General Musings thread

[papasmurfbell]

I disagree on the analysis of Putin here. I think Putin is a lot more shrewd than all that - specifically, I think he is using exactly the rhetoric you mention above to gain domestic support for his actions, but I think he pursues then solely for political positioning and gain, not from any moral compass guiding him.

 

In Ukraine he undoubtedly claims that "his people" are in need, and that gains him tremendous support at home among a xenophobic and nationalist base that has long been fueled by his own policies of Russian exceptionality. But I have little belief he is actually interested in his people and far more interested in the political and economic value of that territory. Crimea has been on Russian radar since before Peter the Great - and the idea that it is Russian territory goes back a bit, but it's not really true to say they are "his people" in my mind. (Of course, I'm not Russian not from Crimea)

 

As for Syria, much the same. Though, like many politicians, it's weird to hear him say in this breath that sovereignty matters just months after invading Crimea, I have little doubt that such a claim garners him support at home. But I don't think his legitimate interest or moral guide is Syrian sovereignty, and if it were, what a hypocritical ass. I think the greater reality is that Russia and Putin need allies. Without Assad, they lose great influence as their coalition isn't strong as it is. I think he also loves being able simply to stick it to the west and assert his own influence.

 

I think Putin legitimately believes that Russia is a strong nation and can/will be a superpower again. Some even say he is after another union of larger states and I don't really doubt it as his goal. But I do entirely doubt his capability to make it happen by anything other than shrewd maneuvering - he's not going to win in the battlefield. He's going to win a game of chess aligning pieces on his side and against other great powers, etc. I still don't think he can actually do it - and I think internally Russia will boot him sooner than some think - but I have little doubt that's his goal. There is no grand moral philosophy behind it all except that strong Russia is good.

 

In the end, I always have to remember Putin is ex KGB and a product of a failed democracy. Democracy in eastern Europe is practically a dirty word since the rocky, corrupt and downright oligarchical dissolution of the Eastern Powers. Putin doesn't believe in the same values; he was raised working against them and manipulating their failure in his own nation.

I basically totally agree. When will we see you on a Sunday morning pundit show? You seem to do it better than they do.

[Spen]

Go to sleep, Spen

But it wasn't even light out yet!

[dc.]

 

Fair.

 

But you choose posting about watching Trainwreck over sleep. As a parent of small children, I resent you. Lol

[papasmurfbell]

Gotta back the Towson product.

[deeshopper]

Fair.

 

But you choose posting about watching Trainwreck over sleep. As a parent of small children, I resent you. Lol

 

Remember when he was in high school?

[papasmurfbell]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmbkoiI5IYg

DC this is devastating.

[dc.]

Two crazy reads on ISIS - what they want, where the come from, how closely related they are to so many others... Sorry if either has been shared here before, I can never remember where I get the links I read!

 

Graeme Woods: What ISIS Really wants... http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

 

Reading ISIS magazine... http://www.cracked.com/blog/isis-wants-us-to-invade-7-facts-revealed-by-their-magazine/

 

That YT video really gets at the heart of a lot of what is wrong - and so hard to deal with - in the entire Muslim-world fight we are seeing now. And both articles above, and huge numbers I've seen previously, link ISIS to Saudi Arabia so strongly... it is scary to consider.

 

 

 

Meanwhile - a thanks for the "pundit" remark above. Look at that, we agree on something!... though, not sure I actually have anything figured out except that it's all f'ed up royally. Ha. I learned about a decade ago that I'm not a guy who really enjoys literature, but I can read dozens of articles a night on "the issues" and really try to keep that way. Longreads, shortreads... I love to wrap my brain around it all. I fail frequently. As for "saying it" - almost a decade teaching has definitely helped my ability to 'break it down.' In this case, a few years trying to explain Syria to 14 year olds... never hurts.

[papasmurfbell]

They don't have it figured out either. At least you admit it.

[thundercleetz]

I disagree on the analysis of Putin here. I think Putin is a lot more shrewd than all that - specifically, I think he is using exactly the rhetoric you mention above to gain domestic support for his actions, but I think he pursues then solely for political positioning and gain, not from any moral compass guiding him.

 

In Ukraine he undoubtedly claims that "his people" are in need, and that gains him tremendous support at home among a xenophobic and nationalist base that has long been fueled by his own policies of Russian exceptionality. But I have little belief he is actually interested in his people and far more interested in the political and economic value of that territory. Crimea has been on Russian radar since before Peter the Great - and the idea that it is Russian territory goes back a bit, but it's not really true to say they are "his people" in my mind. (Of course, I'm not Russian not from Crimea)

 

As for Syria, much the same. Though, like many politicians, it's weird to hear him say in this breath that sovereignty matters just months after invading Crimea, I have little doubt that such a claim garners him support at home. But I don't think his legitimate interest or moral guide is Syrian sovereignty, and if it were, what a hypocritical ass. I think the greater reality is that Russia and Putin need allies. Without Assad, they lose great influence as their coalition isn't strong as it is. I think he also loves being able simply to stick it to the west and assert his own influence.

 

I think Putin legitimately believes that Russia is a strong nation and can/will be a superpower again. Some even say he is after another union of larger states and I don't really doubt it as his goal. But I do entirely doubt his capability to make it happen by anything other than shrewd maneuvering - he's not going to win in the battlefield. He's going to win a game of chess aligning pieces on his side and against other great powers, etc. I still don't think he can actually do it - and I think internally Russia will boot him sooner than some think - but I have little doubt that's his goal. There is no grand moral philosophy behind it all except that strong Russia is good.

 

In the end, I always have to remember Putin is ex KGB and a product of a failed democracy. Democracy in eastern Europe is practically a dirty word since the rocky, corrupt and downright oligarchical dissolution of the Eastern Powers. Putin doesn't believe in the same values; he was raised working against them and manipulating their failure in his own nation.

I actually agree with a lot of what you say here. Good post and analysis. In no way did I mean to insinuate that Putin is being guided by a moral compass. All I was saying, comparing Putin's actions to that of the US or other NATO nations, and no one has a moral high ground. The US has bases all over the world. What would our reaction be if Russia put a base in Mexico, or Cuba, wait...

 

I think a lot of Putin's behavior you described above we can thank ourselves for. We have unnecessarily antagonized and placed sanctions on Russia in response to matters that are no importance to us.

 

I don't really want to get into Crimea again, but the USSR drew some very poor and artificial borders in relation to demographics, culture and historical inhabitants. These artificial boarders were essentially a problem that was stop gaped from the end of WW1 to the early nineties. When the Iron Curtain fell, all hell broke loose in some areas of Eurasia and Eastern Europe. Ethnic populations didn't match the borders that had been drawn nearly 80 years earlier.

 

Anyways, we saw former oblasts like Crimea, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, and Transnistria self-determine as a result of the poorly drawn borders that didn't match the ethnicities of the people who lived within them. Given the self-determination and the history of that area, I do not see Crimea in the same light as Syria, nor do I see Putin being hypocritical in regards to sovereignty in these two situations. Of course, many would disagree, which I'm sure you do as well.

[vmax]

 

Remember when he was in high school?

 

Yes! A Fledgling troll.

[Spen]

Remember when he was in high school?

Yes! A Fledgling troll.

Lol, me? I was in high school almost 30 years ago. *sigh*

[deeshopper]

 

Lol, me? I was in high school almost 30 years ago. *sigh*

 

Haha. No, DC, who is now a poppa two times over. We're old, Spen. We're old.

[dc.]

 

Haha. No, DC, who is now a poppa two times over. We're old, Spen. We're old.

 

How do you think I feel? When I 'met' you all I could eat cardboard and still move. This year I've thrown out my back three times... little kids are heavy and awkward!

[dc.]

I actually agree with a lot of what you say here. Good post and analysis. In no way did I mean to insinuate that Putin is being guided by a moral compass. All I was saying, comparing Putin's actions to that of the US or other NATO nations, and no one has a moral high ground. The US has bases all over the world. What would our reaction be if Russia put a base in Mexico, or Cuba, wait...

 

I think a lot of Putin's behavior you described above we can thank ourselves for. We have unnecessarily antagonized and placed sanctions on Russia in response to matters that are no importance to us.

 

I don't really want to get into Crimea again, but the USSR drew some very poor and artificial borders in relation to demographics, culture and historical inhabitants. These artificial boarders were essentially a problem that was stop gaped from the end of WW1 to the early nineties. When the Iron Curtain fell, all hell broke loose in some areas of Eurasia and Eastern Europe. Ethnic populations didn't match the borders that had been drawn nearly 80 years earlier.

 

Anyways, we saw former oblasts like Crimea, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, and Transnistria self-determine as a result of the poorly drawn borders that didn't match the ethnicities of the people who lived within them. Given the self-determination and the history of that area, I do not see Crimea in the same light as Syria, nor do I see Putin being hypocritical in regards to sovereignty in these two situations. Of course, many would disagree, which I'm sure you do as well.

 

100% agree on most of this - again. Definitely on blaming ourselves for a lot... we never think long-term, we're never consistent. It hurts. Though, sometimes, I have to give the benefit of the doubt to those fighting different battles in the past (Soviet era, etc)

 

Two thoughts... You cite the borders of Ukraine, etc being drawn so haphazardly... but isn't that true with almost all 20th century border disputes? Certainly so in the Middle East, as was posted in here with Wilson and the other "Mandates" of post WWI and post WWII. Our fingerprints - and others - are all over these regimes and regions. How else do we wind up with so many places, like Syria, where a small minority sect has almost complete political and economic power over large majorities?

 

Meanwhile, I certainly don't want to be in Ukraine - or almost anywhere else again - but I also can't justify letting Russia just gobble up neighbors and resources and redraw its own borders again. It's a double edged sword... I think the best solution in some ways is to expand NATO and the EU (like adding Ukraine), which really hurts Russia's entire gameplan of tactfully pushing without crossing the line. But that also creates political relationships that require future interventions, or even immediate interventions. We let Putin take part of Georgia... now he's taking part(s) of Ukraine... what's next? And how do you stand in his way?

[thundercleetz]

 

Two thoughts... You cite the borders of Ukraine, etc being drawn so haphazardly... but isn't that true with almost all 20th century border disputes? Certainly so in the Middle East, as was posted in here with Wilson and the other "Mandates" of post WWI and post WWII. Our fingerprints - and others - are all over these regimes and regions. How else do we wind up with so many places, like Syria, where a small minority sect has almost complete political and economic power over large majorities?

 

Absolutely. The West created artificial borders in the Middle East after the World Wars. However, that caused a different set of problems than what I described from the fall of the USSR. For example, Syria is still 90%+ Arab. Those people would still identify as Arab and Syrian. The Syrian rebels are not self-determining and creating their own nation within Syria, they are trying to stage a revolution within the pre-defined borders of Syria. Yes, there is a Kurdish minority. That is a regional problem of Syria, Iraq and Turkey. I am sure the Kurdish would like to self-determine an autonomous region, like many former Soviet oblasts did in the early 90s through today.

 

During the rule of the USSR, you would be hard pressed to find a Russian in Crimea identify themselves as being from the Ukraine, an Ossetian from South Ossetia or Abkhazians in Abkhazia as being from Georgia, or an Armenian in Nagorno-Karabakh as being from Azerbaijan. You said it, Democracy is a dirty word in Eastern Europe. Despite these "borders", none of it mattered because it was all a puppet under one communist rule.

 

After 1991, the former oblasts I mentioned pushed for autonomy once their respective "nations" tried to exert traditional democratic control over the territories. Once again, a foreign concept to the ethnicities who had lived the past century without democracy and without any meaningful connection to the official "Soviet Republic" it was placed under.

 

In Georgia and Ukraine, the problems didn't initially stem from Russia, it stemmed from these nations trying to fight back as the territories became more autonomous. Many of these territories had a high level of autonomy predating even the Soviet Union. Yes, Russia antagonized, saw an opportunity and pounced. However, being placed originally within a larger nation was unnatural. As much of a mess Crimea and Ossetia/Abkhazia were, the early-1990s wars stemming from self-determination were a lot bloodier.

 

I highly recommend the article "What the Kremlin is Thinking" by Alexander Lukin in the July/August 2014 issue of Foreign Affairs. Interesting read (or listen on Audible) on the Russian physiological perspective that we don't hear at all in our media. Like the Middle East, the U.S. and Western world has no idea how Russia operates and is making no attempt to figure out in order to achieve better diplomacy.

[papasmurfbell]

After WW1 France and England decided to draw boarders with groupings of kurds, sunni, and Shiia. They wanted infighting. Lawrence and Gertrude Belle for example wanted to make a Kurdistan then a Sunni countries and the Shiia ones. They were looking tto break it up.

[papasmurfbell]

Also there was an agreement between Faisal and Lawrence to bring the jews back and fix Palestine.

[papasmurfbell]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yViIi3gie2c

I think this will have real issues but wow does this trailer look good.

[deeshopper]

I can't stand Jesse Eisenberg. Will probably skip this movie because of him.

[papasmurfbell]

Really? I think he is great.

[deeshopper]

Really? I think he is great.

 

There's not one thing he's been in that I've seen where I thought he wasn't a little twerp.

[papasmurfbell]

Now You See Me, Zombiland, The Social Network are all things I have loved him in.

[GrubberRaven]

He is not Lex Luthor. This trailer proves it. Trailer is good, but it's the whole movie in 3 minutes. Typical Hollywood.

[papasmurfbell]

Yeah he is Lex. That was known for about a yr now. At some point he does go bald in it.

[deeshopper]

Now You See Me, Zombiland, The Social Network are all things I have loved him in.

 

I first saw him in The Social Network. Then, when I saw him in Now You See Me, and even this new trailer, I'm not sure he was acting so much, as it is all the same presentation and delivery. He's like a male Kristen Stewart.

 

 

He is not Lex Luthor. This trailer proves it. Trailer is good, but it's the whole movie in 3 minutes. Typical Hollywood.

Yeah he is Lex. That was known for about a yr now. At some point he does go bald in it.

 

I believe Grubber is talking about the presence, aura, and spectacle that is Lex Luthor; not that he has hair. And I agree. Jesse Eisenberg doesn't portray any of those qualities. He has no gravitas. Gene Hackman had it. As much as I hated the way he played it, Kevin Spacey had it. Jesse Eisenberg does not. Hell, even Michael Rosenbaum had some of it.