Thanks for info guys.

The trouble is the UA have to be seen to be whiter than white which is obviously just not going to always happen for a thousand reasons.

I see the alleged incident has already been jumped on by “this is where your tax dollars go” Putin supporters in the US etc.

Yeah, war is shit.

Mesenheimer told us putin didn’t wat to invade Ukraine, then after they did he said it would only be a limited war, then after 10 months and Russias (failed) attempt to take take kyiv in the North, odessa & kherson in the south & dnobasss in the east…. he says Russia definitely doesn’t want to conquer the whole of Ukraine, he’s happy with the 4 regions he’s captured so far

He’s expert at being wrong

an outlandish and IMO unsupportable claim

Possibly. but ask yourself What is the goal of every country, as shown throughout human history ?.

A. To work for the betterment of their own country, to make it the most powerful/influential in the world

B. To make a foreign country the most powerful/influential in the world.

I know its a silly example, but it’s one thats been played out across the ages.

The UK is no longer a player*, but the US/Russia/China/etc etc sees themselves, and their policies and their system of government as the one everyone should adopt.Perhaps the first two rather than the last example who appears to be playing to both fields. A bit like selling picks and shovels to gold miners 😆

* But it was at one point, and if you disagreed with it, being a foreign country, then diplomacy was diminished and gunboat diplomacy applied.

If we(Human race in general) have been doing that since time began) why would anyone think that we still aren’t. Its not all lovey dovey out there and each country looks to its own first. If the US is the most powerful nation currently on the planet, why is it that they feel the need to be. The answer is obviously that they want to be the one who’s system of government, ideology etc is the one everyone else should adopt.

war is shit.

It might be shit, but it certainly seems to be addictive.

So if this isn’t it, do you have any actual evidence to support your claim that the US is about to conquer the world by nuking anyone who gets in their way?

Refer to the realist perspective from the lecture regarding liberal hegemony. If you wish you can also listen to his other lectures about liberal hegemony. I have provided an actual academic IR lecture reference there. That is a credible source.

You see I find that claim so ridiculous, that I feel disinclined to waste two hours of my life on a lecture you recommend.

You argument has no credibility by comparison to a proper lecture, most don’t.

By someone who ‘thinks alike’ with you. Especially when by your own admission, it is not even relevant to the point you were trying to make. Do you see my dilemma?

I am just saying because it was a coincidence. Yes, I overstated my ability by comparing myself to the Prof. I am nothing compare to the expertise of the Prof in his field and he went to Westpoint then flew the jet in Vietnam you know.

Mesenheimer told us putin didn’t wat to invade Ukraine, then after they did he said it would only be a limited war, then after 10 months and Russian
s (failed) attempt to take take kyiv in the North, odessa & kherson in the south & dnobasss in the east…. he says Russia definitely doesn’t want to conquer the whole of Ukraine, he’s happy with the 4 regions he’s captured so far

Do you speak in the same language as Pro Mesenheimer? I know he is American. Go listen to what he said.

He’s expert at being wrong

You have no credibility or logic in your argument.

Here’s @IChotiner asking a question, and John Mearsheimer, a historian who expects to be taken seriously, answering it. https://t.co/cNWtDn6EiA pic.twitter.com/ZcWEtLBRUq

— Bill Grueskin (@BGrueskin) November 17, 2022

Here you go. Learn something perhaps?

Great. What did you learn?

But if you can offer alternative views that would be good.

You’re inly interested in views if they avoid common consensus?

Here’s @IChotiner asking a question, and John Mearsheimer, a historian who expects to be taken seriously, answering it. https://t.co/cNWtDn6EiA pic.twitter.com/ZcWEtLBRUq

— Bill Grueskin (@BGrueskin) November 17, 2022

LOL! Social media as usual.

Great. What did you learn?

NATO expansion. What did youu learn?

You’re inly interested in views if they avoid common consensus?

No, I prefer a balance view.

Refer to the relist perspective from the lecture regarding liberal hegemony. If you wish you can also listen to his other lecture about liberal hegemony. I have provided an actual academic IR lecture reference there. That is a credible source.

Word salad.

I have provided an actual academic IR lecture reference there. That is a credible source.

“I’ve referred to an academic who has an opinion that I’m unwilling/unable to articulate, that in itself is a credible source”.

Word salad.

Cabbage for you I am afraid, no meat.

“I’ve referred to an academic who has an opinion that I’m unwilling/unable to articulate, that in itself is a credible source”.

I am happy with Prof’s interpretation. What is there to articulate beyond that if he is the expert? Are you saying you are an expert? What is your credibility?

I am happy with Prof’s interpretation. What is there to articulate beyond that if he is the expert? Are you saying you are an expert? What is your credibility

Anyone seems to be more of an expert than ‘wrong about everything’ mesenheimer

They guy looked stupid before the war, he now looks utterly ridiculous

I’m listening to the vid now. Chewkw, with the greatest of respect my credibility is an ability to understand the difference between subjective and objective based on the evidence that I read. I note that you turned adversarial when I challenged you on my perception of your understanding of what you’ve shared.

Right now I’m not too concerned about whether the US wants to rule the world, I just want to see Russia pushed back beyond Ukraine’s internationally recognised borders, whatever that takes.

To have an understanding you cannot be biased one way or the other. You have to look at all points objectively.

If there is bias, then how can a rational outlook be achieved.

Just for once drop the single sided opinion and debate the opposite side.

So far I’m getting a narrative that Russian officials had behaved in a sincere and honourable way until they launched an invasion of Ukraine. I’m struggling to understand the relevance to “the Monroe Doctrine” at approx 30mins?

At 50:02 – “in all of Putin’s public statements during the months leading up to the war, there is not a scintilla of evidence that he was contemplating conquering Ukraine and making it part of Russia”.

Okay.

To have an understanding you cannot be biased one way or the other. You have to look at all points objectively.

If there is bias, then how can a rational outlook be achieved.

Just for once drop the single sided opinion and debate the opposite side.

Being objective has nothing to do with debating the opposite side. There are some very objective facts about this war. Russia started it because they wanted Ukraine to be subservient to Russia. Russia has conducted the war with horrific brutality and deliberately targeted civilians in an attempt to terrorize Ukraine into surrendering. The U.S. and NATO had no part in starting this war, nor have they engaged in combat operations. Those are objective facts. The counter-narrative that Russia and the Useful Idiots in the West have attempted to push is not based on objective facts, it’s based on Russian disinformation. Being objective is not achieved by granting disinformation the same consideration as facts.

To have an understanding you cannot be biased one way or the other. You have to look at all points objectively.

If there is bias, then how can a rational outlook be achieved.

Just for once drop the single sided opinion and debate the opposite side.

I cannot find any way to justify the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan.

I dont think what you are suggesting is possible unless you remove honest opinion from the discussion.

Even if you set that aside and go for “open debate” from a more academic approach to the subject. Noone has ever put anything credible in this thread that actually goes anyway to justifying Russias action.

Being pissy at losing influence isnt a good enough reason.

And the overwhelming weight if evidence for NATO expansion points at Russias foreign policy precedents, again, Ive never seen anything to suggest otherwise but if you can counter it crack on, Ill listen.

Just not to the other guy, as Id already absorbed that a couple of days ago reading a pro invasion Twitter account.

Mesenheimer told us putin didn’t wat to invade Ukraine, then after they did he said it would only be a limited war, then after 10 months and Russias (failed) attempt to take take kyiv in the North, odessa & kherson in the south & dnobasss in the east…. he says Russia definitely doesn’t want to conquer the whole of Ukraine, he’s happy with the 4 regions he’s captured so far

He’s expert at being wrong

That may be a little representative. His approach seems to be based more on waiting for clear evidence/taken statements as honest positions.

E.g. unless Person A states they want to undertake Action B, or they have undertaken Action B, then Person A does not want to undertake Action B until proven otherwise.

As a rule thats not an approach most people take, and there well be sound academic reasons for it, that serve a good purpose at high level academic discussion that doesn’t translate well to general understanding, and often results in positions subsequently proven to be wrong. But im not sure its going to be anymore wrong that making logical leaps.

Thanks for info guys.

The trouble is the UA have to be seen to be whiter than white which is obviously just not going to always happen for a thousand reasons.

I see the alleged incident has already been jumped on by “this is where your tax dollars go” Putin supporters in the US etc.

Yeah, war is shit.

Poopscoop, it appears to be at least one side committing perfidy, going by the description possibly both sides. The event does look to be triggered by an Russian soldier opening fire, but I cant see that justifying everyone else getting shot but im not viewing the content to find out.

Theres a description of perfidy in war here https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule65

Protocol I defines perfidy as “acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence”

All sounds very dodgy, sounds like it needs an independent investigation

This whole war needs independent investigation and it’s pretty obvious which side will be found to be wrong for the vast majority of it.
Three men were convicted on Thursday of the shooting down of flight MH17 and the death of 298 people. RT is saying that it’s a “political put-up job” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63637625
Igor Girkin aka Strelkov (shooter) is one of those found guilty, I think that he’s in Ukraine after some of his opinions were aired too publicly. He won’t have many options if he’s about to be captured by Ukrainian forces

John Mearsheimer isn’t the only one who thought that the invasion wouldn’t happen. The EU didn’t believe the evidence either…
“First, we did not believe that the war was coming. I have to recognise that here, in Brussels, the Americans were telling us “They will attack, they will attack”, and we were quite reluctant to believe it” Josep Borrell 10/10/2022
The speech is worth reading for other insights as well
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eu-ambassadors-annual-conference-2022-opening-speech-high-representative-josep-borrell_en

Appears to be someone who is completely absorbed in his chosen subject, that being realism, political science and international relations.

And has a book to sell…

That may be a little representative. His approach seems to be based more on waiting for clear evidence/taken statements as honest positions.

E.g. unless Person A states they want to undertake Action B, or they have undertaken Action B, then Person A does not want to undertake Action B until proven otherwise.

I saw that, I read up a bit about him.  His views on dealing with the world as it is, rather than as we might wish it to be are interesting. I.e. making political and diplomatic decisions based on a practical, realistic view rather than a moral one.  I can see how there is some merit in that in some circumstances, but I don’t believe you can completely remove moral concerns from your external relationships. I can also see how taking that view could lead you to concluding that you should just let a powerful country invade it’s weaker neighbours and that they just have to suck it up!

The bit about taking people’s statements as honest positions just seems incredibly naive to me, especially in the world of politics and international relations and it doesn’t really square (to my simple mind) with the realpolitik he is supposed be a proponent of.  His comments on Hitler’s intent/honesty linked above are ridiculous.

I’m sure he’s a very clever chap, and his approach is one way of looking at the world which might be worth some consideration as an alternative view, but he’s one among many ‘experts’ in the field of international relations who would strongly disagree with him.  As said before, we are just randomers chewing the fat on an mtb forum, with no special insight. My international relationship CV is pretty thin TBH! But  FWIW, in the case of Ukraine, I think he is completely wrong.

His views on dealing with the world as it is, rather than as we might wish it to be are interesting.

Yes, but it’s academia. Like most political theories it just fall apart on first contact with the real world (ironically), like communism, anarchy, capitalism etc etc.

I cannot find any way to justify the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan.

They were monumentally stupid decisions. Utterly irrelevant whether supporting Ukraine in fighting Russian genocide is justified though.

I completely agree Thols, however didnt actually mention them because “I” think they’re relevant.

I mentioned them in part to steer away from ome of the more common whattaboutery response.

Big boom boom flamey flamey at a StPetersburg gas pipeline it seems.

Crappy Russian build quality and maintenance or some deliberate act? 🤷‍♂️

Looks like gas to the uneducated me

SAINT-PETERSBURG ⚡⚡⚡⚡⚡ pic.twitter.com/04psdqDaFq

— MAKS 23 🇺🇦👀 (@Maks_NAFO_FELLA) November 19, 2022

Anyone know about an alleged war crime, UA soldiers allegedly shooting Russian pow’s?

Anything from the MSM on this? All I’ve managed to find so far are pro-Russian articles.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/18/russia-says-ukrainian-soldiers-executed-prisoners-of-war-in-donbas-region

And

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63676446

And to balance

https://tass.com/defense/1539111

Anyone know about an alleged war crime, UA soldiers allegedly shooting Russian pow’s?

Yes, there are videos on social media about it. Some Russian soldiers surrendered, Ukrainian troops accepted their surrender, but then a Russian soldier fired on the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians returned fire.

There was a war crime, committed by the Russian who pretended he was going to surrender but then opened fire on the Ukrainian soldiers. Very clear case of a war crime. Committed by Russians.

There was a war crime, committed by the Russian who pretended he was going to surrender but then opened fire on the Ukrainian soldiers. Very clear case of a war crime. Committed by Russians.

I was wondering if that was the case.

The minute that Russian opened fired he condemned all of them to death. Very few soldiers in that position would take the chance it’s a lone bod, it would be a fair assumption that it’s a coordinated ambush (that’s where my head would go); everyone wearing a Russian uniform would be treated as a threat and engaged if they moved.

I hope the fella who opened fire got dropped like the piece of shit he is.

Yes, there are videos on social media about it. Some Russian soldiers surrendered, Ukrainian troops accepted their surrender, but then a Russian soldier fired on the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians returned fire.

Got a link, cant find a vid of that.

No vids, but heres a couple of opinions on it

All the people calling what happened in Makiivka a "war crime" know **** shit about surrender procedures.

Surrenders of enemy forces larger than one's own force are TRAINED and follow procedures. The Ukrainian troops followed the procedure and because of that they are alive.
1/7

— Thomas C. Theiner (@noclador) November 18, 2022

On the Russian prisoners of war video being shared online 🧵

— Aleksandar Djokic (Александар Джокич) (@polidemitolog) November 19, 2022

https://twitter.com/

PaulJawin/status/1593538372588429317?t=EpRYq1fHk6VVHPhVrYC6sA&s=19

Link broken on purpose, but the recording stops after a few shots fired.

Its that thread which cites Perfidy as the war crime and links to the source I posted up thread.

Surely it’s the ultimate deeply sad example of this classic linear relationship:

**** Around and Find Out. Full Video. pic.twitter.com/fZb3JDUUW0

— Roger Skaer (@rogerskaer) October 1, 2022

https://t.me/supernova_plus/14729

Slow motion.

https://t.me/supernova_plus/14730

https://t.me/supernova_plus/14729

A link to a 55 sec video with Cyrillic captions and no clue to what it’s about?  Based on recent activity on here, I won’t be clicking that without a little context TVM!

Sorry. Its the footage Thols was referring to earlier about the alleged war crime shooting of X number of surrendering Russian troops.