International Putin signs mutual defence pact with North Korea, heralds 'New World Order' in meeting with Iranian president

[Rod1]

Not attempted seriously enough, at least, which is why the fighting is still ongoing.

Not attempted seriously by BOTH sides, yet you only blame Ukraine/NATO for the war outgoing.

Ok now we're getting somewhere. Yeah, Ukraine expresses their maximalist goals, Russia does the same, then they hash things out.

An article relevant to yesterday's election. Yet another mention of putting "pressure" a diplomatic agreement and zero mention of Russian reluctance to negotiate.

Again, you are ignoring the fact that Ukraine did negotiate with Russia in Istanbul and they made a lot of concessions, the only thing they needed was hard security guarantees that Russia would respect the treaty.

Moreover, Trump has made comments that suggest the US could pressure Ukraine into an uneasy truce with Russia.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/06/politics/trump-election-ukraine-war-russia-intl/index.html

Peskov already said war isn't stopping, Medvedev said that now that Harris is gone the military operation will continue.

Russia-Ukraine war can't be stopped overnight, Kremlin reacts to Trump

"We have repeatedly said that the United States of America can help end the conflict in Ukraine. This, of course, cannot be done overnight," Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said.

kyivindependent.com

Medvedev already saying that Harris losing means the operation objectives will be achieved.

Ok, Rod Bolton, thanks for your input. Ukraine is lucky they don't have you as a diplomat because they'd be fighting until 2040.

No problem, Possum Chamberlain, im sure caving to Putin would totally satisfy him and not embolden him at all.

Things will definitely change under Trump so I guess we just have to wait and find out.

Yup, for the worse for Ukraine and for the better for Russia.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Not attempted seriously by BOTH sides, yet you only blame Ukraine/NATO for the war outgoing.

Wow, even more progress. Rod, I'm proud of you.

I'll accept that. Both sides need to explore the negotiation offer.

Again, you are ignoring the fact that Ukraine did negotiate with Russia in Istanbul and they made a lot of concessions, the only thing they needed was hard security guarantees that Russia would respect the treaty.

Well shit, try again. Especially since the longer it goes the worse off Ukraine will be. They're defending themselves valiantly but they're also far smaller than Russia.

Earlier I was reading about how the negotiations to end the Vietnam War started way back in 1968.

Peskov already said war isn't stopping, Medvedev said that now that Harris is gone the military operation will continue.

Russia-Ukraine war can't be stopped overnight, Kremlin reacts to Trump

"We have repeatedly said that the United States of America can help end the conflict in Ukraine. This, of course, cannot be done overnight," Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said.

kyivindependent.com

Medvedev already saying that Harris losing means the operation objectives will be achieved.

Peskov said the war isn't stopping overnight, and this is in direct reference to Trump's dumbass, hyperbolic comments.

And of course he's right. No one is ending the war in one night. There'll definitely be a big change coming soon though

 

[Rod1]

Well shit, try again. Especially since the longer it goes the worse off Ukraine will be.

That depends on what Russia wants for Ukraine war to end.

They're defending themselves valiantly but they're also far smaller than Russia.

And North Vietnam was far smaller than the US, the issue isn't to win a war, just make it costly enough for the other party to lose interests.

Earlier I was reading about how the negotiations to end the Vietnam War started way back in 1968.

And how did it worked in the end for the government of South Vietnam? Not making a strong case here about being better for Ukraine

Peskov said the war isn't stopping overnight, and this is in direct reference to Trump's dumbass, hyperbolic comments.

US can stop conflict in Ukraine quickly because it is involved in it — Kremlin spokesman

"America is the country, which can bring the conflict around Ukraine to a close very quickly, because this is a country that is involved in this conflict directly and indirectly," Dmitry Peskov said

tass.com

He later said that US can end the war quickly.

And of course he's right. No one is ending the war in one night. There'll definitely be a big change coming soon though

The big change is America stopping military cooperation with Ukraine which will lead to Ukraine being left to die.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

That depends on what Russia wants for Ukraine war to end.

If Ukraine had gotten rolled over in a month then it'd be all up to Russia. But they've shown they can defend themselves, they can set up a few conditions at this point.

And North Vietnam was far smaller than the US, the issue isn't to win a war, just make it costly enough for the other party to lose interests.

Yeah but you also don't wanna make it too costly for yourself. Vietnam was heroic and courageous to hold out for so long but they got almost destroyed. They're still dying from the napalm the US dropped.

If Ukraine wants to do the same, that's fine, but I got a feeling they don't.

And how did it worked in the end for the government of South Vietnam? Not making a strong case here about being better for Ukraine

How it worked out for South Vietnam is irrelevant. My point is that it often takes years for negotiations to be settled between warring countries.

US can stop conflict in Ukraine quickly because it is involved in it — Kremlin spokesman

"America is the country, which can bring the conflict around Ukraine to a close very quickly, because this is a country that is involved in this conflict directly and indirectly," Dmitry Peskov said

tass.com

He later said that US can end the war quickly.

Look at that, Russia is open to negotiation

The big change is America stopping military cooperation with Ukraine which will lead to Ukraine being left to die.

I think we've both made our points here. No need in repeating them over and over again with different words.

 

[filthybliss]

@Possum Jenkins I dipped my toes into Mearsheimer’s stuff. His geopolitical analysis is derived entirely on offensive realism. He completely rejects any sort of variation between sovereign states/leaders and looks at conflicts as a global dick measuring contest….In his eyes, Nazi Germany and Modern America are understood to be equally rational/pragmatic actors.

 

[filthybliss]

Also consider that even a "negotiation" isn't really a negotiation... because Russia's actual goal is to take the entire country, and that isn't going to change. They obviously can't succeed in that goal now, so a delay of years only gives them exactly what they want in the long run: time to regroup for further invasion. There is literally no security guarantee they will respect unless they have to through force.

Yeah, a “peace proposal” would likely require Russia keeping stolen land and Ukraine abstaining from NATO membership+limiting their militarization.

This gives Putin time to power up for an easier land grab once Trump leaves in office. It gives him time to also plant resistant militias to chimp around in Ukraine and to assert control or make an excuse for a future invasion.

On the other hand, Trump gives his dumbass fans a talking point for MAGA being “anti-war”. It’s a win-win for Trump and Putin. Ukraine gets utterly cucked. It’s on the rest of the EU to rise to the occasion here…

I hope I’m entirely wrong about this shit though and Trump is some wizard that can pull off a genuine peace proposal that isn’t entirely lopsided.

 

[ShinkanPo]

What begins to scare me is the Putismo gang maybe really delusional enough to try more wars in Europe and drag Asia with it. But time will tell sooner or later.

 

[Corona]

Goatnald finna put putcan in his place.



His place being by his side on his quest to world domination imo

 

[Limbo Pete]

Yeah, a “peace proposal” would likely require Russia keeping stolen land and Ukraine abstaining from NATO membership+limiting their militarization.

This gives Putin time to power up for an easier land grab once Trump leaves in office. It gives him time to also plant resistant militias to chimp around in Ukraine and to assert control or make an excuse for a future invasion.

On the other hand, Trump gives his dumbass fans a talking point for MAGA being “anti-war”. It’s a win-win for Trump and Putin. Ukraine gets utterly cucked. It’s on the rest of the EU to rise to the occasion here…

I hope I’m entirely wrong about this shit though and Trump is some wizard that can pull off a genuine peace proposal that isn’t entirely lopsided.

The only way that would happen, if he could (which he can't) is if he wanted to (which he doesn't)

 

[Limbo Pete]

What begins to scare me is the Putismo gang maybe really delusional enough to try more wars in Europe and drag Asia with it. But time will tell sooner or later.

Naaaaaah, Putin made a large series of errors invading how and when he did, and underestimating Ukraine's strength while underestimating his own. Won't make that mistake again.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

@Possum Jenkins I dipped my toes into Mearsheimer’s stuff. His geopolitical analysis is derived entirely on offensive realism. He completely rejects any sort of variation between sovereign states/leaders and looks at conflicts as a global dick measuring contest….In his eyes, Nazi Germany and Modern America are understood to be equally rational/pragmatic actors.

Yeah, it's great stuff.

It's a more realistic for analyzing global politics and power, IMO. We're way too used to good guys vs bad guys narratives where the good guys are moral, rational, and sometimes make mistakes... but always with good intentions. Meanwhile, the bad guys are always cartoonishly evil, depraved, irrational. That stuff is nice for propaganda purposes but a more serious analyst should look at all states as rational actors. Obviously this has little to do with morality or ethics. A state being rational doesn't mean it's moral.

 

[filthybliss]

Yeah, it's great stuff.

It's a more realistic for analyzing global politics and power, IMO. We're way too used to good guys vs bad guys narratives where the good guys are moral, rational, and sometimes make mistakes... but always with good intentions. Meanwhile, the bad guys are always cartoonishly evil, depraved, irrational. That stuff is nice for propaganda purposes but a more serious analyst should look at all states as rational actors. Obviously this has little to do with morality or ethics. A state being rational doesn't mean it's moral.

His idealogy is pretty black and white too. There is a grey area with these things. His analysis completely undermines the individualism that comes with certain leaders. That is the point that I was getting at when I clarified that he sees Nazi Germany in the same light as Modern America....Also, he ate plenty shit in regards to his predictions before with his analysis so I wouldn't say its formulaic.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

His idealogy is pretty black and white too. There is a grey area with these things. His analysis completely undermines the individualism that comes with certain leaders. That is the point that I was getting at when I clarified that he sees Nazi Germany in the same light as Modern America....Also, he ate plenty shit in regards to his predictions before with his analysis so I wouldn't say its formulaic.

I don't agree that he's black and white in his analysis, maybe you can provide an example.

But he definitely gives less importance to individual leader actions and motivations. Realism is a macro-theory by nature so it's always gonna look at structure and the big picture first. And yeah, Nazi Germany and the US are both great powers so in that sense they're similar. There's this tendency to look at the Nazis as being outside of history and as this total anomaly. But no, they were definitely monsters but were also a product of their time with similarities and behavior to many other societies.

And accurately predicting future events when it comes to world politics is absolutely impossible for anyone to do. For anyone that gets one or two things right, they'll get six wrong. It's just too complicated. Realism is a theoretical framework within an academic discipline and like any such thing, it's going to have weaknesses and points of contention. International relations, political science, sociology, anthropology, economics, any social science is gonna have these lenses from which to analyze phenomena. You can pick which one you think is best suited for a particular topic, but no one lens is flawless.

 

[filthybliss]

I don't agree that he's black and white in his analysis, maybe you can provide an example.

But he definitely gives less importance to individual leader actions and motivations. Realism is a macro-theory by nature so it's always gonna look at structure and the big picture first. And yeah, Nazi Germany and the US are both great powers so in that sense they're similar. There's this tendency to look at the Nazis as being outside of history and as this total anomaly. But no, they were definitely monsters but were also a product of their time with similarities and behavior to many other societies.

And accurately predicting future events when it comes to world politics is absolutely impossible for anyone to do. For anyone that gets one or two things right, they'll get six wrong. It's just too complicated. Realism is a theoretical framework within an academic discipline and like any such thing, it's going to have weaknesses and points of contention. International relations, political science, sociology, anthropology, economics, any social science is gonna have these lenses from which to analyze phenomena. You can pick which one you think is best suited for a particular topic, but no one lens is flawless.

Realism is fine but being an absolute “realist” and completely overlooking differences within sovereign states is frankly flawed or at worst, intellectually lazy.

I mean let’s back up and really look at it even within our country. Do you think the War on Terror was inevitable if we had Gore instead of Bush?

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Realism is fine but being an absolute “realist” and completely overlooking differences within sovereign states is frankly flawed or at worst, intellectually lazy.

I mean let’s back up and really look at it even within our country. Do you think the War on Terror was inevitable if we had Gore instead of Bush?

I don't think realism says that states will always be at war, simply that survival and hegemony will be their priorities (massive oversimplification). Of course, how each state acts within this framework is going to depend on a ton of other factors like who's president and what party is in charge.

I don't think Gore would have started the War on Terror but I do think the US would have tried to exert power in other ways. Even currently, Mearsheimer has suggested that bringing Russia as an ally to the West after the Cold War would have helped the US in the current rivalry with China, which will be the big issue for the rest of the century.

That scenario still falls within the realist framework of great powers competing with each other.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Realism is fine but being an absolute “realist” and completely overlooking differences within sovereign states is frankly flawed or at worst, intellectually lazy.

I mean let’s back up and really look at it even within our country. Do you think the War on Terror was inevitable if we had Gore instead of Bush?

Even this gives way too much credit to Mearsheimer imo lol
Dude is a straight up apologist

 

[filthybliss]

Even this gives way too much credit to Mearsheimer imo lol
Dude is a straight up apologist

Even contrarian Chomsky thinks the invasion was retarded….