Live Conflict Ukraine-Russia War

[contricusc]

If playing it easy mode is the high standard of statesmanship then I'll give you this one time.

You can call it “easy mode” if you like, but Iraq and Iran have plenty of oil and yet still lost the game on “easy mode”. Saddam was a nationalist and Khomeini a theocrat, and both had lots of oil, yet both failed.

Technically their model is only sustainable with the Americans preventing any major power surrounding them to impose their will. There's nothing very special from these two.

Once the American lose its ability to police the world, the very existence of these countries (Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain icluded) is under a big question mark.

When you lead a country, you must achieve the maximum possible results under the given circumstances. The given circumstances after WW2 was a world dominated by the US Western world, and the Soviet Union.

Each leader had the chance to choose its alliance and model of development. Some chose wisely (like Singapore’s Lee or UAE’s sheicks) and their countries flourished with investment and development, while others chose badly (like Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad, etc.) and left their countries on tatters.

Great leaders understand the circumstances and make the most out of their given hand. Bad leaders overplay their hand and ruin their countries.

The worst thing you can do is to challenge the hegemon and lose. You don’t challenge the hegemon unless you are able to win. A wise leader understands his power limits and acts accordingly. Trying to overthrow the global order like Hitler did and ending with your country in ruin is not the hallmark of a great leader.

Russia meanwhile didn't need that kind of American assurance, nor do they actively finds ways to have one. There's simply no comparison between the brilliance of Putin and the circumstances he faced, with those country you mentioned.

Actually Putin had even better opportunities, because his country had a huge nuclear arsenal and was under no threat of being invaded by the US. This gave him more independence and allowed him to challenge US economic hegemony, if only he knew how to do it. But he didn’t know, because he is stupid.

He chose to oppose the US where the US is strongest, in the military realm, and he ruined his country while doing it.

The average Gulf Arabs have a good life, due to the fact that they are oil rich, and America didn't mess them up.

This is not the same with the likes of Iraq, Iran or Yemen who faces sanctions. Like I said, if wealth is the ultimate goal, then Putin whould've copied the Arab monarchs. But then again statesmanship is not always about Wealth and standard of life, sometimes it has something to do with showing grit and political superiority (like imposing your will on neighboring countries).

Those countries face sanctions because they chose to. Nobody forced them to harbor terrorists and oppose the pax Americana. Nobody forced Saddam to invade Kuwait, or the Iranians to hold the US embassy hostage.

They made their bed, and now they sleep in it. While the Gulf countries took posetion of their oil riches from their former colonial overlords through diplomacy and political ability, Iran and Iraq tried to do it through force, and this is why they are where they are now.

And for a good leader, the wealth of his country and its people is the ultimate goal. Only fools think otherwise. Putin didn’t copy the Arab monarchs because he was too stupid to do it. If he did, Russia would have been a much wealthier and powerful country now, at peace and awash with foreign investment. Instead, he chose to be a pariah and to run a failed state. This is the epitome of bad leadership.

The Civil War is made possible by the West who actively assisted the rebels with air power. Now those rebels are fighting each other one by one and the country is destroyed.

Don't get me wrong am not a Gaddafi admirer, he is a Secularists while I am a Theocrat. But let's be honest here at least, it's the West who destroyed Libya.

It is Gaddafi who destroyed Libya. If he was friendly with the West, instead of supporting terrorists who downed civilian planes, he could have turned Libya into an UAE at the Mediterranean. The oil riches and the geographic location of Libya gave him the perfect opportunity to build one of the wealthiest countries on earth. Instead, he turned it into a tribal battleground.

Bad leaders alway blame their enemies for their failure, instead of looking into the mirror. Why did they choose the wrong allies and the wrong enemies to begin with? Smart leaders choose their side wisely.

He is sort of a 'bad leader' ngl, am no fans of Soekarno. I merely put him as an example of how hard is it to achieve the two main problem of a statesmen outside of the West, namely :

1. Political Independence
2. Running the State

Some leaders are good at running No.2 but not No.1, others are good in running No.1 but not No.2.

Gaddafi, seems to be able to run 1 and 2 just fine until his downfall. Putin as well, even though not perfect.

The problem to begin with is, why do you want to be outside the West, when it is much easier to prosper by being an ally to the West?

I mean, you can even be a dictator and a Western ally, like bin Salman, so it should really not be a hard choice. Wise leaders choose to align themselves with the West, as it is much easier to achieve prosperity and development for their countries by being on the winning side.

Do you know the Arab Kingdom, Palmyra ? It used to be a Roman Colony, but prosperous.

Now ask the Arab, do they identify with Palmyra or with the likes of Umayyads and Abbasids ?

Most of them will pride themselves as being descendant of those 2 and not Palmyra.

But the people of Palmyra during Roman times lived better than the people under the Umayyads and the Abbasids, so I would definitely choose Plamyra.

If you want to be #1, be sure to be independent. Japan thinks that by befriending the West they could be #1. What they get is the lost decade. The West will give some wealth and prosperity, but they hold the leash.

But if you can‘t be number one, it’s better to befriend the West and be a strong developed country. Japan is much better now than it was at the end of WW2, when it tried to be number one.

The only way to defeat them is to collapse the order that they set, through political and military warfare. And Russia is doing its share right now in Ukraine.

But for most countries, it is much better to just prosper under the current order. Why challenge a world order that allows you to be wealthy and developed, in order to replace it with a new one where there will be constant war and poverty? It makes no sense.

Russia will not be the new hegemon by doing what it is doing now. Even if it somehow manages to collapse the current world order, it will find itself in a much more difficult situation as the servant of China, which has a direct border with Russia and even teritorial claims.

For Russia, it would have been much smarter to play by the rules and become a wealthy developed Western country. But Putin chose to keep his country an “independent” sh!thole.

 

[Gary]

You can call it “easy mode” if you like, but Iraq and Iran have plenty of oil and yet still lost the game on “easy mode”. Saddam was a nationalist and Khomeini a theocrat, and both had lots of oil, yet both failed.

It is easy. Both Singapore and UAE doesn't actually have to worry about an actual invasion of the country. Singapore could act like they're serious about their defense (which they are), but at the end of the day, their survival plan rests in the hope that the Americans will be stopping any invasion of their land before they run out of either men or ammo and they know that, everybody knows that.

There's no existential threat faced by these two countries, that's why you see the UAE able to do expeditionary campaign in the Socotra while not having to call up for conscription at home out of fear of an Iranian invasion. This is very easy !

When you lead a country, you must achieve the maximum possible results under the given circumstances. The given circumstances after WW2 was a world dominated by the US Western world, and the Soviet Union.

Each leader had the chance to choose its alliance and model of development. Some chose wisely (like Singapore’s Lee or UAE’s sheicks) and their countries flourished with investment and development, while others chose badly (like Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad, etc.) and left their countries on tatters.

In war the result is never final (Clauseweitz).

Libya and their likes prospers much with their collaboration with the Soviets, until the Soviets are no more. The same could and will eventually happens to the ones who dangle under the armpits of the West at some point in time.

Great leaders understand the circumstances and make the most out of their given hand. Bad leaders overplay their hand and ruin their countries.

The worst thing you can do is to challenge the hegemon and lose. You don’t challenge the hegemon unless you are able to win. A wise leader understands his power limits and acts accordingly. Trying to overthrow the global order like Hitler did and ending with your country in ruin is not the hallmark of a great leader.

Not quite. Remember this ?

Early Muslim conquests - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

On paper they're not able to win, but they won. And the old Pax Romana/Persiana cease to exist, and things like this happens multiple times in history, just because some guy called Hitler failed in HIS endeavor, doesn't mean the plan is not sound.

Sometimes it's not about the aggregate power, if everything is about aggregate power, you the West would have won in Afghanistan and Viet Nam.

Actually Putin had even better opportunities, because his country had a huge nuclear arsenal and was under no threat of being invaded by the US. This gave him more independence and allowed him to challenge US economic hegemony, if only he knew how to do it. But he didn’t know, because he is stupid.

He chose to oppose the US where the US is strongest, in the military realm, and he ruined his country while doing it.

Contrary to popular belief, Russia is not ruined. Their economy is doing great, people doesn't live in bunkers in Moscow. Most of the time life is pretty normal in Russia and wages are actually up. The hardships is not that great consider the gain he made in Ukraine in terms of land and manpower addition.

Those countries face sanctions because they chose to. Nobody forced them to harbor terrorists and oppose the pax Americana. Nobody forced Saddam to invade Kuwait, or the Iranians to hold the US embassy hostage.

Nobody forced the Americans to keep israel...yet they do it anyway.

Look whatever the problems is between Iraq and Kuwait is between the two. am sure there are many cases of invasions that the US simply ignore. It's not about Kuwait, it's about Iraq which at the time had the 4th largest army on the planet. And this army is feared by the Americans (and the Jewish neocons) to be able to challenge them in the future. So just like in Libya, they're actively finding a loophole to destroy it. Saddam on his part, didn't have the foresight and decided to give the US the openings.

Don't get me wrong, Saddam has his own merit. The militancy and general chaos in the Middle-East would have not been possible without his shortsightedness . Which I appreciate

They made their bed, and now they sleep in it. While the Gulf countries took posetion of their oil riches from their former colonial overlords through diplomacy and political ability, Iran and Iraq tried to do it through force, and this is why they are where they are now.

And for a good leader, the wealth of his country and its people is the ultimate goal. Only fools think otherwise. Putin didn’t copy the Arab monarchs because he was too stupid to do it. If he did, Russia would have been a much wealthier and powerful country now, at peace and awash with foreign investment. Instead, he chose to be a pariah and to run a failed state. This is the epitome of bad leadership.

Yes and have US bases in Russia + Western mole in the government.

It is Gaddafi who destroyed Libya. If he was friendly with the West, instead of supporting terrorists who downed civilian planes, he could have turned Libya into an UAE at the Mediterranean. The oil riches and the geographic location of Libya gave him the perfect opportunity to build one of the wealthiest countries on earth. Instead, he turned it into a tribal battleground.

I mean downing planes seems to be the norm, the Americans shot down Iran 655, Ukraine shot down MH17, the Soviets shot down Korea 007 etc. So what ?

Bad leaders alway blame their enemies for their failure, instead of looking into the mirror. Why did they choose the wrong allies and the wrong enemies to begin with? Smart leaders choose their side wisely.

If this is the case, then Lithuania, Latvia, Germany and their likes should stop confronting Russia, consider that their energy mainly comes from Russia.

The problem to begin with is, why do you want to be outside the West, when it is much easier to prosper by being an ally to the West?

Why did Europe so desperate to be outside of the Mongol realm ? Consider that even Mongols promote prosperity and trade ?

Fate of Empires - John Glubb Pasha

I mean, you can even be a dictator and a Western ally, like bin Salman, so it should really not be a hard choice. Wise leaders choose to align themselves with the West, as it is much easier to achieve prosperity and development for their countries by being on the winning side.

This works in secondary countries, Russia is not and does not see themselves as secondary countries. They see themselves as one of the greats.

But the people of Palmyra during Roman times lived better than the people under the Umayyads and the Abbasids, so I would definitely choose Plamyra.

Bullshit, the most prosperous the Arabs has ever been is in the time of Umar II. Where tax collectors couldn't find a suitable poor to distribute the Zakat (Charity).

But if you can‘t be number one, it’s better to befriend the West and be a strong developed country. Japan is much better now than it was at the end of WW2, when it tried to be number one.

But Russia wants to be number one. And if they wanted it really bad. Then there's no other way. This IS the way.

But for most countries, it is much better to just prosper under the current order. Why challenge a world order that allows you to be wealthy and developed, in order to replace it with a new one where there will be constant war and poverty? It makes no sense.

Makes no sense to you. Makes sense for Putin.

 

[contricusc]

It is easy. Both Singapore and UAE doesn't actually have to worry about an actual invasion of the country. Singapore could act like they're serious about their defense (which they are), but at the end of the day, their survival plan rests in the hope that the Americans will be stopping any invasion of their land before they run out of either men or ammo and they know that, everybody knows that.

There's no existential threat faced by these two countries, that's why you see the UAE able to do expeditionary campaign in the Socotra while not having to call up for conscription at home out of fear of an Iranian invasion. This is very easy !

You are missing the big picture. You assume that these countries are safe by default, so it is easy for them. But the reality is that they’ve built this safety net by allowing huge amounts of foreign investments into their countries and getting themselves heavily integrated in the global economic order. By doing this, they have aligned their interests with those of the global financial elite, and ensured their protection.

The easiest and cheapest way to get protection as a country is to attract foreign investment. Once wealthy foreigners and their big corporations are heavily invested in your country, they have the interest to keep it safe and protected, and will not allow some stupid dictator to destroy you.

Singapoe and the UAE played by the rules of the modern globalized world, while Putin still plays by the rules of the pre WW2 world. This is why the former prospered while the latter is fighting a border war and it is struggling to keep its people safe from Ukrainian fire.

I choose the model of those wealthy countries that enjoy peace and prosperity without fighting any war, as they have navigated the modern world with skill and vision. Russia on the other hand is left behind because they are unable to see the forest from the trees, just like you.

Lee of Singapore died of old age leaving his country as one of the wealthiest in the world and being revered by its people. Saddam and Gaddafi died while defeated and killed by their own people, leaving their countries in ruin. I know who was a real leader, and who were just two stupid uneducated thugs.