumanity; the malignancy) that really needs to be explained/understood because in this lies the answers to:
- how to deal effectively with Putin;
- would Putin, and under what circumstance, might he elect planetary destruction.

>... he truly:
- doesn't care if Ukrainian civilians/children die;
- doesn't care if hospitals are bombed;

And he makes this abundantly clear. I can't even watch the news these days. Too painful to see the human misery, wrought unnecessarily.


> - doesn't care a whit about Russian troop casualties;

I was touched when I heard Ukrainians calling for a way to repatriate Russian casualties. Didn't seem that Pew-Tin cared about them at all. I haven't heard that he rushed to make that happen. Meanwhile, Russian mothers are crying for their sons.

(I believe the reports that indicate the Russian soldiers thought they were just going on maneuvers - or something like that - but that turns out not to have been the plan after all. And when you're in the army you follow orders. All sides are familiar with that imperative. From such comes genocide and other atrocities).

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was touched when I heard Ukrainians calling for
> a way to repatriate Russian casualties. Didn't
> seem that Pew-Tin cared about them at all. I
> haven't heard that he rushed to make that happen.
> Meanwhile, Russian mothers are crying for their
> sons.
================================

And yes, you are correct: he doesn't care.
These are disposable.

> (I believe the reports that indicate the Russian
> soldiers thought they were just going on maneuvers
> - or something like that - but that turns out not
> to have been the plan after all. And when you're
> in the army you follow orders. All sides are
> familiar with that imperative. From such comes
> genocide and other atrocities).
================================

More lies -- to even his own.
And yes -- atrocities and genocide are birthed here

LW is absolutely correct. She is a luminary and onto something.
- But it is worse than she thinks. Far worse.

Putin is empire building. That is not speculation. Worthless speculation.

Putin is a thug that does not play by the rules and gets away with it as he has for decades. He will try anything to take anything he can. He *needs* Ukraine and the rest because it is very hard being 5'6" and no one believes you when you claim to be 5'7" even though you stage photo shoots with a lot of people shorter than yourself. Some of us just stress-eat too many cookies. Vlad stress-conquers.

Attempted interference with elections is so unfulfilling. Must try something else. Targeting women and children and power plants are guaranteed to make him look at least 5"8".

Sadly Putin is 11’6” taller than his opponents.

Oh.

That is excellent!

I agree! Clever.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2022 03:59PM by Nightingale.

I note the "Freedom" rallies springing up around and about in support of Ukraine.

Made me think of the "Freedom Convoy" recently in the news here in Canada with organizers and protestors descending on various locations, including the capital city in Ottawa, demanding an end to pandemic-related mandates in Canada. They wanted "freedom" to ignore all public health measures related to controlling the spread of the potentially deadly virus/variants still swirling around.

Fair enough. Protest and disagreement are permitted in a democracy.

But what's in a word, eh? Freedom to those protestors means making their own choices regardless of a current ongoing public health crisis, when ignoring/dismissing the safety measures can significantly harm others. Freedom to protestors in Ukraine and their supporters in various countries means having the ability to choose one's form of government (democracy over autocracy/dictatorship) and their own destiny.

Some days perspective is paramount.

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Some days perspective is paramount.

No:

Did U intend the word / thought “Context”?

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nightingale Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Some days perspective is paramount.
>
> No:
>
> Did U intend the word / thought “Context”?

Yes, I think you're right.

I guess I was defaulting to thinking 'the right perspective' but that is, obviously, personal and obtained through a variety of previous experiences as well as attitudes already entrenched. Context, hopefully, covers the facts of a situation, giving a picture of the whole. Again, hopefully.

Thanks for making me think.

Sadly, the map iswrong. Belarus, just north of Ukraine effectively is Russia.

Lukashenko is beholden to Putin.

I tried telling Putin to stop it, but I got the same response I get from my kids.