War in Ukraine

[Gandalf]

Good point. I promise this is going somewhere:

I've noted a number of times is that nationalism is primary ingredient for keeping a society stable and preventing balkanization. And highlight the logical contradiction of the left gushing over "Top 10 Best Nations to Live" lists; they're all predominantly white Euro or descendant countries. Some remained that way due to geography, others with geography and 'whites only' immigration policy that lasted into the mid-20th century. Aside from imported slave and indentured labor from Africa and China, Asia early on, we had dense migrations of white Europeans who, despite their language and unique cultural attributes, had fundamental similarities (primarily Christian or Catholic religion) that was a binding agent. And they coalesced under a promise of being citizen in a constitutional republic based upon individual rights that a democratic mob can't vote away from the individual. Immigrants, contrary to narrative, didn't make this country; that Constitution did.

I want the U.S. to work. I want the (gag!) 'multicultural' experiment to somehow pull through. But according to the left we're not just racist, but based upon a white supremacist constitution and society is hardly better than when the ports of NY, MA, RI were the epicenter of the British colonial Atlantic slave trade. I'm bearish on the multicultural utopia; if it doesn't work here, it isn't going to work anywhere.

That observation has provoked more tiresome 'racist!' and 'bigot!' accusations than I care to remember. Perhaps multicultural vacationing and trade are best, rather than trying to shoehorn populaces together and diluting the society to accommodate cultural allegiances.

Which is a long-winded way of saying even ultranationalists are not wrong to have a deep skepticism or conviction that ethnic homogeneity is unnecessary for establishing a country or keeping it. Conquering nations have always understood this and attempted to mitigate or erase ethnic culture to assimilate the conquered. It's ugly, but practical and I understand it. That's not saying groups like Azov are good guys because they're not Nazis, and may have aspects of similar Aryan-based belief. But they were created to shore up a deficient Ukrainian army in the Donbas region against Russian annexation of another chunk of the country. I wouldn't have to subscribe to whatever ultranationalists believe except a shared nationalism, to appreciate their killing invaders of our mutual home were it here.

Amos 3:3 “How can two walk together unless they are agreed?” Cultural homogeneity is the historical foundation for a successful society. Yes, if it is too monolithic, it can become stagnant yet unless the vast majority adhere to similar principles, the society will be torn apart by internal divisions. This goes for organizations as well as civilizations. If the "fringe" element grows past 5-10%, then cohesion suffers. Yet some fringe is necessary to keep challenging and refreshing ideas.

No civilization in history has survived multiculturalism. The great Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldûn chronicled much the same in the preamble, The Muqaddimah, of his magnum opus of history. From his perspective of the 14th century, he saw that societies started out strong because they were cohesive and lean. Later, after rising to power, they became decadent and fat, their ideals and officials corrupted through plurality of their empire. Then, would rise up at the edge of the empire a lean, cohesive peoples who would take over the greater or break it - because the empire was too riven with internal divisions to fight back effectively.

America is not strong because it is multicultural. It has been strong specifically due to its homogeneity of thought in most areas. If you see why America has survived and become preeminent, you can see just how relatively homogenous it has been throughout its history. That is not to say we have not had disagreements but by and large, until recently, the vast majority of Americans agreed on the most core tenents of life. Take religion, whether baptist or Methodist or other, Americans tended to be overwhelmingly protestant Christians or at least culturally so.

Culture is largely proscribed by religion. There are simply few places of agreement between a Muslim, a Catholic, a Buddhist, a Jew and an Atheist. They do not see the world in the same way or see the same things as valuable. While Protestants differ from Catholics and squabble across multiple denominations, this is arguing over the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin by comparison. Atheists will come and loudly bray that this is not so, but there is no escaping it. In every country we see. Compare countries largely run by a Muslim majority, an atheist majority, a Catholic one, an old line Protestant one (Europe). There is much homogeneity there within them and vast differences between those categories.


RELIGION > CULTURE > POLITICS > LAWS

 

[midnight orange]

I guess I'm confused. How is what you're saying here different than politics being downstream of culture? I think what you are saying perfectly summarizes the problem and how the culture advances political sentiment. Conservatives too often believed that simply having the best arguments or winning debates would advance their political agenda, meanwhile, they would be so tone deaf with regards to Hollywood, music and sports. They would focus on a narrow demographic to have as an echo chamber rather than look to advancing some of their core values beyond just the stereotypical country/western crowd or Rockefeller/big business demographic. Trump was the only one in my lifetime to understand culture, but I think he went a tad bit too far by bringing in some of the LGBTQ folks.

I’m just saying that much of our culture in the last and current century has come down from the top (politics) as opposed to rising to the top (voters, will of the people, etc.)

 

[865er]

Thanks. So more like Putin.

Hopefully not. He was welcomed back after leading them to victory in war.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

They didn't leave,

Well no s**t they didn't leave. They were not allowed to after fighting a war over the issue.

so you now agree that Russia interfered with a sovereign nation and then invaded that nation

They supported the Donbas republics over the last 8 years of conflict and then invaded once it was clear in their minds that the Ukrainian army was about to make yet another offensive in the region in late February.

and that your scenario was indeed apples and oranges to the one I provided yet you claimed equivalent.....

The Donbas region waning to break away and thus starting a civil war is not different than the Confederate States wanting to break away from the Union. Or from Eritrea wanting to break away from Ethiopia. Or South Sudan from Sudan. Or any other internal conflict between a country and separatists.

 

[norrislakevol]

Amos 3:3 “How can two walk together unless they are agreed?” Cultural homogeneity is the historical foundation for a successful society. Yes, if it is too monolithic, it can become stagnant yet unless the vast majority adhere to similar principles, the society will be torn apart by internal divisions. This goes for organizations as well as civilizations. If the "fringe" element grows past 5-10%, then cohesion suffers. Yet some fringe is necessary to keep challenging and refreshing ideas.

No civilization in history has survived multiculturalism. The great Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldûn chronicled much the same in the preamble, The Muqaddimah, of his magnum opus of history. From his perspective of the 14th century, he saw that societies started out strong because they were cohesive and lean. Later, after rising to power, they became decadent and fat, their ideals and officials corrupted through plurality of their empire. Then, would rise up at the edge of the empire a lean, cohesive peoples who would take over the greater or break it - because the empire was too riven with internal divisions to fight back effectively.

America is not strong because it is multicultural. It has been strong specifically due to its homogeneity of thought in most areas. If you see why America has survived and become preeminent, you can see just how relatively homogenous it has been throughout its history. That is not to say we have not had disagreements but by and large, until recently, the vast majority of Americans agreed on the most core tenents of life. Take religion, whether baptist or Methodist or other, Americans tended to be overwhelmingly protestant Christians or at least culturally so.

Culture is largely proscribed by religion. There are simply few places of agreement between a Muslim, a Catholic, a Buddhist, a Jew and an Atheist. They do not see the world in the same way or see the same things as valuable. While Protestants differ from Catholics and squabble across multiple denominations, this is arguing over the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin by comparison. Atheists will come and loudly bray that this is not so, but there is no escaping it. In every country we see. Compare countries largely run by a Muslim majority, an atheist majority, a Catholic one, an old line Protestant one (Europe). There is much homogeneity there within them and vast differences between those categories.


RELIGION > CULTURE > POLITICS > LAWS

Absolutely fantastic post.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Traditional American values have changed drastically over time. Please point out at which point in our tradition you wish to pivot back to.

Likely the peak of American economic power, the end of Jim Crown, still strong family and religious values and no involvement in Vietnam or any other useless wars... So sometime around the early to mid-1960s. Obviously there is some overlap there, but I think that time period was the peak of our country.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Yes they did, and became and independent nation. Not part of another one. My statement Ras was referring to was " if a country invades another and loses perhaps they deserve to have some of their land carved out to the invaded" I'm paraphrasing though.

Ras made the false equivalency that if that would happen in Ukraine it would be justified. Where his example breaks down is Ukraine did not invade Russia.

Fine. They didn't invade Russia, but they did spend 8 years bombing a region of high Russian interest due to its demographics. Either way, instead of them taking what was a sensible agreement in Minsk II, they chose to continue fighting. Now, they are going to lose Donbas plus a lot more.

 

[KB5252]

Well no s**t they didn't leave. They were not allowed to after fighting a war over the issue.

They supported the Donbas republics over the last 8 years of conflict and then invaded once it was clear in their minds that the Ukrainian army was about to make yet another offensive in the region in late February.

The Donbas region waning to break away and thus starting a civil war is not different than the Confederate States wanting to break away from the Union. Or from Eritrea wanting to break away from Ethiopia. Or South Sudan from Sudan. Or any other internal conflict between a country and separatists.

So you agree that Ukraine never attacked Russia and given my scenario, the one you repeatedly refer to, doesn't apply since Ukraine never invaded Russia.

All I ask is that you stop using my hypothetical, attempting to draw some equivalency, when they are apples and oranges.

 

[KB5252]

Fine. They didn't invade Russia, but they did spend 8 years bombing a region of high Russian interest due to its demographics. Either way, instead of them taking what was a sensible agreement in Minsk II, they chose to continue fighting. Now, they are going to lose Donbas plus a lot more.

Russia was every bit as complicit and guilty of breaking Minsk Ii. They sponsored, trained and equipped the Russian interests in and against Ukraine.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

And peace and happiness will reign. LOL

On a serious note, I wouldn't rule out #2 if this NYT article about the Hunter laptop gains more traction. They want to unwind from Joe, but she isn't a preferable option for them, either.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

No one here is accusing Biden of being especially sharp. I think the US just sped up the decline of the dollar.

I get your anti- globalist stance. I used to feel the same way, until it occurred to me that it could be so much worse. We could have China, and Russia dictating things. If you want a preview of what that would look like just refer to history..... Not good.

I'll take my chances on having these Western/globalists taking a downfall and rebuilding... let China and Russia have Eurasia. Maybe over time, some of this belligerence we have with Russia can be replaced with real diplomacy and mutually beneficial trade, because I feel we have blown many opportunities to move closer to Russia because of either xenophobia, leftover Cold War animosity or just outright bigotry towards Russians (likely passed along to our elites by the British).

 

[hog88]

On a serious note, I wouldn't rule out #2 if this NYT article about the Hunter laptop gains more traction. They want to unwind from Joe, but she isn't a preferable option for them, either.

They won't be able to pull off installing a Republican SOH as POTUS, no dam way the Rs are that savvy. If any changes happen it will be the Dems finding a reason to replace Harris shortly after or right before the midterms, then Biden stepping down at the end of Jan beginning of Feb.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Who else would it be then?

If we would play our cards right, it can be a multipol;ar world, rather than a unipolar/US globalist world.

Maintaining all of this global policing and inserting ourselves in these silly azz regional conflicts is taxing on a country and robs it of productivity and diminishes quality of life for the people at home.

Time for us to focus on America and rebuild our economy here at home rather than worry about Ukraine, South Korea, Israel or Taiwan...

 

[KB5252]

I'll take my chances on having these Western/globalists taking a downfall and rebuilding... let China and Russia have Eurasia. Maybe over time, some of this belligerence we have with Russia can be replaced with real diplomacy and mutually beneficial trade, because I feel we have blown many opportunities to move closer to Russia because of either xenophobia, leftover Cold War animosity or just outright bigotry towards Russians (likely passed along to our elites by the British).

I think our stance toward Russia has been colder than it could/should have been. I think much of this is due to the European experience dealing with them. Much of it rightfully earned.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Hopefully not. He was welcomed back after leading them to victory in war.

Meh, I was more referring to Jar Jar being the fool/useful idiot that was manipulated into allowing Palpatine to gain more power.

Zelensky is a useful idiot being handled and controlled by Western interests.

 

[volgr]

Putin certainly does. Younger people care less and that’s more and more are looking West. This trend will only continue.

I honestly don't think Putin has any grand illusions of Russia becoming a super power. I could be wrong, guessing a man's motives and aspirations is never easy.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

So you agree that Ukraine never attacked Russia and given my scenario, the one you repeatedly refer to, doesn't apply since Ukraine never invaded Russia.

All I ask is that you stop using my hypothetical, attempting to draw some equivalency, when they are apples and oranges.

Not every case exactly lines up perfectly. But the point is that you didn't have any issue with the idea of "to the victor, goes the spoils", especially when the aggressor is the one that loses. I'm sure you saw no problem with that in Palestine, so you should see no issue if the Kiev Regime, being the aggressors over the last 8 years against the Donbas, lose some land (or a lot of land) due to their poor decisions. If they would have chosen Minsk II in 2015 and abided by the ceasefire agreements, we wouldn't be where we are now. Instead, the gambled on more war and are destined to lose not just Donbas, but likely their entire Black Sea coast.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Russia was every bit as complicit and guilty of breaking Minsk Ii. They sponsored, trained and equipped the Russian interests in and against Ukraine.

Sure they did. No different than NATO arming and training the Ukrainians.

 

[tvolsfan]

Sure they did. No different than NATO arming and training the Ukrainians.

To defend their own territory.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

They won't be able to pull off installing a Republican SOH as POTUS, no dam way the Rs are that savvy. If any changes happen it will be the Dems finding a reason to replace Harris shortly after or right before the midterms, then Biden stepping down at the end of Jan beginning of Feb.

Oh yeah, that is just me cooking up a crazy hypothetical situation. I do think, however, that the DNC will try to do something to salvage midterms and may go to extreme measures to do so. Very extreme measures...

 

[volgr]

On a serious note, I wouldn't rule out #2 if this NYT article about the Hunter laptop gains more traction. They want to unwind from Joe, but she isn't a preferable option for them, either.

Not running in 2024 could be Joe's "punishment" for the Hunter affair. Counter to that, the Jan 6th Commission will recommend Trump no longer be able to hold public office due to his encouragement of the events (their words, not mine). So, it gives the Left the perceived moral high ground where their corrupt guy gracefully stepped down contrasted to Trump who will still be pushing the stolen election narrative and still not remorseful. If that plays out the Left should run a straight shooter with little baggage...which will be almost impossible for them to find (not Kamala).

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I think our stance toward Russia has been colder than it could/should have been. I think much of this is due to the European experience dealing with them. Much of it rightfully earned.

Yeah... when the Soviet communists were in power over 30 years ago. We would be on the same page on many of these items if we were dealing with the Soviets.

 

[volgr]

I'll take my chances on having these Western/globalists taking a downfall and rebuilding... let China and Russia have Eurasia. Maybe over time, some of this belligerence we have with Russia can be replaced with real diplomacy and mutually beneficial trade, because I feel we have blown many opportunities to move closer to Russia because of either xenophobia, leftover Cold War animosity or just outright bigotry towards Russians (likely passed along to our elites by the British).

If America had to choose one Country to align with for the next 30 years, who would you rather have...Europe or Russia?

 

[KB5252]

If we would play our cards right, it can be a multipol;ar world, rather than a unipolar/US globalist world.

Maintaining all of this global policing and inserting ourselves in these silly azz regional conflicts is taxing on a country and robs it of productivity and diminishes quality of life for the people at home.

Time for us to focus on America and rebuild our economy here at home rather than worry about Ukraine, South Korea, Israel or Taiwan...

That sounds eerily like the Communist ideal in that in a perfect world this is how it works work. But history has shown us nations and allied powers seek to control.

As you drew parallels to the absence of Saddam creating a vacuum and bringing chaos and suffering to Iraq. I would argue that's precisely what would happen in the absence of our power. Someone else would establish themselves, until they did the world would be much less stable than it is now.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Not running in 2024 could be Joe's "punishment" for the Hunter affair. Counter to that, the Jan 6th Commission will recommend Trump no longer be able to hold public office due to his encouragement of the events (their words, not mine). So, it gives the Left the perceived moral high ground where their corrupt guy gracefully stepped down contrasted to Trump who will still be pushing the stolen election narrative and still not remorseful. If that plays out the Left should run a straight shooter with little baggage...which will be almost impossible for them to find (not Kamala).

Tulsi?