HawkShack.com

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/06/23 ... raine-news

So this is how it starts, mercenary strongman instead of one of the regular military Generals. M guess is this does more toward stopping the Ukraine war than anything else.

c_hawkbob wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/06/23/world/russia-ukraine-news

So this is how it starts, mercenary strongman instead of one of the regular military Generals. M guess is this does more toward stopping the Ukraine war than anything else.

It sounds like it's fizzling out, at least for now:

Wagner mercenary force chief Yevgeny Prigozhin will move to Belarus under a deal made by Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, the Kremlin has said.

Mr Prigozhin has reportedly said he has ordered his mercenaries to halt their march on Moscow “to avoid shedding Russian blood”.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/wa ... bfbd5&ei=8

The question is River, will it make Vlady better or worse, I vote for worse.

obiken wrote:The question is River, will it make Vlady better or worse, I vote for worse.

Well, it's not going to make him better, that's for sure. Even though this effort failed, the fact that there's resistance groups beginning to form and assert themselves is a sign that his regime may be on its heals.

Be nice to see a coup. Yevgeny backed off, seems like not a great idea as Vladimir never forgets. He will take his revenge if he survives this war.

I’d hate to be Prigozhin’s food taster.
They’ll whack him some how unless it’s a huge deception to get his troops into Belarus so he can open another front.

I find it a little odd that this guy suddenly backed down. It seems to me like it was an all or nothing deal, at least for him personally. Once they decided to march on Moscow, he was going to die one way or another, so if given a choice, you might as well go down as a martyr.

It is a good sign, that Putin may be losing his grip on the country. But on the other hand, if an insurrection does happen, it's likely to result on one helluva blood bath with a lot of innocent people dying.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Be nice to see a coup. Yevgeny backed off, seems like not a great idea as Vladimir never forgets. He will take his revenge if he survives this war.

Yeah too bad it didn't play out, but I don't think it's over yet. I'm also not sure Prigozhin is any less safe today than Putin is. Prigozhin had to have gotten some assurances from someone to have called off the march so close to Moscow. Zelenskyy says Putin is not in Moscow anyway and that could have played into the deal brokered. Either way I think this is a tipping point in Ukraine's favor.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Be nice to see a coup. Yevgeny backed off, seems like not a great idea as Vladimir never forgets. He will take his revenge if he survives this war.

c_hawkbob wrote:Yeah too bad it didn't play out, but I don't think it's over yet. I'm also not sure Prigozhin is any less safe today than Putin is. Prigozhin had to have gotten some assurances from someone to have called off the march so close to Moscow. Zelenskyy says Putin is not in Moscow anyway and that could have played into the deal brokered. Either way I think this is a tipping point in Ukraine's favor.

Putin sure is acting like a hunted man. He's apparently left Moscow as his plane was spotted heading for the St. Petersburg area while his people are claiming that he's still at the Kremlin.

I'm not prepared to say that it's a tipping point in the Ukraine war, but it has to be viewed as a positive development.

We should be a little concerned about who might take over.
If it's someone who is a harder liner than Putin and decides to nuke Ukraine, then we could be sent into another huge conflict but this time nuclear.
And that's the danger - someone worse than Putin.

NorthHawk wrote:We should be a little concerned about who might take over.
If it's someone who is a harder liner than Putin and decides to nuke Ukraine, then we could be sent into another huge conflict but this time nuclear.
And that's the danger - someone worse than Putin.

Good point.

However, given that the country has been suffering casualties for well over a year, I think it's fair to assume that a successful coup would have to involve those that are against the war in Ukraine. I can't imagine a hard liner getting the grass roots support that would be needed to oust a leader.

As much as Putin is well entrenched in Russia, the fact is a lot of people in Russia want him dead, powerful people who have been wrecked financially by his power play. If they have shifted power enough to challenge him, that would be great.

If Putin's incompetent military leadership is causing issues within the military, that would work against him heavily on top of the financial turmoil.

If China wasn't still supporting Russia along with other dictatorial nations, he would be really screwed. I'm sure even China would be fine seeing him gone as he is creating a great disruption in the world economy.

I am going to have to admit to being wrong about something. I said a few months ago that time was on Russia's/Putin's side, that if Ukraine did not go on the offensive, that Ukraine would loose support from the American public. So mark it on your calendar: RiverDog said he was wrong.

Although I think that my original assessment is still possible, what I feel is more likely is that the war will, or perhaps already has, turned into a war of attrition, and that the invaders will be at a disadvantage just like the US was in Vietnam. Ukrainians are fighting for their homeland. Russians are following orders.

This latest coup attempt, even though it appears to be unsuccessful, has to give the Ukrainians a huge moral boost.

The Brits, at least the Telegraph, sees this as a bit more than just a tipping point.

This is the beginning of the end for Vladimir Putin regardless of Yevgeny Prigozhin’s decision to turn around last night. That may seem an odd thing to say. But Putin’s power rests on projection, on propaganda, on the image of invincibility. Now, all of a sudden, the curtain has been snatched back, revealing the Wizard of Oz as a small, mediocre, frightened man.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-verge ... 13932.html

Yup, just like the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 80's, the US in Vietnam, and now Russia in Ukraine..time favors the home team. I attended a rally here in Vancouver BC during the very first few days of Putin's invasion (yes, it's mostly Putin, not Russians that wanted this), I saw a sign that summed up the feeling quite succintly and elogquently: "If Russia stops fighting, no more war. If Ukraine stops fighting, no more Ukraine."

I-5 wrote:Yup, just like the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 80's, the US in Vietnam, and now Russia in Ukraine..time favors the home team. I attended a rally here in Vancouver BC during the very first few days of Putin's invasion (yes, it's mostly Putin, not Russians that wanted this), I saw a sign that summed up the feeling quite succintly and elogquently: "If Russia stops fighting, no more war. If Ukraine stops fighting, no more Ukraine."

I'm not sure if time is on the side of the Ukrainians or not. If Trump is elected POTUS next year, which at this point seems very possible, he'll pull the plug on US support. Will NATO continue to support Ukraine if the Americans throw in the towel?

I also don't know how relevant your analogies are. The US is a democracy, and grass roots pressure of the type that forced the US out of Vietnam works better in a democracy than a totalitarian society. The Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan after several hard liners died and Gorbachev took control. They were engaged in Afghanistan for nearly 10 years.

Vietnam would have been better off had America stayed. Losing to America in a war is like winning a pile of crap. Losing to America is like getting a golden trophy because America is going to repair your nation and forever funnel billions to your country and create a far more prosperous environment. It's no accident that nearly every nation America even controlled or invaded where they stayed and won is doing better than the nations that forced us out or caused us to leave.

Americans can hate on their country as much as they feel like because they are free, but America by far does more good in the world than bad by a huge measure, even when we make war with other nations and we rebuild them.

America has a very intelligent process and means of managing nations.

Russia does not. Ukraine will be far worse off losing to Russia, same as all the nations that lost to the Soviet Union when it was in power. Russia doesn't have a good process or ethic once it has achieved victory.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Americans can hate on their country as much as they feel like because they are free, but America by far does more good in the world than bad by a huge measure, even when we make war with other nations and we rebuild them.

America has a very intelligent process and means of managing nations.

Russia does not. Ukraine will be far worse off losing to Russia, same as all the nations that lost to the Soviet Union when it was in power. Russia doesn't have a good process or ethic once it has achieved victory.

This is true. With few exceptions, the United States has been very successful at nation building: Germany, Japan, Italy, South Korea. Not sure about Iraq. My guess is that they're better off than they were under Hussein.

Ukraine is likely to be a campaign issue in 2024. So far, Americans still approve of supporting Ukraine's war effort. Even a majority of R's support it and it's only the far-right Republicans that oppose it. We'll see how long that support lasts. I figured it would start to wane by now, but there are no signs that support might diminish. If it stays strong, it might be a plus for Biden as he could use it to draw a contrast between him and Trump to go after the moderate swing voters who will decide the election.

RiverDog wrote:This is true. With few exceptions, the United States has been very successful at nation building: Germany, Japan, Italy, South Korea. Not sure about Iraq. My guess is that they're better off than they were under Hussein.

Ukraine is likely to be a campaign issue in 2024. So far, Americans still approve of supporting Ukraine's war effort. Even a majority of R's support it and it's only the far-right Republicans that oppose it. We'll see how long that support lasts. I figured it would start to wane by now, but there are no signs that support might diminish. If it stays strong, it might be a plus for Biden as he could use it to draw a contrast between him and Trump to go after the moderate swing voters who will decide the election.

No. Iraq pushed us out. The nation's that are successful let us run things for decades.

RiverDog wrote:This is true. With few exceptions, the United States has been very successful at nation building: Germany, Japan, Italy, South Korea. Not sure about Iraq. My guess is that they're better off than they were under Hussein.

Ukraine is likely to be a campaign issue in 2024. So far, Americans still approve of supporting Ukraine's war effort. Even a majority of R's support it and it's only the far-right Republicans that oppose it. We'll see how long that support lasts. I figured it would start to wane by now, but there are no signs that support might diminish. If it stays strong, it might be a plus for Biden as he could use it to draw a contrast between him and Trump to go after the moderate swing voters who will decide the election.

Aseahawkfan wrote:No. Iraq pushed us out. The nation's that are successful let us run things for decades.

For "decades", as in 20 years or longer? I would contest that statement. We weren't running Japan or West Germany in 1964.

But I get your point, although I don't think we should be staying in a country where the majority of the population resents our presence, which is likely what caused us to leave Iraq.

Some nations don't want democracy. And that's where we in the West get into trouble.
Many places in the Middle East have traditions of powerful leaders who are not at all democratic and the population is accustomed to that.
It was suggested to me that Russia might be one of those places as well considering they went from Czars to Totalitarian Communism and now to a Dictatorship in Putin.
There are people within those countries that do want to be able to say who leads them, but often times the majority is either uncomfortable with the change it brings or worried that other in the area like what we saw in Iraq would fill the vacuum and it could be worse for them.

NorthHawk wrote:Some nations don't want democracy. And that's where we in the West get into trouble.
Many places in the Middle East have traditions of powerful leaders who are not at all democratic and the population is accustomed to that.
It was suggested to me that Russia might be one of those places as well considering they went from Czars to Totalitarian Communism and now to a Dictatorship in Putin.
There are people within those countries that do want to be able to say who leads them, but often times the majority is either uncomfortable with the change it brings or worried that other in the area like what we saw in Iraq would fill the vacuum and it could be worse for them.

This is true. I've heard the Middle East likened to a collection of tribes with no one wanting a central government. The Japanese, for example, are much more compliant and easier to govern once they've accepted an authority. In Japan, we did not dispose of their emperor, and although he didn't have any real authority, it made it a little easier for the Japanese to accept the American occupation and the government that was eventually established, so it's probably not fair to compare that situation to the Middle East.

I have a good friend who is a native Iraqi and claims that the country is worse off after the US invaded, that you could avoid Hussein, but not so with ISIS. I haven't talked with him about the current political situation for a number of years, so I don't know if he's changed his mind or not. My friends and I practice the three taboo subject you're not to talk about on a first date, ie sex, religion, and politics.

NorthHawk wrote:Some nations don't want democracy. And that's where we in the West get into trouble.
Many places in the Middle East have traditions of powerful leaders who are not at all democratic and the population is accustomed to that.
It was suggested to me that Russia might be one of those places as well considering they went from Czars to Totalitarian Communism and now to a Dictatorship in Putin.
There are people within those countries that do want to be able to say who leads them, but often times the majority is either uncomfortable with the change it brings or worried that other in the area like what we saw in Iraq would fill the vacuum and it could be worse for them.

That is not a good excuse. You could argue that Americans didn't want Democracy when it was first introduced as they were accustomed to being ruled by the crown. But a small group of Americans made it happen and we have been better for them having done so.

Looking across the world and judging nations by what they are currently versus what they can become when you know something is better is an excuse by those who think that understanding a culture means that culture is acceptable when it is not. Humans should not have to live under oppressive cultures because that is what they are accustomed to.

Every group of humans is uncomfortable with change. Every nation has power groups that want to limit change for their own benefit. It doesn't mean it is good for the people in those nations.

Which is when when America takes over another nation, they should govern it until generations of the people become accustomed to Democracy and learn to operate Democratically. That is when the nations are better off because for all the insults we toss at our leaders, they are some of the best in the world and accountable to the people. That is very important to the well being of all humans.

RiverDog wrote:This is true. I've heard the Middle East likened to a collection of tribes with no one wanting a central government. The Japanese, for example, are much more compliant and easier to govern once they've accepted an authority. In Japan, we did not dispose of their emperor, and although he didn't have any real authority, it made it a little easier for the Japanese to accept the American occupation and the government that was eventually established, so it's probably not fair to compare that situation to the Middle East.

I have a good friend who is a native Iraqi and claims that the country is worse off after the US invaded, that you could avoid Hussein, but not so with ISIS. I haven't talked with him about the current political situation for a number of years, so I don't know if he's changed his mind or not. My friends and I practice the three taboo subject you're not to talk about on a first date, ie sex, religion, and politics.

They are worse because we did not govern them as we would have done decades prior when we would have ensured the new government was well supported militarily to maintain order and learn Democracy under our guidance. You can't take a place over, stay there 10 years and call it fixed. It took us decades to turn nations we took over into Democracy. Same as took the English Empire decades to do the same in its colonies. Change doesn't happen over night, but modern folk seem to think short-term nowadays.

History clearly shows you need decades to effect change across generations when taking over another nation and instituting a new form of government with cultural change.

RiverDog wrote:For "decades", as in 20 years or longer? I would contest that statement. We weren't running Japan or West Germany in 1964.

But I get your point, although I don't think we should be staying in a country where the majority of the population resents our presence, which is likely what caused us to leave Iraq.

West Germany was divided into four quadrants with strong influence from the nations in those quadrants.

We effectively governed Japan for decades after the Treaty of San Francisco. We operated as their "military protector" in the following years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postwar_Japan

Japan's biggest postwar political crisis took place in 1960 over the revision of the Japan-United States Mutual Security Assistance Pact. As the new Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security was concluded, which renewed the United States role as military protector of Japan, massive street protests and political upheaval occurred, and the cabinet resigned a month after the Diet's ratification of the treaty. Thereafter, political turmoil subsided. Japanese views of the United States, after years of mass protests over nuclear armaments and the mutual defense pact, improved by 1968 and 1972 respectively, with the reversion of United States-occupied Nanpō and Ryukyu Islands to Japanese sovereignty and the winding down of the Vietnam War.

Just as we maintain a strong military presence in South Korea.

Britain altered Middle Eastern culture and national divisions when they and France recreated the lines of the Middle East, then governed for decades.

If you want to effect change in another nation, then you must be willing to invest time and resources into that nation for decades. That's the way it works. It is obvious at this point the best way to build a nation is the modern Democrat Capitalist model modified with socialist aspects that benefit the overall Democratic Capitalist model.

OK, you can substitute western occupation of West Germany if you like.

As far as Japan goes, sure, we were/are their military protector, just as we are with many other western nations. But they govern themselves, as your link shows. The US undoubtedly has significant influence over their policy decisions and has since occupation ended in 1954, but they make their own decisions. We've had lots of disagreements with them over the past 70 years, mostly over trade, so you can't say that they're a puppet of the US.

I agree with you on the basics, that it takes a sustained effort to rebuild countries such as we (and the Brits and French) did with Germany, Italy, and South Korea. But a lot depends on the overall disposition of the populace, and Japan's was such that they were willing to accept a central authority, the US in the beginning and their elected government afterwards. The middle east is quite different.