Where Do Things End With Vlad? (h/t romad1)

[buddha]

38 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

You do realize that there are numerous examples in history, in which a strongman yanked his nation in any direction he pleased. Do you not even recognize this?

Where did Mussolini yank Italy? 

Did anyone in Germany defy Hitler? No matter how depraved, idiotic, or murderous his orders, they did exactly as he ordered.

Have you ever heard the names Castro, Chavez, Kim, Maduro, Duterte, Jinping, Xedong?

People follow orders because they fear the leader. No matter if generals, security forces, whatever.

This is all Putin. And you don't recognize it.

you should look into those examples more and you'll often find competing interests behind the scenes that are influencing those you perceive to be 100% in charge.

[ewsieg]

1 hour ago, 1984Echoes said:

They are parking their superyachts in the Maldives, which has no extradition.

Bomb them, sabotage them, sink them.

I could care less about the Maldives protection scheme.

Tell me how to start WWIII, without saying you want to start WWIII.

[pfife]

yeah sinking yachts is what's going to push it over the edge

[romad1]

5 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

Tell me how to start WWIII, without saying you want to start WWIII.

whut? 

[1984Echoes]

12 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

Tell me how to start WWIII, without saying you want to start WWIII.

Sinking a yacht in Maldives is going to start WW III... gotcha.

[mtutiger]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

has russia produced any non-reformist, expansionist leaders other than vladimir putin?  

and - again - i was saying i thinknit is likely that this is not ALL putin, because none of us know the inner workings of the russian leadership hierarchy, no matter what twitter tells us.  i imagine there are people in the army and russia's foreign policy apparatus who believe in its need to expand and protect its borders other than just putin ,as  you appear to be suggesting.

however, i dont really know.  but i think its a strong possibility.

OTOH, I can see someone in Putin's position intimidating his advisors into being sycophantic and telling him what he wants to hear. Lest they get the Skripal treatment.

It's also a long running theme in dictatorships and sometimes a reason for their demise... they hear what they want to hear, not what they need to hear.

Edited March 2, 2022 by mtutiger

[ewsieg]

These are huge yachts owned by psuedo government officials.  In peacetime, if Russia sunk Bezos' and Gates yachts as they were sitting at some sovereign country, and likely resulting in the deaths of American's that maintain the yacht even if Bezos and Gates weren't on them, we'd want blood.   Putin is threatening nuclear war, intelligence that seems to have been pretty solid lately is also saying that this Putin seems a little unhinged, and we're in some of the most turbulent time I have ever been in throughout my lifetime.  You guys really think that wouldn't be a major escalation?

[Jim Cowan]

Just now, mtutiger said:

OTOH, I can see someone in Putin's position intimidating his advisors into being sycophantic and telling him what he wants to hear. Lest they get the Skripal treatment.

It's also a long running theme in dictatorships and sometimes a reason for their demise... hearing what you want to hear, not what you need to hear.

And assassinating your rivals.  Putin is driving this show all by himself, and some sycophants are along for the ride in order to cash in.

[buddha]

5 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

OTOH, I can see someone in Putin's position intimidating his advisors into being sycophantic and telling him what he wants to hear. Lest they get the Skripal treatment.

It's also a long running theme in dictatorships and sometimes a reason for their demise... they hear what they want to hear, not what they need to hear.

true.

not just dictatorships.  ask LBJ.

[mtutiger]

6 minutes ago, buddha said:

true.

not just dictatorships.  ask LBJ.

The televised meetings with his advisors ahead of the invasion were pretty telling. It looked a lot like a loyalty test.

Of course, I'm sure there are people in the Kremlin who are truly fully on board, probably the majority. But it's also an environment where speaking your mind could get you killed... so there may be dissension that is repressed as well.

[pfife]

27 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

These are huge yachts owned by psuedo government officials.  In peacetime, if Russia sunk Bezos' and Gates yachts as they were sitting at some sovereign country, and likely resulting in the deaths of American's that maintain the yacht even if Bezos and Gates weren't on them, we'd want blood.   Putin is threatening nuclear war, intelligence that seems to have been pretty solid lately is also saying that this Putin seems a little unhinged, and we're in some of the most turbulent time I have ever been in throughout my lifetime.  You guys really think that wouldn't be a major escalation?

Ifs and buts

Edited March 2, 2022 by pfife

[ewsieg]

Just now, pfife said:

Ifs and buts

You're backing the side that wants to bomb privately owned yacht's owned by Russian citizens in a completely different sovereign country and your response to erroring on the side of caution and maybe not performing hostile actions in a sovereign nation is 'ifs and buts'?

Why stop with Yacht's.   Those are just their play toys that costs them money.  Let's hit them where it hurts, these oligarch's own real estate in NYC.  Let's bomb those too.  Heck, this is a world coalition, so let's have the UK bomb those and in turn we can bomb all the London buildings owned by Oligarch's.  The one owns Chelsea FC I believe, let's take that stadium down too.  

[gehringer_2]

30 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

The televised meetings with his advisors ahead of the invasion were pretty telling. It looked a lot like a loyalty test.

And sounded like a Trump cabinet meeting, didn’t it?

[1984Echoes]

24 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

You're backing the side that wants to bomb privately owned yacht's owned by Russian citizens in a completely different sovereign country and your response to erroring on the side of caution and maybe not performing hostile actions in a sovereign nation is 'ifs and buts'?

Why stop with Yacht's.   Those are just their play toys that costs them money.  Let's hit them where it hurts, these oligarch's own real estate in NYC.  Let's bomb those too.  Heck, this is a world coalition, so let's have the UK bomb those and in turn we can bomb all the London buildings owned by Oligarch's.  The one owns Chelsea FC I believe, let's take that stadium down too.  

Too much caffeine?

[ewsieg]

5 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

Too much caffeine?

Apparently to little.  Not used to liberals being so gung ho about going after citizens of other countries on foreign, sovereign land.

[romad1]

These guys. 

[romad1]

This is the Randy Quaid character [glug, glug]

 

[romad1]

Not sure of this source but

 

[pfife]

7 hours ago, ewsieg said:

You're backing the side that wants to bomb privately owned yacht's 

lmao I didn't back squat - I disagree with your post that bombing yachts will start WW3 and then savagely disregarded your ifs and buts you posted in defense.   As soon as you stated what I backed, I stopped reading because you're already fantasizing what I posted. 

[pfife]

Literally making it up 1 post into a politics fight.  Nice work chief.

[romad1]

Logistics are going to be a problem for both sides.  

[romad1]

FTR, i wouldn't mind seizing yachts owned by oligarchs who are tied to the ongoing conflict.  Keep it legal.  

[ewsieg]

13 minutes ago, romad1 said:

FTR, i wouldn't mind seizing yachts owned by oligarchs who are tied to the ongoing conflict.  Keep it legal.  

I'm absolutely for that.  I'm simply saying bombing yachts for pseudo Russian officials in a sovereign country is an absolute escalation.  I'm genuinely surprised I'm getting push back on that.

[ewsieg]

1 hour ago, pfife said:

lmao I didn't back squat - I disagree with your post that bombing yachts will start WW3 and then savagely disregarded your ifs and buts you posted in defense.   As soon as you stated what I backed, I stopped reading because you're already fantasizing what I posted. 

So you immediately stopped reading or you savagely disregarded what I wrote after?  Honestly, why do you bother responding to anything I say as everything triggers you and most of the time you only respond to say you ignored my post.

A great way to show you ignored my post, is simply to ignore it.  Don't respond, don't be a dick, just sit back in your isolated world that searches out for anything that supports your view so you can live your happy little life.

[romad1]

9 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

I'm absolutely for that.  I'm simply saying bombing yachts for pseudo Russian officials in a sovereign country is an absolute escalation.  I'm genuinely surprised I'm getting push back on that.

I think there are some emotional proposals that would not make good policy.   If the oligarchs are his center of gravity (maybe)  Denuding their wealth through the tools of the Rule of international law is sane and correct.  

Putin's real center of gravity might be western sycophants.